Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas, I really think your attempts to suppress use of Debian's standard > resolution procedure are inappropriate.
Perhaps you have misunderstood me because I was unclear. I am not trying to suppress anything. I am concerned that the procedure is being used abusively, and that at least some participants in these discussions are being dishonorable. We were told after the drop non-free resolution failed that it would be abusive and unfair and illegitimate to proceed to reintroduce the same topic over and over again. I don't know where that fear came from, but there it was; some people were concerned that it would be brought up again and again. I believe this is, in substance, what is happening here. > And if nothing else, letting opponents of 2004-03 bring this issue to vote > on their own terms would put to rest the question of whether this vote was > representative. Not that this is what we have here; *this* GR is about > issuing a position statement that the GFDL is *not* acceptable to Debian, > which makes it doubly inappropriate to object to developers seeking to have > their views represented as an option on the ballot. This is quite a fair point, and thank you for it. Still, I have no confidence at this point. I am quite sure that, even if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see another GR with the effect "keep GFDL'd documentation in main" before long. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
