Re: [Proposal] Remove all/most one-man codebases

[Leo Sutic]

> And if it is issues he has with the board , why do we not just let him
> vote here. We respect him. The votes in favor of his reinstatement were
> nearly unanimous, why not let him vote?

Paul,

because doing so would be to go against the board. I have yet to
see any argument why...

1) ...Peter can't resolve this himself.

2) ...the current failure of getting this resolved should be considered
the fault of the board.

So, if the reason this can't be resolved the proper way (i.e. between
Peter and the board) is the fault of the board, then yes, I'll go against the
board and do my best to make them see that they are being unreasonable.

But there has been no indication of that.

Also, I have these reasons:

1) I have always (and if haven't I apologize) been of the opinion that any talks
should be strictly between the board and Peter. As I wrote to Stefano,
I don't want everyone bringing up their pet peeve about Peter separately.
It won't help, and will disturb the board<->Peter talks. Informing the board that
they are wrong and that we will ignore Peter's suspension to the extent that we
can will also be a disturbance. Before I do so, I want to know that what we're
doing is right. (I.e. we're really helping.)

2) Nothing has been made public. I'm wary of lending public support to something
that hasn't been made public. For example: There has been talks between Peter
and the board for a month. Yet Peter still doesn't understand why he was
suspended. Peter can make anything public - the board has repeatedly stated
that he has permission to make any exchange between them public.
If the failure to communicate the board's reason for the suspension is the
fault of the board, or if the reason is unfair, this should be obvious from those
exchanges.

3) You have yourself noted that this has caused damage to Peter's professional
reputation. Anyone doing due diligence before hiring him *will* come across
this suspension. Now, thinking as a HR person who is about to hire Peter,
what do you think is best: A suspension followed by a quick resolution, or
a suspension followed by one big board<->avalon-dev fight? The former
will make him appear professional, the latter as a troublemaker, especially so
when nothing has been made public.
Going against the board and thus stating that the board is in the wrong here
can be considered implicit support for Peter *not* to resolve the issues
(board is wrong, therefore he is right in not changing), which will
surely *maximize* the damage done by the suspension, instead of
showing him as someone who perhaps showed a bit too much zeal but
who then quickly changed when informed about it.

So, my position is this:

1) Peter, get the issues resolved. Then come back here.

2) Peter, if you want public support, then make *everything* public. It won't
get you support automatically, but you're not getting mine without it.

Paul, if you think I'm unfair, then please point out where I go wrong. I'm
not going to preach the need to reform without being willing to do so
myself. However, I think that I am being fair, and that I'm acting with
both Peter's, avalon-dev's and Apache's best interests in mind. As I stated
on the PMC list, the suspension itself (unprecedented as it is) is *no big
deal*. The continuing failure to resolve the issues behind the suspension
however, *is*.

(Finally, I don't have access to the PMC list from here. If you have
replied to me there I haven't read it and won't be able to until
Sunday/Monday).

/LS



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>