> i have not banned anything, or even alluded to it, whatsoever. i asked that > one specific mail not be commented upon
OK, sorry if I misunderstood, but that's still suppression in my book. > reading your accounts strewn about is interesting, what exactly are *your* > motives? My motives are as I've stated; I'm a commercial user with products in development which use Pyjamas and that I have a long-term stake in. With a bit of thought, anyone should see why I value stability and continued viability. It's a long game but the potential payback to pyjamas could be huge *if* it can keep commercial users on board. This is where the existential threat to pyjamas comes from and why I and many others consider the takeover to be reckless and unjustified. > Luke is a talented developer, there is no doubt of this, but he is one of the > most > socially inept persons i have ever encountered I don't think this is the right place to bash people or even defend them on a personal level. We get it though. You didn't get along with the guy. > the idea was to retain Luke I'm sorry but I don't believe this. Luke can speak for himself of course but this is not how you keep people on-board. > he decided to play legal threats as the first card He's claimed that you lifted data from his server without permission. I'm not commenting on that, but if it's true then this is a massive roadblock in the viability of the project. I for one don't want to be involved in it. Can you picture the scene where a developer or businessperaon goes into a meeting with very senior, very conservative executives trying to pitch a product, and it turns out there are serious legal concerns surrounding the technology platform? If it isn't true then perhaps you should put people's minds at rest by giving a detailed explanation of the whole mail server situation, including where the data originated, where it is now, how it got there and why the accidental mailing of so many people occurred. > indeed, you have witnessed little chatter I'd invite anyone to review the pyjamas list for the last 7 days before they make up their minds. Some of the statements I've seen have been regrettable. > by realizing this is not as black-and-white as you's like it to be. I have an ethical objection here, but moreover; it clearly just runs against my interests to support your actions. I'm not sure you considered the commercial users here, and with respect nor do I really get the impression you've understood it, still. By the way; I'm not associated with Luke at all. I've emailed him off-list a few times this week to discuss some angles to do with my work, but that's it. In fact, I support Kees' proposition that Pyjamas should seek sponsorship from the Python/Apache/Free Software Foundation. This would resolve questions of legitimacy and leadership. In my ideal outcome, we could tailor pyjamas more to business use; e.g. tidying up any license issues, offering a commercial support contract (this will help mitigate the damage done to perceptions of credibility), publishing a commercial use policy (one of the foundations could offer support with this I hope). James -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
