RE: Discussing issues

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kendall Bennett
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 8:55 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [forum] Discussing issues
> 
> 
> "Rich Murphey" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > You state issues very clearly, but cloud the status by stating your 
> > own situation as a norm for those in responsible positions within 
> > XFree86.  Your situation is not and has never been the norm for 
> > XFree86 officers.
> 
> Now you are clutching at straws and trying to put words into other 
> peoples mouths. I never said that my own situation is the norm for an 
> XFree86 officer. If you can point out where I said that, I would be 
> interested in rectifying that statement because that is not 
> what I said 
> or intended to say.

Then perhaps you can explain why you
repeatedly focus on David Dawes personal
finances and unemployment situation.  If
you're going to separate the issues do so.
As it is, you have repeatedly dragged David
Dawes into the discussion of vested interests
without any reason.

At this point I must ask, what is your
motivation for denigrating David Dawes
reputation or for assigning tungsten graphics
undue influence on decision-making within
XFree86?

> What I did say is that everyone involved in XFree86 has a 
> vested interest 
> of some sort, and that even some people currently on the BOD and core 
> team get paid by commercial interests to work on XFree86.

You insist on attributing this to others when you have no
direct knowledge and refuse to substantiate it.  That's bullshit.


> I 
> based that 
> statement solely on information available on the web, and like I said 
> before, if that information is wrong it should be corrected.

That information does not substantiate your claims.

> > If anyone has some evidence otherwise, I'm sure it can be resolved 
> > because XFree86 was forced into commercial independence at no small 
> > price and has always intended to maintain it.
> 
> Three questions that can be answered related to this:
> 
> 1. Does David Dawes own any stock in Tungten Graphics (does 
> he work for 
> them)?

OK, so you don't know anything about David
Dawes ownership of stock or whether he works
for Tungsten graphics.  How is it you are
able to make statements about David Dawes
motivation when you don't have any facts?

Since you don't know anything about David
Dawes relationship with tungsten graphics,
perhaps you can tell us what motivates you
regarding this.  Have you seen some evidence
that David Dawes has made decisions regarding
XFree86 that benefit tungsten graphics?

> 3. Does David Dawes get paid to do work on XFree86 by 
> Tungsten Graphics?

Geez, man, don't you even read the forum?  Go
back through the archives and you can see
evidence that whatever he get's paid for, he
has no choice where the bulk of his time is
spent.

> If the answer to either of those questions is 'yes', then David has a 
> vested interest in XFree86.

You have no evidence that either of
these are a "yes" so this is all about your
suspicions and you have yet to spend the
effort to substantiate them.

> But as I have said repeatedly, I don't
> believe that is a bad thing. Quite the
> contrary. People who can do good for
> XFree86 should have every right to find a
> job that will pay them to do what they do
> (as David did when he got paid to work
> fulltime on XFree86 by VA Linux).
> 

Again you seem to assume that these things
are true.  Since you have yet to substantiate
whether these things are true, it is moot
whether they're good or bad thing.

> What I am trying to say is that people need
> to understand that group of developers who
> maintain XFree86 are now made up of many
> developers who have vested interests in
> XFree86 because they get paid by commercial
> companies to work on it and contribute to
> it.

Ah, finally something we can agree on.  Yes,
there are many developers to get paid to work
on things that are then contributed by a
their employer to XFree86.  If this is a
separate issue unrelated to the influence of
commercial interests on decision-making in
XFree86.  If you disagree, please feel free
to correct me.

Rich