On 27/12/18 07:39, Geert Stappers wrote: > } He threatened to ... > > Next time such thing happens, ask for clarifycation. > To get sure the recieved "threat" was transmitted as threat. > > Adding a "why?" does help. Doing something with an answer to the why > will get both parties further. > > > Cheers > Geert Stappers > DD > Who is recieving the "repair attempts" as further damage
Please reflect only on Lamb's statement[1] where he tells me, in front of the whole community, he has "been nothing but scrupulous and gentlemanly with regards to your personal privacy". To jog Chris Lamb's memory, I post the non-defamatory part of a message below. I feel my decision to post a bounty for information is entirely vindicated. There are two breaches of trust: - the information he disseminated from DAM on 20 September, as demonstrated below - the statement[1] where he publicly denies it on 21 December When a leader makes a denial to the whole community, in such circumstances, it undermines confidence in information and decisions from Debian, undermines people's willingness to trust them (or Debian) with private information and this erodes their ability to perform their role. Regards, Daniel Subject: Daniel Pocock & Debian From: Chris Lamb <la...@debian.org> Date: 20/09/2018 CC: lea...@debian.org <snip defamation> Please note that this was communicated to him privately, leaving any disclosure to his decision and discretion. 1. https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2018/12/msg00021.html
