Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3)

[Tom Lord]

    > From: address@hidden (James Blackwell)

    > I don't like betraying confidences any more than you do. I want to give
    > Tom the chance to either publically explain why my suspicion is unfounded
    > (he should know the reasons why I suspect this), 

I have some _guesses_ but none of them are really compelling.

I'm reluctant to give you blanket permission for a number of reasons
which include:

        ~ this is a very silly thread and prolonging it seems even
          sillier

        ~ since you apparently (grossly) misunderstood something I
          said and, whatever that was, it included information I asked
          you not to make public, it would make the most sense to me
          to work out the source of your confusion in private



    > step forward and admit it. He could also choose to minimize his
    > participation by saying "Yeah, James, go ahead". Its only in
    > case that he performs none of these that I should begin to
    > consider the responsibilities as a whistleblower over the
    > responsibilities of keeping a confidance.

I think that your responsibilities as whistleblower don't start until
you confront me, privately, with your concerns over private matters.

You haven't done so, afaict.

If you think you _have_ done so, all I can say is that I must have
missed the import of what you were saying so please try again.

So in my opinion, you would not be whistleblowing but only betraying
confidences and grandstanding.


    > I of course can not prove what he is thinking, but I can prove
    > that my suspicion isn't a crackpot theory, and is instead a
    > reasonable conjecture.

It might be.  One weakness of your conspiracy theory is that you give
me far too much credit.  I'm not nearly as clever a manipulator as you
seem to think I am.  I'm pretty boringly transparent in comparison to
many people.

-t