CodeWeavers as a single entity did receive one vote.) If we had stuffed the ballot box as Brett suggested, the votes would have been more lopsided, believe me.
So, you're saying that it WAS possible that it could have been stuffed. Remember that the criteria was not given out when the results were posted (which is why I asked in the first place), so there was no way of knowing what the numbers meant. As it is, I think the criteria is flawed in the sense that it discounts major contributers (codeweavers and transgaming) and enhances the votes of minor ones - the ones who are least effected by a license switch (and, IMHO, the ones that understand the issues/mechanisms of licenses the least). As the argument for X11/BSD is a philosophical/commercial one, it's not unfair to say that if you discount commerical entities, you will have the effect of discounting the X11/BSD count.
I think Dimi and others have been remarkably patient, all things considered.
Being on the other side of the issue, I can say that Dimi is not a saint on the matter either - at least Brett sometimes will substantiate what he says.
-r
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Roger Fujii wrote:
So, you're saying that it WAS possible that it could have been stuffed.
No, this is not what he was saying (AFAIU). In particular, I think Alexandre took a particularly tough stence by not counting CW's employees, since most of them are long time Wine contributors (and major ones at that). I think that he erred on the cautious side just to avoid such discussions. But even if he would have done so (that is, he would have counted CW's position, as well as that of each of the employees), it still would not have qualified as "stuffing".
In other words the question (or at least the way is was worded) was not fair, because it implied a malicious intent on Alexandre's part.
Being on the other side of the issue, I can say that Dimi is not a saint on the matter either - at least Brett sometimes will substantiate what he says.
Err, that is, I never substantiate what I say. So, you either: (1) don't know logic; (2) don't know what you're saying; (3) or say (knowingly) that I never substantiate what I say.
In any case, I guess this is the straw that broke the camil's back. I've tried to be patient with a number of people on this list. My patience is over. If you ever follow Al Viro messages on linux-kernel... well, I'm seriously consider adopting the same kind of tone with people like you.
-- Dimi.
-
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Roger Fujii