Hi friends,
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 8:54 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
Janek wrote:
Imagine that next month David receives 10 times the money
he usually gets: we'd have David covered for next ~10 months,
More like the next 6 months. [snip explanation]
ok, i'm fine with that.
And i definitely didn't mean to say "let's give David only enough
money so that he won't starve"!
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Graham Percival
<address@hidden> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 08:25:56PM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
I think that there is 100% approval that you *do* such a huge amount
of work. And you should be payed for that IMHO.
I have problems with the second sentence -- nothing personal,
just a general reluctance to support any statement of the form
"X should be paid for Y" without further qualifications.
I have an impression that we interpret the word "should" slightly different.
I *suppose* Werner meant "David's work is worth being paid for, it would
be good if David received payment for work".
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 01:30:58PM -0800, Jim Long wrote:
I think that there is 100% agreement that David should continue
to work on LilyPond.
With my previous paragraph in mind, I disagree; thus there is not
100\% agreement.
Again, i *suppose* that Jim meant something slightly different, more
like "I think that there is 100% agreement that we would like David to
continue developing LilyPond."