On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:29:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > So far, the proposals have gotten as far as "Deals with a problem".
> > [In the sense that we have a conflict of opinion between people who
> > think non-free is a thing we should support and people who think that
> > non-free is not a thing we should support].
> >
> > But where's the rest of it?
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 07:34:17PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Why does there need to be anything else?
I'm looking, perhaps in vain, for some rationale behind what you've
been proposing.
> You've just restated the question that we're trying to vote on ("Should
> we support non-free [y/n]").
Eh?
I certainly have restated the question. But I haven't *just* restated
it -- that restatement was a part of a question. That question, at its
crudest, is "What's the point?"
> Your reponses to it, including this last one[0], have all simply said "I
> would vote [y], therefore I don't agree with removing it, so I don't
> think we should remove it". I think we got that part already. Please
> wait until the ballots go out before trying to vote :P
You seem to be saying that it's futile to even ask if there's any benefit
to be gained by dropping non-free.
-
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
