On 22/09/2010 16:44, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull<stephen at xemacs.org> wrote: >> Guido van Rossum writes: >> >> > I would recommend that in the future more attention is paid to >> > "documenting" publicly that someone's being booted out was >> > inevitable, by an exchange of messages on python-dev (or >> > python-committers if we want to limit distribution). And no, I >> > don't think that IRC (where I suspect this happened) is sufficient. >> >> +1 on explaining "what" and "why" where the committers can see it, and >> +1 on limiting distribution. > > Agreed on both counts. > >> The one time I lifted someone's privileges that's the way I did it (by >> luck, mostly). In hindsight, the fact that it was all done in plain >> sight of the committers made it easy for us to put the incident behind >> us. The fact that it was only visible to the committers made it >> easier mend the relationship later. > > I understand the desire to keep dirty laundry in. I would like to keep > it in too. Unfortunately the offending person in this case chose not > to; I will not speculate about his motivation. This is not unusual; I > can recall several incidents over the past few years (all completely > different in every detail of course) where someone blew up publicly > and there wasn't much of a chance to keep the incident under wraps. I > see it as the risk of doing business in public -- which to me still > beats the risk of doing business in back rooms many times over. > If you're referring to me I'm extremely offended. Yes or no? Kindest regards. Mark Lawrence.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4