There are a lot of religious or otherwise nuts people who bomb buildings, kill abortion doctors or commit otherwise atrocious acts, acting in presumably good faith. That may make their behaviour acceptable within their own social norm but doesn't make it better for the victims. So "caring for Perl 5" (whether chromatic does or not) may be necessary but it's not sufficient.

I understand a lot of people are upset about the situation but that's a pretty incendiary response, really. Killing is equivalent to criticism? Words have meanings. Words like atrocious and victim become meaningless -- or dilute real horror -- when applied where they don't belong.

The other side of it is the possibility that chromatic is perhaps completely right and a radical attitude is all that will keep half of us in the kinds of jobs we want in another 5 years and more. I *want* to work in Perl and nothing else. I'd rather be an assistant manager at a coffee shop than write Java for a living. I don't know if he's right, nor am I on the lists where exchanges have happened so I may have missed some acrimony. As someone on the sidelines who has benefited from and admires both parties, it seems like a rather normal, low-temperature conflict that has resolved as well as can be expected; Rafael has a great attitude and will continue to participate in a more enjoyable way.

If you prop up "acting in good faith" as justification for behaviour, then you'll have to accept that I point out others who justify their actions in good faith. Obviously, I've pointed out the extreme end of people using that justification, but this is to show that while such arguments are used to excuse actions, not every action resulting from good intentions is actually good, at least for some of the people involved.

I don't see this conflict as "resolved" in any other way than that one of the "participants" quit. This isn't how I imagine a resolution "as well as can be expected", especially as the only result is that Perl now has no lead developer/lead visionary.