On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Daniel Berlin <dber...@dberlin.org> wrote:
> Okay then, as the leadership body of the GCC community, part of your > responsibility is keeping your constituents (the rest of us!) informed > of the status of things troubling them. > I don't believe saying "we have given the FSF a deadline to meet in > the near future" would at all endanger any diplomacy, and i'd love to > see a counter argument that says otherwise. I am sorry that you did not receive the memo. > Yet most of the others watching take their queues from the feelings of > GCC insiders. > I have yet to see them act particularly independently, anyway, so it > seems silly to assume they will until something makes us think > otherwise. Mark Mitchell and I receive different feedback. Again, this delay is frustrating for all of us. I think we all are trying to achieve the same goal. Those of us on the GCC SC are trying to work with the FSF in the most effective and productive way that our experience advises. I am not trying to "handle" you or trivialize your proposals. Dealing with the fallout is much more difficult than proposing change. Someone needs to pick up all of the pieces. Something different does not have to be better than the current situation. I agree that this cannot go on forever and the SC is telling that to the FSF. We are very close to a solution that is acceptable to everyone and it would be disappointing to have that opportunity slip through our fingers. David
