On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 09:43 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 18:11 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: > > If China was the problem, why not name names here? (or even better in > > the policy itself) > > Probably because RHT and then spot/FESCo didn't want to single this out > as a "China" policy, as that would almost seem as siding with China on > the debate, rather than withdrawing from the debate entirely. This is, however, not convincing. Even if you convert it to a general policy - "no flags!" - and try to present it as "wellll, flags are just a dicey issue in general", everyone knows that it would never have come up as a live issue unless China were known to be not exactly keen on Taiwanese / Tibetan flags. We've discussed the complementary issues of other countries with other flags, but I sincerely doubt we would have come up with an invasive, distro-wide policy like this in response to, e.g., Germany's ban on the Nazi flag, or American sensibilities about Confederate flags, or anything like that. China is the elephant in the room, here. I agree with Christoph - this policy is essentially about China, and that needs to be openly and clearly discussed. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
