On 25 September 2012 13:51, Ian Jackson <[email protected]> wrote: > TBH I think it unlikely that enough of our colleagues will agree to > even 9. And it may be unnecessary, given the rest. I think 8 is > necessary. > > I don't think mentioning the rude language in the TC resolution is > really appropriate.
Why do you have the authority to use language like "We therefore formally reprimand Josselin Mouette. We consider his behaviour deliberately obstructive and obtuse." but he is not allowed to use the word "Crusade"? "Crusade" does seem accurate for definition #3 of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crusade And if you don't think that the Tech Committee is likely to agree to an unnecessary part of your proposal, why are you wasting their time by including it? Jeremy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAAajCMawOAr4iPem=6ZLOSqTDfsqht=p=9nqed6g2m3j35q...@mail.gmail.com
