Sean Kellogg wrote: > > Moreover, in the present case, I think that I honestly stated that the > > DFSG-freeness of choice of venue clauses is controversial and then I > > provided my own personal opinion, *explicitly* labeling it as such. [...] > > The problem with this line of argument is that it sounds very > similar to the climate skeptics / intelligent design crowd.
So objecting to agreeing to travel to Texas from Europe (or be judged in one's absence which I believe means you almost always lose) is very similar to a religious argument to you? Wow, it seems an utterly practical matter to me. > The > approach seems to be, "continue to inject controversy even when > there is community consensus, in hopes of giving the appearance of > true division." Sure, it's their right to believe as they wish, and > to speak as they wish, but to the community that has moved on it > sure is awfully annoying and dilatory. The FUD strategy has a way of > getting of people's nerves awfully quickly :) I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable, thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance. Returning to the intelligent design analugy, it's like the difference between outlawing promotion of it completely and stopping it being taught as the One True Way. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
