On 10/17/2016 05:10 AM, David Golden wrote:
In the face of opposition to the minimal details of your plan, you
acknowledged that you didn't have the community support you thought and
"forfeited" (in your words) your claim.
This is a misrepresentation of the events that took place. The PAUSE
admins articulated that they will not allow me to exercise my right of
FIRSTCOME, which led to the following:
* I strongly disagree with the PAUSE admins interpretation of my
ownership of this project, and I strongly believe a procedural
overstepping has taken place. However, the triggered discussion
indicates my leadership is not without controversy, and therefore as
indicated earlier, I am forfeiting my right to select the next FIRSTCOME.
As it was not immediately obvious that I am acting under duress, I wrote
the following clarification
I am really unhappy that me choosing to not fight for my rights is seen
as abdication, instead of being an attempt to prevent the project
suffering more damage than it already has.
Then you turn around and say:
(b) that PAUSE admins strip him of his authority
With the dispute resolved, (b) would be – in your words and the words of
others – unprecedented.
The dispute has *not* been resolved. The PAUSE admins simply pushed one
of the disputing parties out.
Your suggestion that "we have never stripped an author of their
authority" doesn't match your actions over the past couple weeks.
Have the integrity to own up to creating the very precedent you claim
Searchable Archive: http://firstname.lastname@example.org