non-disclosure of infrastructure problem a management issue?

[Frank Cox]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:19:03 -0700
Bruce Byfield <bbyfield at axion.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 2008-08-24 at 13:41 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:27:47 -0800
> > Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >  the full details
> > > can not be publicly disclosed instantaneously due to legal constraint
> > 
> > This I simply don't understand.
> 
> Anybody who has had extensive dealings with lawyers knows that they tend
> to err on the side of caution at any time. When a publicly traded
> company is involved, that's even more true.

In this case, I think "err" is an appropriate word.

> Whether Red Hat and Fedora could have acted differently is a debatable
> point.

And we're debating it.

> 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.

-- 
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com