Re: follow-up to report 22

[David Kastrup]

Valentin Villenave <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Joe Neeman <address@hidden> wrote:
>> If the archives were public, it might deter people from speaking frankly.
>
> I understand; however having public archives is also something
> important for the project's history. The best compromise I could come
> up with would be to make discussions public after a number of years.

History is always what we make it to be.  Ted Hughes burnt several
diaries with personal content of his deceased wife Silvia Plath because
he considered this more appropriate to her memory.

That's painful.  I am not in a position to judge him.

> If, as has been stated, the only 4 emails on -hackers in 2010 were
> about "reviving -hackers", then it proves that any earlier discussion
> you guys might have had regarding David was actually not followed by
> any concrete action until much later. (Again, I can only guess.)

Giving me commit access, while certainly a painful decision (not least
for myself because I would have preferred to be able to get to a useful
contribution/annoyance ratio without the need of special-casing myself),
was likely a less contentious decision rather than trying to get to a
state where my contributions were not simply getting dropped.

> Besides, while I certainly don't want to speak on his behalf, David
> doesn't strike me as the kind of person who can't take being directly
> criticized, even in a non-polite way. (I would probably, and do, react
> a lot more badly in such a situation.)

David can take being directly criticized, but the way he takes it is not
always pretty.  In particular when he has a point.

-- 
David Kastrup