Forgiven. Thanks for the apology. Jeff
On Feb 28, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Glen Mazza wrote: > Agreed. The CXF PMC also held that Jeff's email simply didn't reach a level > warranting public airing, given the general view--in which I've grown more in > agreement with--that *no* email warrants such airing. Any types of > questionable emails are best sent to the internal [email protected] > lists anyway for proper handling. > > Further, I'd have to offer a huge caveat that my advice was non-lawyerly, as > you'd probably also have to look into libel and/or invasion of privacy issues > depending on the contents of the email publicly disclosed. Such actions are > rarely a good idea. > > I apologize to Jeff for any grandstanding on my part over his email, as well > as the dev list airing of it, and most especially, any false implication that > bothersome emails are common from him. I hope he'll forgive me for it. > > Thanks Craig. > > Glen > > On 2/27/2011 9:21 AM, Craig Tataryn wrote: >> I'm still waiting to see one of the "abusive" emails you speak of Glen. So >> far you just kind of come off as a goof. >> >> And enough with the "inactive" jabs, Jeff's paid his dues. You don't >> question a Sensei's belt just because you weren't around when he was >> competing. >> >> Craig >> > >
