On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 21:15 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Akemi Yagi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Jim Perrin<jperrin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Johnny Hughes<johnny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >>> Why ... we are under no obligation to tell people how how we spend
> >>> monies. There are costs that are incurred for any organization. We are
> >>> probably going to disclose how monies are spent in the future because we
> >>> choose to. If you run a private organization, must you tell me how you
> >>> spend your money? You get an OS and can chose to donate monies or not.
> >> We're not under any obligation to tell people how the money gets
> >> spent, but doing so certainly goes a long way building good will. In
> >> my opinion, a simple 'We got X monies in donations which were used to
> >> purchase dedicated hosting, bandwidth, and various novelties for booth
> >> and show kit' once in a while would do worlds of good for showing
> >> people how we use the money they choose to give us.
> >>
> >> I don't have any legal obligation to help old ladies cross the street,
> >> or rescue cats from trees. It's what you do because you're a good
> >> person. Doing this in a community sense is what makes you a good
> >> neighbor, and what helps build community reputation.
> >
> > I have to agree with Jim here. It is not legal obligation or
> > anything. IF I am running a project and ask the community for help and
> > I receive donations (monetary or in the form of thousands of donated
> > hours), I would feel obliged to return back to the community. And in
> > doing so, I would want to disclose everything. Once again, this is
> > not due to any legal requirements but because I would feel the project
> > is no longer my private toy and I owe the community.
> >
> >>> We are hiding nothing ... why exactly does CentOS need to provide that
> >>> information to you?
> >
> >> Thinking that this is entirely an internal manner is a bit
> >> short-sighted. Keeping all the problems internal doesn't solve them.
> >> Not to speak for Dag, but judging by his blog reaction to the news,
> >> the finance issue and lack of openness is part of what drove his
> >> departure. If we move to adopt a slightly more open approach and
> >> include more community efforts, I believe that we'll see a great deal
> >> of good from it.
> >>
> >> It's not that we OWE the community anything. It's that we should do it
> >> because it's how we want to be treated, and how we SHOULD deal with
> >> them while we participate in the project.
> >
> > I mostly agree with Jim. As I wrote above, if this was my project, I
> > would feel I *owe* the community. But that is strictly my personal
> > feelings. I cannot imagine how I can ever pay back if those who
> > donated their time ask for refund. :)
>
> Actually, I agree with Jim too :)
>
> We will likely do all or most of these things because we want to do so,
> but not because we have too.
>
> My point was that we wanted to give someone the benefit of the doubt
> because we were trying to do right by him too ... now we (as a group)
> think we need to do something differently, and we will. Regardless of
> what else we do, we still have to acknowledge that without Lance, there
> would have been no CentOS at all ... and because of that we probably
> waited to long to push this issue. However, we did it because of good
> intentions and hopes of someone doing the right thing, not to hide
> anything.
----
totally agree and just want to add one more thing...I am very happy to
see Johnny posting to this list. It has been a long time and I hope you
are well.
Craig
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
