John Sonnenschein wrote: > On 17-Feb-08, at 12:33 PM, Ian Murdock wrote: > >> 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? > > Sure, how's this for productive: > > I hereby propose to officially remove Ian Murdock's membership in the > OpenSolaris community for repeated attempts to coopt said community to > further his own aims and those of his employer. > > Mr. Murdock's actions since being granted membership in the community > have resulted in nothing more substantive than the fracturing of > OpenSolaris, and he should therefore be seen as a poisonous > infiltrator rather than a positive contributor. In the interests of > repairing intra-community relations, I feel it important that his > influence not be officially sanctioned by the OpenSolaris community > apparatus
I don't think that's particularly productive. -ian -- Ian Murdock http://ianmurdock.com/ "If they give you ruled paper, write the other way." --Juan Ram?n Jim?nez
