non-disclosure of infrastructure problem a management issue?

[max bianco]

2008/8/24 Björn Persson <bjorn at xn--rombobjrn-67a.se>:
> max wrote:
>> If you and others want to insist that it was
>> just not wanting to own up to the incident
>
> It doesn't seem likely that that was the reason. If they didn't want to admit
> that there had been an intrusion, then I don't think they would have sent out
> any warning at all. They did try to get a warning out, but they didn't want
> to say that it was about security. I don't know if they thought that
> everybody would be able to read between the lines, or if they thought that
> people wouldn't understand but would stop updating without knowing why, but
> either way I don't understand why they didn't tell us clearly what it was
> they were trying to warn us about.
>
>> then I have to assume you
>> don't trust the Fedora Project.
>
> I did trust the Fedora project. Now I'm not so sure anymore.
>
>> The only thing that's been made clear is that the Fedora
>> Project has a number of users who take it for granted.
>
> Take what for granted? The Fedora project's existence? Its security? Its
> openness? Yes, maybe I did take its openness for granted. There's been a lot
> of talk about openness and having the community involved on equal terms. I
> guess I believed it.
>
>> > Can you answer the opposite question: Why the cryptic message? Can you
>> > think of a rational reason to avoid the word "security"? Something more
>> > concrete than just "legal issues"?
>>
>> Once again we don't know the constraints imposed on them. Some are
>> certainly caused by legal issues and what remains an on going
>> investigation. Your opinion of US law is irrelevant, I've had my issues
>> with it before as well but the law is the law. The point is that we
>> don't have all the facts.
>
> In other words, no, you can't think of a plausible reason either.
>

and I have the sense not to speculate without the full facts. Why is
giving Fedora the benefit of the doubt so hard?

>> The more important point is that you have used
>> half the facts to indict Paul Frields.
>
> I have not accused Paul Frields of a crime. I pointed out that the extreme

you called him a liar. Laws can be silly and violating a silly law ,
if it is in fact silly, is still a crime officially.
Calling someone a liar isn't a crime but its worse than withholding
information, especially when you don't know what he is or isn't at
liberty to discuss. This also involves Red Hat and not the Fedora
Project alone.

> vagueness of his announcements, which he claimed had the purpose of avoiding
> the impression that he wasn't truthful, actually had the opposite effect on
> me. That's a failure to some degree if his intentions were honest. It's not a
> crime. I have also left the possibility open that someone else may have given
> him orders.
>
You called him a liar

> I didn't use anywhere near half the facts. I used two facts: That the issue
> was a security issue, and that this was not clearly stated in the first
> announcement.
>
Your right I gave you too much credit when I said half the facts.

>> you have rushed to judgement before a
>> reasonable amount of time has been given to carry out the investigation.
>
> This is not about how long the investigation takes. It's about the lack of the
> word "security" in the first announcement. I fully understand that the
> investigation takes time. It did not, however, take this long to find out
> that the issue was a security issue. If you think I'm complaining that the
> investigation takes too long, then you haven't read what I've written.
>
The only issue I have with anything you've said is your assertion that
Paul Frields intentionally deceived us. You made this statement
without being fully acquainted with the facts, we still do not have
them all. If you think I have no issues with how this was handled then
how about I accuse you of being obtuse. i have no interest in debating
it further, say what you will, you made an error in judgment.


-- 
Sometimes I wonder if God has a sense of humor.....then I see the
coverage of the 2008 campaign and I know for sure God has a great
sense of humor!!