Corporate sponsorship ( was Re: Going passive )

"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg at
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 mailing list