On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:24:30AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Christian Kastner wrote:
However, I want to note that from the public view, some of these
issues still remain. I believe that without sharing at least some
of the context, these issues (and others I might have overlooked)
will continue to be perceived as hostile, and as such, will
negatively reflect on the project.
I agree with the above and feel a statement - probably not going back
into history any more than needed to explain the recent events - would
be worthwhile. If neilm is not impartial, could it be delegated?
I don't think it's possible to share the context without getting into
things which were private and (IMO) either make poor ethical choices
about sharing that or leaving an unsatisfying statement which won't
really solve anything. This is somewhat akin to an HR problem, and most
organizations are going to just say something like "we don't comment on
internal issues". Yeah, that's an unsatisfying answer. But compiling a
case against Daniel is 1) not really fair to him and 2) won't provide a
defnitive answer because it's a human issue for which there aren't any
right or wrong answers. Issuing another statement won't end debate, but
will throw more wood on the fire and reignite a debate which is already
fading. As far as weighing the ethics, I think that leaving people with
confused impressions is better than setting the expectation that we will
always issue a report on internal personnel matters. (E.g., what if
someone is removed because of clinical mental health issues? Are we
expected to publish that on the internet or to respect their privacy?)
Mike Stone
|
|
