On 22/09/2010 16:44, Guido van Rossum wrote:
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.
If you're referring to me I'm extremely offended. Yes or no?
Kindest regards.
Mark Lawrence.
_______________________________________________
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
