Thanks for updating your post. > History is about people making decisions. It wouldn't make sense to write about the history of nations without naming any name

Thanks for updating your post. > History is about people making decisions. It wouldn't make sense to write about the history of nations without naming any names, and I think it wouldn't make sense here, either. Historians usually do quite a bit more research, including talking to participants. Much more context would be required before zeroing in on one person and saying it's his fault. Was there discussion beforehand? Why has no one changed it thus far? All you did was post to a noisy mailing list from which you expected no reply, then assumed that it was solely the committer's decision. > I don't (and wouldn't) call Hamano any names, call doubt on his character, or even question his intelligence or competence. But that's done implicitly when you tie his reputation up so thoroughly with choices that you wrote an entire essay disparaging. The damage is magnified when he's not given a real opportunity to explain himself. Although you stated in another comment you've now emailed him directly, which is a good call.