Right for whom ? It may be right for DAO investors.

But it isn't right for Ethereum investors, it isn't right for future potential Smart Contract consumers, it isn't right for the cryptocurrency industry in general and it isn't right for developers.

The very architecture of a smart contract blockchain makes the logic of the "Turing Complete" scripting language independent of the logic of the blockchain on which it runs. Kind of like the separation of executive a legislative powers in states. If you decide to p*ss all over that principle just to save yourself embarrassment and investors in a known risky asset from taking a haircut then you just kill it for everybody.

It's different if the remedy comes from within the logic of the DAO code itself. That would be appropriate because that was where the logic failed. But forking at the Ethereum blockchain level is just suicide.

I realise that only the DAO would be affected by the fork but that just makes it even worse because it shows that forks can cherry pick what contracts they want to immute. I'm afraid the damage done in terms of loss of confidence will be irreparable.

The reason I'm p*ssed off about this is that I consciously did not invest in DAO because I understood the risk and what I was investing in. i.e. I realised I was buying a contract that floated on top of the Blockchain that carried its own logic (and therefore risk) which was independent of that of the platform tokens.

Now I find that that was not the case. That the risk is transferrable to Ether token holders because the fork needs to occur at the blockchain level. I don't think thats acceptable and although I could live with it as a one-off I doubt that future investors of industrial calibre will give a technology that entertains such cack handed tactics a second look.