* user list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020315 00:42]: > Let's just say that this is a free-speech issue. The point is that free-speech
Lets just say this isn't a free speech issue and worry about policies that restrict the sort of 'speech' that a maintainer could become liable for. I don't want to see RC bugs based around 'speech' and hours/months wasted chainging the original intent of volunteers. Is it a worthwhile task to save our users from the evil of bad ideas? Or is it a more worthwhile task to just provide a extremely good System of Software. Note I don't say Good Software. People might imply that these bad ideas are taken out of Bad Software before becoming Good Software. These things might sound strange in a institution, but thats because institution have been eroding our rights for ages, its about damn time some institutions enhance our rights as Users, as Developers, and as Software Contributors. The Social Contract says that, "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software". Theres a bit after it that elaborates on this. It states that, "We will be guided by the needs of our users", however clarifies, "..the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds of computing environment." I feel that we are providing 'operation' to our users in a 'computing environment', what I'm worried about is a widining of this into 'social environment'. That widining can easily create a ton of work that impedes on that part of the contract, and a disservice to many users. -- Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ringworld.org/