|
By way of disclosure, I'll be the first
to point out that I'm on both the IESG and the RSOC, and so I'm
going to have a certain perspective on the events underway. I hope
that my statements below stand on their own, independently of
whatever interests my position may imply.
On 6/26/19 10:20 AM, Michael Richardson
wrote:
I am claiming that some think that this situation has just occured, and it resulted in the RSE deciding to do something else rather than attempt to continue fighting against some bad thing happening. (I am not saying that I even understand what the "thing" was, or agree that it was "bad")
You or anyone else for that matter. What happened is:
You're kind of pointing sideways at some conspiracy theories that
people have come up with to explain why #2 happened, but they're
not really supported by facts in evidence. This is natural:
because of #3, it's understandable to try to find someone to
blame. But this is why you're having a hard time understanding
what the "thing" is: it's whatever boogeyman the conspiracy
theorists have chosen to invent for that moment. And so it's
definitely "bad", but it isn't actually "real". I'm not saying that all of the critical posts on this topic are wrong. There are some valid points being made about the overall RFC Editor model, its history, and where its future may lie; and some of these are necessarily being couched as criticism. But there is also some poorly motivated rage being expressed based on wholly fabricated assumptions, much of which seems to be impervious to facts and unable to cite sources. Again, this is an understandable and natural reaction to being sad, although it is far from helpful. Even worse, it may harm our ability to find a suitable replacement for Heather: who wants to walk into a community full of rage? And so I strongly encourage you -- and others -- to be wary of
arguments based on supposition. Share what you know and think, but
please don't amplify untested theories. /a ____ |
