On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:33:04AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> 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?
For info, it's not that I'm not impartial (I'm not, but I can certainly
produce a statement that is...), but that I don't see it would be
advantageous for the project to do so.
> Issuing another statement won't end debate, but will throw more wood
> on the fire and reignite a debate which is already fading.
Additionally, I'm not aware of any recent time when the project has
published such a statement. Doing so would be highly unusual, and would
only help highlight the issue, and add speculation.
> 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?)
Also, I don't think that any statement we produce, neutral or not, would
help Daniel. Nothing short of "oh, we were completely wrong, Daniel was
right, and we're making changes to make sure it doesn't happen again"
would make him feel better or less "attacked".
Description: Digital signature