Anthony Towns <[email protected]> writes: > No, a leader's not a dictator. Let's delve into this some more: I spent > a fair bit of time advocating what I thought was the appropriate course > of action on non-free. I prepared a resolution, and it even won the day. > For my involvement in this debate, I've been called a hypocrite [0], > told I've personally broken the fundamental compromises behind the social > contract [1], and told that I deserve to have the absolute worst assumed > of my motives [2].
> [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01914.html This does not say you are a hypocrite. In this message, Nathanael Nerode says you convinced him "of the historic level of hypocrisy and wilful Social Contract violation in Debian." > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200403/msg00390.html This message does not say you have "personally broken the fundamental compromises behind the social contract". It says that you aren't yourself willing to abide by a particular compromise about labelling, and I think that is clearly shown to continue to be true. Nothing there refers to a "fundamental" compromise; the argument made there is that the compromise has broken down, not that this or that person is personally responsible for "breaking" it. > [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00055.html This message (by Andrew Suffield) says only "you reap what you sow"; indeed, the point is that you engage yourself in assuming the worst of people. I've seen that multiple times. Indeed, in your failure to read messages [0] and [1] correctly, and your misrepresentation of them here, it seems pretty clear that you do exactly what Andrew Suffield was implying. And the really funny thing is that it was the pro-non-free camp that insisted we shouldn't talk about this further if their side won. Well, curiously, you're the one who thinks it is of continuing relevance. Geez. Thomas
