Just to be clear, you are defending the inclusion of private mail in a
official opinion?
John Plocher wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
>> Perhaps some view the unspecific reference of "one member" as making
>> this OK. I don't.
>
> In the whole email trail, this was one of the most succinct descriptions
> of the issue you were objecting to - as well as what seems to be some
> rationale for why the project faced such strong opposition from the ARC.
Perhaps you considered:
a) paraphrasing it
b) contacting me about it
> > I would welcome any comments, private or public, from this audience
> > as how they react to private conversations
>
> I wasn't aware that this message was intended to be confidential. As
> far as I knew, it was ARC related email pertaining to this case, sent
> to the external-to-Sun project submitter - and thus to me. I didn't
> really look at the mail headers.
>
> This mail (and the thread it was from) played a /very large/ role in
> the project team's poor perception of Sun and the ARC process for this
> case, and (colorful as it was) did a good job of characterizing why you
> objected to this case.
>
>
> The only other messages that touched on this were:
>
>> If this "just a c-team issue", who gets to make this "product
>> decision"? I can buy that it might not be the ARC, but who? Roland
>> and an advocate? If Roland can just integrate "coreutils
>> should be 64-bits", can I almost immediately integrate "coreutils
>> should be 32-bits"?
>
> or
>
>> Its the switch. You nor I have access to that switch. I'm just
>> trying to figure out who has access to that switch.
>
> and
>
>> I finally see the need for an opinion. Its a formal way to tell
>> the c-team that they should to cast a *very* suspect eye at
>> the "coreutils + bash" integration request. Nothing wrong with
>> it, there just isn't anybody "at the switch". They should (IMHO)
>> place it on hold until somebody is "at the switch".
>
> Not nearly as cut and dried. I admit, I may have missed a better
> summary in the 100+ messages in the mail log.
The point is that the referenced message is not in the mail log. It
only appeared
in Roland's inbox. I have no clue how it escaped from there.
Its particularly offensive to take such a quote out of context. If you
read the whole message, you will note that there are a few other colorful
bits in the message, many as inclusions.
> As I said, this is a draft opinion. I welcome replacement text for
> this section if you would care to provide it.
Damage done, but it does need the "conclusion" derived from by observation.
>
> -John (now really on vacation and out of email range...)
To be clear, I'm concerned more about ethics than the content (at this
point).
- jek3
