On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Rory O'Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > The important thing is to maintain a generosity towards others and not to be > drawn into argument with them about the pros and cons of their/our choices. > The situation is likely to proceed to one of two directions: either the > codebases and the features start to diverge dramatically, in which case they > move away and any other product becomes sufficiently different that there > need be no conflict, or there is some for of reconcilliation/amalgamation, in > which case all have to work together, so the less aggravation that has arisen > before that, the better. > > It is a generous thing to be able to agree to differ. >
But what about when their preference is that you don't exist at all? For example, when a LO leader comes onto the Apache list and says that he would like us to fail and that he wants to "put us out of our misery", then do we treat that as a mere "difference of opinion"? I'm happy to be generous when it is a matter of taste, Coke versus Pepsi or whatever. But when someone is denying our right to exist and taking active steps to cause our votes to fail, etc., then I think that is something else. We're called on to be generous and professional. We're not called on to be martyrs. -Rob > -- > Rory O'Farrell <[email protected]>
