On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:58:12AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
We find (found) ourselves at an impasse, where no actual work can get
done. The work of maintaining non-free outside of Debian *needs* to be
done by those who want to keep non-free in Debian. But they aren't
going to do it while
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 12:09:23PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
However, if the point of this vote is to decide what it is that we
want to do, then I think we'd be better served with a rationale for
your proposal.
The rationale is so obvious to everybody supporting the resolution and
so
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:18:03PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
The rationale is so obvious to everybody supporting the resolution and
so incomprehensible to those opposing it that it is not worth the pain
to argue about it, IMHO.
You're not describing a rationale, you're describing an article
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:18:03PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 12:09:23PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
However, if the point of this vote is to decide what it is that we
want to do, then I think we'd be better served with a rationale for
your proposal.
The rationale
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 02:16:13PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:18:03PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 12:09:23PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
However, if the point of this vote is to decide what it is that we
want to do, then I think we'd be
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:21:27PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I would say it as:
For those who understand, no explanation is necessary.
For those who do not, none is worthwhile.
I think it's not impossible that some (more) of the opponents could be
made to understand why people might
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:21:27PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I think it's not impossible that some (more) of the opponents could be
made to understand why people might disagree with them. But I can't
imagine any even theoretically possible scenarios where this would
change their opinion,
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:58:12AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
We find (found) ourselves at an impasse, where no actual work can get
done. The work of maintaining non-free outside of Debian *needs* to be
done by those who want to keep non-free in Debian. But they aren't
going to do it while
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:18:03PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
The rationale is so obvious to everybody supporting the resolution and
so incomprehensible to those opposing it that it is not worth the pain
to argue about it, IMHO.
You're not describing a rationale, you're describing an article
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:18:03PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 12:09:23PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
However, if the point of this vote is to decide what it is that we
want to do, then I think we'd be better served with a rationale for
your proposal.
The rationale
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 02:16:13PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:18:03PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 12:09:23PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
However, if the point of this vote is to decide what it is that we
want to do, then I think we'd be
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:21:27PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I would say it as:
For those who understand, no explanation is necessary.
For those who do not, none is worthwhile.
I think it's not impossible that some (more) of the opponents could be
made to understand why people might
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:21:27PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I think it's not impossible that some (more) of the opponents could be
made to understand why people might disagree with them. But I can't
imagine any even theoretically possible scenarios where this would
change their opinion,
13 matches
Mail list logo
