John Sonnenschein wrote: > On 16-Feb-08, at 8:08 PM, Ian Murdock wrote: >> 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? > > Presumably if it was your decision to bring the jackboot down on the > community and impose the will of SMI without consultation, yes. > > Otherwise, no.
Yep, that was me. Ok, now can we move on to something more productive? -ian -- Ian Murdock http://ianmurdock.com/ "If they give you ruled paper, write the other way." --Juan Ram?n Jim?nez
