Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> [Thomas Bushnell]
>>> Quite the contrary; it seems to me that this is to work *passively*
>>> against something.
>>
>> Not doing the work is working passively against it, while prohibiting
>> oth
Em Ter, 2005-08-23 às 09:54 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG escreveu:
> Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [Thomas Bushnell]
> >> Quite the contrary; it seems to me that this is to work *passively*
> >> against something.
> >
> > Not doing the work is working passively against it, wh
Hello David,
* David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [2005-08-21 19:44 -0400]:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:29:51PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > [Wouter Verhelst]
> > >b) the three beforementioned teams could already refuse to
> > >support a port anyhow, simply by not doing the w
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Thomas Bushnell]
>> Quite the contrary; it seems to me that this is to work *passively*
>> against something.
>
> Not doing the work is working passively against it, while prohibiting
> others from doing the work is working actively against it. I
[Thomas Bushnell]
> Quite the contrary; it seems to me that this is to work *passively*
> against something.
Not doing the work is working passively against it, while prohibiting
others from doing the work is working actively against it. If you do
both, you are working actively against it.
--
Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The constitution also states that no developer can work actively against
> the implementation of such a decision made by the project[0]. Not doing
> the work and not letting anyone else do it would constitute 'working
> actively againt'.
Quite t
Em Seg, 2005-08-22 às 10:07 -0500, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:29:51 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
> The constitution states that no developer can have "democratic
> control" imposed on them at all. Indeed, I reject any such control
> ove
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:29:51 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> [Wouter Verhelst]
>> b) the three beforementioned teams could already refuse to
>> support a port anyhow, simply by not doing the work.
> This is not really a valid argument. If a team in debian refuses to
> ac
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:29:51PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Wouter Verhelst]
> >b) the three beforementioned teams could already refuse to
> >support a port anyhow, simply by not doing the work.
>
> This is not really a valid argument. If a team in debian refuses to
> accept d
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:29:51PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Wouter Verhelst]
> >b) the three beforementioned teams could already refuse to
> >support a port anyhow, simply by not doing the work.
> This is not really a valid argument. If a team in debian refuses to
> accept de
[Wouter Verhelst]
>b) the three beforementioned teams could already refuse to
>support a port anyhow, simply by not doing the work.
This is not really a valid argument. If a team in debian refuses to
accept decisions made by a majority of debian developers, or rejects
democratic control,
11 matches
Mail list logo
