This is a cross-topic reply, because the original didn’t belong in the PEP 13 topic.
It occurs to me that my reply there missed the point of what he was trying to say: that I said things to people in private email (and much more so later on my blog) that I knew would increase damage, and that the SC never replied did not mean they approved of my doing so.
Both parts of which are true enough, but missed my point entirely too: my intent was never to cause damage, and that’s why I told the SC first.
I wanted the SC to have the chance to “beat me to the punch”, to try some openness of their own to head off the damage, and with luck stop it from increasing.
The damage to trust was going to happen regardless eventually. It was never on the table that I wouldn’t be as open and transparent as possible [1], so everything I knew would come out eventually. The SC couldn’t stop that, & I would not.
I was offering them the chance to put their spin on it first. They didn’t, and that’s on them.
As I wrote to Barry at the time (despite that he stayed out of this):
He said he would forward that to the SC too.
things I’ve very openly & strongly advocated for across years ↩︎