On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Neil McGovern <neilm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
I do firmly believe that the project as a whole would benefit from
engaging with conflict _once_ by releasing a public statement instead
of sitting things out. A short, impartial, factual summary of events
past and present from the project should be enough.
And yes an "even though there were issues, we acknowledge that Daniel
did a lot of work over the years" should be part of that alongside
more contentious points.
And yes, ideally this would come from either an external arbiter or the DPL.
A personal perspective like Steve's in this thread would be the cherry on top.
> 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.
Or it would help establish a new baseline of publicly acknowledging
issues. Yes, it would add more hay to the fire, but hay burns brightly
by using up all its energy quickly. In the long term, it would show a
practice of not hiding problems and engaging with them in a courteous,
honest, brief, and definite manner.
And I think we can all agree that that's A Good Thing.
Richard
|
|
