Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:08:27PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote: >> In fact, the parts you have chosen to keep, and respond to, are the far >> *less* relevant portions of what I wrote. They existed as a demonstration >> only of one reason I consider it important for people to have some >> agreement on what the usage of "problems" means in our Social Contract > > Debating the definition of this word remains irrelevant, no matter how > much nonsense you write about it. See previous message.
To me, debating the interpretation of the sentence "We will not hide problems" does make sense, and is not irrelevant. The intention behind that debate (namely, to address the question of transparency within the Debian project) seems even more relevant to me. > Trying to reduce ethical issues to word games is, at best, > childish. Grow up. I can't see how he tried to do such a reduction. People *do* have different opinions on transparency in Debian, and they do have different opinions regarding the question whether our Social Contract does say something about transparence in Debian. This is not a word game, although the second part (does the Social contract already say anything about transparency?) surely is connected to different understanding of the word "problems" in that context. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
