On 2015-11-12 16:57, Neil McGovern wrote:
> 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.
Acknowledging that this could have been handled better would make a
strong statement about how we handle significant changes within the
project. As in: sometimes, we might need to make some changes that will
be painful to some, but we will do our best to not cause any more pain
than absolutely necessary.
Not making a statement could be perceived as if we didn't care that
people get upset about changes. (think: Devuan)
>> 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,
I think it's the situation that is unusual. The proposed reaction would
merely be a form of conflict resolution.
> and would only help highlight the issue, and add speculation.
But it would also highlight the fact that we don't shy away from
conflict resolution, even if it is unpleasant.
Also, I would have hoped that adding some transparency would reduce the
> 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".
Agreed. However, there still remains the issue of how this will reflect
on the project as a whole.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature