On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org> wrote: > Guido van Rossum writes: > > > I would recommend that in the future more attention is paid to > > "documenting" publicly that someone's being booted out was > > inevitable, by an exchange of messages on python-dev (or > > python-committers if we want to limit distribution). And no, I > > don't think that IRC (where I suspect this happened) is sufficient. > > +1 on explaining "what" and "why" where the committers can see it, and > +1 on limiting distribution.
Agreed on both counts. > The one time I lifted someone's privileges that's the way I did it (by > luck, mostly). In hindsight, the fact that it was all done in plain > sight of the committers made it easy for us to put the incident behind > us. The fact that it was only visible to the committers made it > easier mend the relationship later. I understand the desire to keep dirty laundry in. I would like to keep it in too. Unfortunately the offending person in this case chose not to; I will not speculate about his motivation. This is not unusual; I can recall several incidents over the past few years (all completely different in every detail of course) where someone blew up publicly and there wasn't much of a chance to keep the incident under wraps. I see it as the risk of doing business in public -- which to me still beats the risk of doing business in back rooms many times over. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
