non-disclosure of infrastructure problem a management issue?

[Russell Miller]

Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 22:09:09 +0200,
>   Anders Karlsson <anders at trudheim.co.uk> wrote:
>   
>> You do not need to understand, you just need to accept that this is
>> the case.
>>     
>
> In theory at least, Fedora is an open project and we don't have to just
> accept the status quo. If it isn't actually an open project then it would
> be nice to know that to as accurate information will help people make
> better decisions on whether or not to participate in the project.
>   
I think that's reasonable.  This is a standard I hold myself at and even 
my manager to (which I think he appreciates).  I can go along with 
something I don't agree with, but I want to at least know that there is 
a legitimate reason for the action.  In a situation that relies on 
"volunteers" from the "community", even if it's headed up by a 
corporation, that expectation is 10 times as valid, because there's no 
money involved to make it easier to stomach.

In other words:  Keep it close to the chest and alienate the community, 
or be open and make the community happy.  It's RedHat's choice to make, 
but it's not one to be made likely and not one to be made without due 
consideration of the costs involved - and for either choice, there 
*will* be costs.

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.  Considering that there are people in the community who 
put a lot of time and effort into maintaining Fedora, that is, in my 
mind, an eminently reasonable position.

--Russell