breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Sep 23 01:16:18 CEST 2010
On 22/09/2010 16:44, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull<stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
>> Guido van Rossum writes:
>> > I would recommend that in the future more attention is paid to
>> > "documenting" publicly that someone's being booted out was
>> > inevitable, by an exchange of messages on python-dev (or
>> > python-committers if we want to limit distribution). And no, I
>> > don't think that IRC (where I suspect this happened) is sufficient.
>> +1 on explaining "what" and "why" where the committers can see it, and
>> +1 on limiting distribution.
> Agreed on both counts.
>> The one time I lifted someone's privileges that's the way I did it (by
>> luck, mostly). In hindsight, the fact that it was all done in plain
>> sight of the committers made it easy for us to put the incident behind
>> us. The fact that it was only visible to the committers made it
>> easier mend the relationship later.
> I understand the desire to keep dirty laundry in. I would like to keep
> it in too. Unfortunately the offending person in this case chose not
> to; I will not speculate about his motivation. This is not unusual; I
> can recall several incidents over the past few years (all completely
> different in every detail of course) where someone blew up publicly
> and there wasn't much of a chance to keep the incident under wraps. I
> see it as the risk of doing business in public -- which to me still
> beats the risk of doing business in back rooms many times over.
If you're referring to me I'm extremely offended. Yes or no?
More information about the Python-Dev