Corporate sponsorship ( was Re: Going passive )
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
johannbg at gmail.com
Wed Nov 10 12:49:04 UTC 2010
On 11/10/2010 03:49 AM, Jon Stanley wrote:
> The composition of the Board has been a topic of discussion, but we
> see no compelling reason to change it - no one has come to us and said
> "the Board such as it exists is broken and can't function, and here's
> specific reasons why, and specific actions to improve those reasons".
> When/if someone does do that, we'd certainly be willing to entertain
> discussions on whatever change might be required.
Is not it a compelling reason to change it if a single corporate entity
( regardless of what's it's name and what it stands for ) gets to
appoints 4 seats ( or appoint anything for that matter ) out of 9 for a
distribution that claims to be community driven and advertise it self as
It makes a perfect sense for a single corporate entity it to appoint or
govern in general a distribution that is not community driven and
neither claims to be so.
How does the community know that the corporate is not pushing and
spreading some hidden agenda through out the community?
( There will always be doubt with that associated corporate intentions )
How will a person that happens to work for that corporate but joined the
community and is doing good honest work on his own accord be able to
earn the trust and respect amongst the community members?
( There will always be doubt with his actions since he's tied to the
corporate entity ).
Even with recent board decisions conspiracy theorist with in our
community can have a field day.
1. A board majority made up of single corporate employs in this case Red
2. It decides to create a community enforcing entity in this case know
as Fedora Community Working Group ( FCWG ).
3. It secretly picks and decides who will be part of that enforcing
entity on it's own accord that could be loyal to the corporate agenda .
4. That entity starts labelling people "poisonous" that could hurt the
overall corporate agenda and mission andare on different opinionthen it
starts to systematically remove those individuals from the community.
As I see it all doubts, fears and uncertainty and relevant trust issue
between the community and corporate entity in this case Red Hat can only
be put to rest by doing either of two things.
Corporate entitles never can appoint positions in anything within the
community and this takes effect after the period for the current pointed
individuals runs out one by one.
( Red Hat continues to hire the FPL which has veto power which should
suffice for Red Hat to have legally and otherwise ).
All the cards regarding Red Hat and it's overall agenda are put faced up
on the table things being told as they are ( If those exist in the first
place ) and those community contributors that are willing to stay with
that hand and continue to work on/with the project can and those that do
not will leave and new contributors would know what they are signing up
for in the first place.
Now I've come and said
"the Board such as it exists is broken and can't function, and here's
specific reasons why, and specific actions to improve those reasons"
More information about the advisory-board