* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 21:41]: > * Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 21:40]: >> No, the "keep non-free" alternative does not contain any provisions >> limiting future discussion. It is also at best a "keep non-free for >> now" option.
Yes, thats the way I see it, too. I can't support removal of non-free
until a replacement infrastructure is available or promised before doing
the real removal. When that is done I see no objections from my part
(or, fwiw, I wouldn't expect any sensible objections from anyone) to
remove it.
> It also does not contain any provision limiting future flaming by me
> to anyone who revives that discussion. It is also a "please let us go
> back to work" option.
Noone holds you back from getting back to work -- only yourself. I
don't see the need for your flaming, and if it holds you off from your
work I would suggest to leave it off anyway.
So long,
Alfie
--
> Also eigentlich wird immer mehr automatisiert. Warum nicht auch die
> Konvertierung von Umlauten von einem characterset in einen anderen?
Weil dann N�l, der P�t, eine P�lla verspeist ;-)
-- Thomas Dehn in de.admin.news.groups
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
