On 17-Feb-08, at 12:33 PM, Ian Murdock wrote: > John Sonnenschein wrote: >> On 16-Feb-08, at 8:08 PM, Ian Murdock wrote: >>> Al Hopper wrote: >>>> What we have here is a disagreement - mainly caused by a small >>>> number of Sun employees who figured that they could ride >>>> roughshod over the community and bully everyone standing in their >>>> way, or those who did not agree with their positions or >>>> opinions. Obviously, by the degree of the "mess" (wild >>>> understatement) and trail of destruction they created, they were >>>> unsuccessfull. They have been unsuccessful in the eyes of the >>>> community and also, more importantly, they have been unsuccessful >>>> in the eyes of Sun management (including senior management). >>>> Believe me when I tell you that there is unilateral consensus >>>> that a small number of people (who shall remain anonymous) have >>>> created a *mess* of biblical proportions and a political >>>> nightmare. Does that mean that we are going to see their boss >>>> publish something to a public list that reads: "Joe Foobar is a >>>> complete a$$ and he has pissed everyone off and we are >>>> considering firing his a$$". Or are we going to see their boss >>>> publish an email with language like "we realize that this could/ >>>> should have been handled better"? Remember - a good boss will >>>> always support his/her subordinates, especially in the face of >>>> criticism. Of course, if Joe Foobar had been publicly whipped >>>> and humiliated - it would be much easier to believe that Sun has >>>> learned from this "series of unfortunate events". But, in >>>> Corporate Speak - Sun has already stated *exactly* that. We've >>>> already received our "pound of flesh". Do you still not >>>> understand what we have been told? Here it is again (not quoted >>>> exactly): "this situation could have been handled better". Got >>>> it? That is all the *satisfaction* we'll receive from Sun >>>> management. Otherwise we would have seen, in Corporate Speak, a >>>> statement like "... and Sun stands by and fully supports Joe >>>> Foobar going forward...". >>> >>> I assume you're talking about me? >> Presumably if it was your decision to bring the jackboot down on >> the community and impose the will of SMI without consultation, yes. >> Otherwise, no. > > Yep, that was me. Ok, now can we move on to something more productive?
Sure, how's this for productive: I hereby propose to officially remove Ian Murdock's membership in the OpenSolaris community for repeated attempts to coopt said community to further his own aims and those of his employer. Mr. Murdock's actions since being granted membership in the community have resulted in nothing more substantive than the fracturing of OpenSolaris, and he should therefore be seen as a poisonous infiltrator rather than a positive contributor. In the interests of repairing intra-community relations, I feel it important that his influence not be officially sanctioned by the OpenSolaris community apparatus
