Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't see how _my_ failure to communicate with exactitude, and taking > shortcuts, does in any way support your argumentation. It is not a > unclarity of my thoughts and feeling, just a failure to bring this > clearly into words. And you choose to attack me on the form rather than > on the content.
Huh? You asked what changes I thought it would make. It makes some change, a change which is very important to me, and of only minimal value to you. > See above about that. They are not part of the debian project, but they > are available on the debian archive, as a service to our users who need > them. Ah, ok. Then I think it will be a lot clearer to stop putting the Debian name on them at all. That's one of my reasons for voting for the resolution. Anthony has said that they *are* part of the "debian project", but not part of the "debian distribution". > A, yes ? And the fact that debian ressource would be used for setting > this alternative archive up and maintaining those packages is not to be > considered ? Debian ressource in the form of volunteer time, which is > maybe the only asset debian really has ? Volunteer time is not owned by Debian. We have no control over volunteer time, and we cannot assign tasks to persons.
