RE: Discussing issues

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Kendall Bennett wrote:

> "Rich Murphey" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> Initially I dind't focus on David at all, but lumped him in with the 
> group of XFree86 developers, simply stating that David just like everyone 
> else is (or at least has in the past) been paid by commercial enterprises 
> to work on XFree86. Since many have harped on the issue of 'vested 
> interests' taking over and controlling XFree86, I was simply trying to 
> point out that everyone has a vested interest in XFree86, many of them 
> commercial vested interests.

   This is a touchy subject Kendall.  Knowing David, I think you've
made a mistake lumping him into that category and I can see why
some people could be offended by that.  I know of only one incident,
long ago, when David let an employer take advantage of his position and 
I know that he regretted that incident, and I believe he's been trying to
make up for it ever since, even to the point of turning down
employment opportunities.

   I was paid by VA Linux systems to work on XFree86, but VA Linux
systems was a good company to work for.  They never tried to take
advantage of my position within XFree86, but rather, had the philosophy
of allowing people in the communty, like myself, to influence the
direction of VA.  VA was different from many other Linux companies
in that respect.  Given my experience with VA, I expect that David
working on XFree86 on VA's dollar was remarkably free of undue 
commercial interest.

   Don't nullify the effort people make to keep their judgments
free of commercial interest.  It's harder work that you think.


			Mark.