On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 04:56:00PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 21:17:20 +0200 > Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just to make it clear, please don't take it as if I were recriminating > > something to you. My understanding is that this problem is about general > > perception and I don't think it's your fault in any way. > > I understand that it wasn't personal. But neither did you consider the > personal factors in any way.
I did. It's obvious I didn't consider them well enough, but I assure you when I added 'Friendly' there (which is not part of my usual signature) I was considering the personal factors. My message goes straight to the point and sounds harsh. I realized this, but I didn't think it would hurt your feelings. It's my fault if it did, so in general I'll try to be more careful in the future. > No, it was not the kindest way you could. A private email to me would > have sufficed to correct the problem in my statement. As you can see, > I was prompt to issue a correction once I saw my error. I thank you for that, but my concern was _not_ specificaly about your statement. Rather, I'm worried about this perception being the norm in our community today. > > But you have to see both sides of > > things. When I saw that mail, the first thing I think is the press will > > pick it and announce to everyone that Lenny supports this hardware, with > > the implicit assumption that we have dropped our ideals and joined the > > non-free bandwagon (actually, this is still likely despite my reaction). > > So it was far more important to drag this out before the project as > soon as possible than it was to consider your peer's feelings and > privately contact him first to give him a chance to correct himself? TBH, I didn't think about this option. Now I see that it is what I should have done. Do you accept my apologise? > The ideals you were defending here justified your means? Maybe you won't believe this, but whereas I believe my ideals justify being exposed _myself_ to public bashing, I don't think they justify exposing bystanders. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
