From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4771 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2008 00:58:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 4760 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Feb 2008 00:58:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (HELO fg-out-1718.google.com) (72.14.220.153) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:58:21 +0000 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so459722fga.0 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:58:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.165.13 with SMTP id n13mr1283521bue.30.1203728298529; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:58:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.162.12 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:58:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <8f2776cb0802221658w72802417p6614692aca26618b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:16:00 -0000 From: "Jim Blandy" To: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alp=E1r_J=FCttner?=" Subject: Re: New MI maintainer Cc: "Dave Korn" , gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <1203724876.4440.70.camel@piko.site> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <18363.14758.855327.355215@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18364.37907.135913.269853@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18366.14530.875406.113087@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <47BF0478.1050209@ix.netcom.com> <20080222220927.GA21434@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20080222222124.GH26716@brasko.net> <007a01c875ab$aae85770$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <1203724876.4440.70.camel@piko.site> X-Google-Sender-Auth: bb78bae2f8c03a73 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00200.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Alp=E1r J=FCttner wrote: > Although Nick's responses in this thread are offensive and his > statements may even be false, I understand his bad feeling and I must > say it - at least partially - justifies his reactions. I'm comfortable with the decision we made, and how we arrived at it, but I do regret not explaining to Nick the reasons we decided not to invite him to evaluate patches for MI. At the time, explaining seemed unlikely to be constructive, but perhaps I was also trying to avoid a possibly unpleasant conversation. Explaining the decision would have at least allowed Nick to know for a fact what had happened, instead of being forced to guess, and tempted to guess the worst. In situations where someone is expecting a response, and the group decides not to invite them to take on a responsibility, I think the group ought to explain their decision to the person in private, even when doing so is uncomfortable.