* Tim <ignored_mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [20080825 11:16]: > Jeff Spaleta: > >>> communication problems are not equivalent to trust issues. > > Tim: > >> To many, they are. *some* see it that way, the majority do not. > Jeff Spaleta: > > Those people are wrong > > In your opinion... I say that you're quite wrong about trying to > disassociate the two of them. You are attempting to equate communication blips with distrust. The equal sign is wrong. You can say "leads to", but that is a process that takes time. If you automatically distrust someone the first time there is a communication blip... Well, I'd say its *you* who have the problem. > Being upfront and honest is what engenders trust. Being cagey, even if > not being dishonest, breeds distrust. Seriously, people do not trust > someone who keeps things from them. Why do you find that hard to > understand? Why is it that some people are finding it so hard to take onboard the details at hand about the situation. This does not just affect Fedora, it affected Red Hat as well. As been pointed out, Red Hat is a corporation with certain expectations and legal obligations for what to do and how to act in a situation like this. Once the Law gets involved, you also add a whole new layer of complexity to the situation. Using the term "cagey" is IMNSHO inappropriate here. I doubt that anyone here on the list (especially the really vocal lot, the ones baying for blood) would have done even remotely as well considering the circumstances had they been in Paul's seat at the time. Throughout investigations, information is made available *when appropriate* so as not to endanger the investigation (letting the perp off on a technicality). Screaming about community, right to know or open source don't make you any more likely to get information out of a criminal investigation any earlier. /Anders -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
