| 1 |
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 16:38 +0000, George Prowse wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:44:37 +0000 George Prowse <cokehabit@×××××.com> |
| 4 |
> > wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > You miss the point. This was not the first time a resignation stunt had |
| 7 |
> > been pulled by that developer, and previously another developer had |
| 8 |
> > been strongly warned about resigning for publicity. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> Then deal with the situation in ways i have already said in about 5 |
| 12 |
> other emails to the list |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
George, then let's just say your point has been made. Repeating it only |
| 15 |
adds to the noise. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
As for the rest of it, the prior resignation was not actually a stunt. |
| 18 |
This is again the sort of thing I referred to on this list and in my |
| 19 |
blog last week about vague half-truths in order to level accusations. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Diego was intent on leaving the last time he tried to resign. It was I |
| 22 |
who brought him back. That's how *I* deal with departing devs: I try |
| 23 |
and talk them into cooling down and reconsidering a rash decision. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
As for the whole idea of "blackmail", it's frankly a little ridiculous |
| 26 |
that everyone's latched on this vague notion of blackmail without |
| 27 |
actually caring to look under the hood of what that was symptomatic of: |
| 28 |
viz. the repeated (public and archived) attacks. That's not to say |
| 29 |
Diego is faultless. Far from it: he should have handled himself in a lot |
| 30 |
better way than he did. That, however, does not preclude or excuse |
| 31 |
Stephen's role in the mess, nor does it negate his bad behaviour. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Now, can everyone please knock it off with the bad behaviour of their |
| 34 |
own on this list. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Thanks, |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Seemant |
Archives