> ...according to four people familiar with the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe them, as well as tweets from some of the people involved.
All of the people involved have been very open about their identities and what they've been up to. It's sort of their MO. Pure speculation on my part, but I imagine it's basically a giant middle finger to everyone else.
Do we know these are facts or are these pundit interpretations of nods and whispers? I see a lot of people screaming about how it went down, but they are just citing thrice-removed speculation from a blog four months ago.
It's information to me (and it will be to a lot of people i suspect). I never saw what happened reported anywhere so succinctly. There was a lot of speculation reported.
They have? I saw and appreciated Josh Triplett's post, but still find it mysterious who the original group of people were who were not comfortable with the blog post / talk and reached out to people about it. I'm not at all sure it's any of my business to know who they are, and I'm not terribly interested. I'm just saying that I don't think that part has been publicized.
"People familiar with the matter" gave the story to the WSJ reporter, so likely people that were in some of the meetings. The WSJ story is more comprehensive:
> ...according to four people familiar with the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe them, as well as tweets from some of the people involved.
reply