On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:54:51PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR > > > > encountered nothing but flamewar, > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free issue, and > > > > that the social contract GR is only a way to achieve a solution to the > > > > non-free GR, > > > > > > These two remarks show an acute lack of comprehension of the proposals > > > > Well, the record breaking flamewar that ensued didn't help understand > > them at least, but i think you are wrong. > > Tough. I wrote the original two and I know what they said and what the > reactions were; I'm not.
Ah, so just because you wrote the original proposals, anyone disagreing with you is wrong. > > I still wait your true > > proposal, as to propose ammendments. > > That's pretty stupid, because... Well, i disagree, if i understood the voting process right, someone proposes a GR, get's seconds, then once the right number of seconds is reached, there is a discussion period, where other people have the right to propose amendment to the proposal, which needs then in turn seconds and so on. Upto now, you have not acquired enough seconds, so we are still in the first phase of the GR proposal. > > This has still not happened though. > > Wrong. My first "true proposal" went out on December 24nd; my active > one, which will probably go to vote, went out on December 29th. Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal. Maybe i missed something or such, but then, could you please provide the URLs to the mail archive which seconded you ? > What sort of crack are you actually smoking? Have you paid any > attention to anything that anybody has said during this entire debate? > There is no appreciable evidence that you have. Sure, you don't like what i have to say, so you resort to ad hominem (or however you write that) attacks, nice. > > > presently on the table (there are several ways to parse it; if it > > > refers to the proposals I am currently working on, only one of which > > > is currently tabled, then it's staggeringly wrong). There are no > > > active or draft proposals that do not modify the social contract. > > > > Yep i understand that. But the real issue is not the social contract, > > but what do we, we as the debian project, with majority (and probably a > > 3:1 super majority at that) intent to do about the non-free archives. > > > > If a decision is taken on that, we can let the rest to the word fiddlers > > and the actual social contract vote will just be one to make sure that > > the intentions of the non-free vote was not corrupted in the > > formalization. > > Anthony Towns violently disagrees with you, and I can't be bothered to > argue. Oh, Anthony towns disagrees with me ? He hasn't said so, and you haven't provided quotes. Friendly, Sven Luther
