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 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Johnny Hughes<johnny at centos.org> 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.