Al Hopper wrote: > What we have here is a disagreement - mainly caused by a small number > of Sun employees who figured that they could ride roughshod over the > community and bully everyone standing in their way, or those who did > not agree with their positions or opinions. Obviously, by the degree > of the "mess" (wild understatement) and trail of destruction they > created, they were unsuccessfull. They have been unsuccessful in the > eyes of the community and also, more importantly, they have been > unsuccessful in the eyes of Sun management (including senior > management). Believe me when I tell you that there is unilateral > consensus that a small number of people (who shall remain anonymous) > have created a *mess* of biblical proportions and a political > nightmare. Does that mean that we are going to see their boss publish > something to a public list that reads: "Joe Foobar is a complete a$$ > and he has pissed everyone off and we are considering firing his a$$". > Or are we going to see their boss publish an email with language like > "we realize that this could/should have been handled better"? > Remember - a good boss will always support his/her subordinates, > especially in the face of criticism. Of course, if Joe Foobar had > been publicly whipped and humiliated - it would be much easier to > believe that Sun has learned from this "series of unfortunate events". > But, in Corporate Speak - Sun has already stated *exactly* that. > We've already received our "pound of flesh". Do you still not > understand what we have been told? Here it is again (not quoted > exactly): "this situation could have been handled better". Got it? > That is all the *satisfaction* we'll receive from Sun management. > Otherwise we would have seen, in Corporate Speak, a statement like > "... and Sun stands by and fully supports Joe Foobar going > forward...".
I assume you're talking about me? -ian -- Ian Murdock http://ianmurdock.com/ "If they give you ruled paper, write the other way." --Juan Ram?n Jim?nez
