Hi,
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 07:29:57PM +0000, Neil McGovern wrote:
> To be honest, I'm not convinced that a mediation approach is going to
> solve anything. One of the roots of this issue seems to be an abilility
> for teams to have effective communication. The amount of time and effort
> this would take, especially considering that Daniel is fairly
> disconnected from the project these days, would be immense. I also note
> that a lot of the backlash seems to have been stired up by the peanut
> gallery - I've noted mention of Devuan a few times around this issue.
I fully agree.
> If people want, I can draw up a statement on what the project's view of
> the issue is - it woudn't be impartial though, just as Daniel's view is
> not.
I have tried to say as little as possible in my public replies so as to not
make things any more painful for Daniel. Any statement giving the project's
view is likely to not be very good for him.
The abuse stream is slowing down now, I've not had any direct mails for
around 6 hours. I'm a little scared to even look at the debian-live list but
I would hope it's also dying down.
> Overall though - I do wonder if this is an issue that really requires a
> public statement as such. There seems to be more traffic on -private
> than elsewhere... Thoughts?
While this did blow up a lot at first, I think a public statement may only
serve to reignite this. While it may have made Softpedia it didn't even make
it to Hacker News.
This is only my opinion, and if others feel that a public statement would be
a useful thing to do, I would not oppose it.
Thanks to everyone who has sent me nice emails, they made me smile. (:
Thanks,
Iain.
--
|
|
