non-disclosure of infrastructure problem a management issue?

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Russell Miller <duskglow at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think (and it's just my opinion) that most here would simmer down and be
> content if they were at least sure that RedHat had taken the community into
> consideration and that there were valid concerns that trumped that.

And how exactly do you propose as a mechanism to 'to be sure' that
community was considered?  What is it gonna take, having a randomly
selected user shadow the CEO every day making sure he's not penning an
internal memo that specifically reads "everyone, think of 10 ways to
screw the Fedora users today..and have the lists on my desk by 5 pm
sharp or you will get docked an hour's pay." The fact that Paul was
hired out of the at-large community specifically to be the FPL lead,
because he was active in the community, instead of shuffling the
deckchairs inside Red Hat  doesn't say enough about Red Hat's
commitment to community consideration? Paul suddenly became the enemy
of community when before he was hired he was its champion? Honestly I
don't know of anything more significant than that that a corporate
entity can do to show they are committed to the community.  There is
absolutely no question in my mind that Red Hat thinks about community
when its making decisions which impact Fedora. None. Call me a shill
if you like. But I'm sitting here outside the fenceline and I'm not
going to walk away over this.

Did we have a communication problem? Maybe. But communication problems
are not equivalent to trust issues.    But considering that was a
first of its kind  event for us as a project, I don't think its
necessarily unexpected to see some miscommunication. I don't think any
of us, either inside Red Hat or outside had talked through how this
sort of thing should be handled.  I don't remember a serious public
discussion about how to deal with communication of an event like this
before having an event like this. And I'm not going to let the
assumption stand that to do things differently should have been
obvious to those in a position to deal with the information.  We
aren't going to get anywhere by wringing our hands at how this
specific was (mis)handled.  Certainly attempting to assign blame
towards someone as to miscommunication isn't going to help with the
dialogue that should happen to prevent future miscommunication.
If people want things to be better, if god forbid something like this
happens again, then a serious effort to write a communication process
has to be written up and it must be agreeable to legal as a workable
process that won't set off any legal liability landmines.


-jef"I keep coming back to thinking of Fedora project as a marriage
between Red Hat and the community... and in that light comparing it to
the day to day workings of my own marriage.  Miscommunications happen.
What is obvious to one spouse, isn't so to the other. But when I am
miscommunicated to, I don't assume it was done out of malice or
neglect or a disregard for my feelings. Miscommunications happen
because different people have different priorities and thus see things
in different ways, its as simple as that. But when it happens, and
when its over something that is important to me..which truthfully is
pretty much every little thing...then I make the effort to better
communicate my own point of view and expectations in a way that is
attempts to show sincere interest in better communication.  Instead of
in a way that is biased with frustration, anger or
entitlement...instead of assuming that the other person in the
partnership should just automatically know where I'm coming from.  In
that way I don't think its fair to automatically assume that everyone
who Paul has to deal with inside Red Hat automatically 'gets it' when
it comes to the needs of the community. Not because they don't believe
in the community..but because they focus primarily on the needs of the
corporation and so prioritize things differently.  And its not going
to help Paul make his case if we hammer at this issue from the
community side with frustration, anger and entitlement.  We have to
find a more sincere positive voice to communicate the process we'd
like to see, and we have to communicate a process that addresses what
we perceive are the roadblocks to disclosure from the corporate point
of view. "spaleta