> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 08:26:33AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > It was disallowed by the old social contract. There was a clear
> > consensus, and I'm not the only one saying that [1] [2] [3].
>
> Dude, consensus doesn't mean "me, and the people who agree with me",
> it means "everyone", "everyone, apart from a few people who don't really
> mind in any case" or "everyone, apart from maybe a few crazy people".
>
> If you're going to define me as a crazy person who should be ignored,
> please have the honesty to be explicit about it. If not, don't imagine you
> had a consensus.
>From the first link I gave:
> >> There is definite consensus that packages which contain GFDL
> >documents
> >> with Invariant Sections are unequivocally not free software. Sorry.
> >
> >From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]:
> >
> > consensus
> > n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief [syn:
> >{general
> > agreement}]
> >
> >Which majority?
> > -- Guido
>
> The majority of posters to debian-legal; the majority of Debian
> developers posting to debian-legal; and the majority of Debian
> developers expressing an opinion with grounds on any public
> Debian list. Large majorities of all of the above, it appears.
> Is that enough majorities for you? If not, I can probably add "the
> majority of people with positions of special responsibility in Debian".
>
> (Of course I can't say "the majority of Debian developers", since most
> of them appear to prefer to remain utterly silent. Silence cannot be
> assumed to be an opinion in *either* direction.)
Cheers,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
