non-disclosure of infrastructure problem a management issue?

[Bruce Byfield]

On Sun, 2008-08-24 at 15:11 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:19:03 -0700
> Bruce Byfield <bbyfield at axion.net> wrote:

> > But that Red Hat acted as it did is not surprising. Just because
> > a corporation is open source, it doesn't stop being a corporation.
> 
> But when a corporation claims to be host to a "community", they need to be
> called on the carpet by that community when they fail to act appropriately.
> Ultimately, of course, there isn't much the so-called community  or its
> members can do other than either abandon the corporation and go its (their, or
> his) own way, but less drastic action like a public ass-kicking can sometimes
> have a beneficial effect too.

My point is, you can hardly expect a corporation to act as anything
except a corporation. Open source corporations exist, but "open source"
being used as a qualifier suggests that they are an exception, not the
norm, just as "compassionate conservatism" does.

Expecting a corporation to act like a community project is simply
unrealistic, even when the corporation hosts a community. If, say,
Debian acted as Red Hat did, I would be deeply disappointed, because it
is completely community-based. The combination of corporation and
community embodied in Red Hat/Fedora often works very well on a daily
basis, but it's not really surprising that interests should conflict
occasionally -- or that, in these circumstances, that actions should be
based primarily on corporate needs.

As for a "public ass-kicking," if you really want to do something
effective (as opposed to indulging in self-righteousness), I suggest you
contact Red Hat and Fedora officials directly, not merely vent in
forums.

-- 
Bruce Byfield 604-421-7177
Burnaby, BC, Canada
web: http://members.axion.net/~bbyfield
blog: http://brucebyfield.wordpress.com/