Context: Daniel Pocock writes in his own blog that he will repost at
the next GA meeting a motion that did not pass at the previous GA
meeting. Unchanged, seemingly.
Paul Boddie:
>>> I was surprised that Daniel's motion to document the FSFE's proprietary
>>> dependencies, and to describe ways of
On Wednesday 13. June 2018 15.47.38 Max Mehl wrote:
> # Paul Boddie [2018-06-12 21:53 +0200]:
> > I was surprised that Daniel's motion to document the FSFE's proprietary
> > dependencies, and to describe ways of eliminating them, was so strongly
> > opposed. Is it because admitting such dependencie
# Paul Boddie [2018-06-12 21:53 +0200]:
> I was surprised that Daniel's motion to document the FSFE's proprietary
> dependencies, and to describe ways of eliminating them, was so strongly
> opposed. Is it because admitting such dependencies is embarrassing? Or are
> there other reasons why no-on
