> > 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
-1, Please engage brain before fingers. Doug -- This message was posted from opensolaris.org
