On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 12:27 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 09/16/2009 10:38 AM, Benjamin Franz wrote: > > R P Herrold wrote: > >> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, William Warren wrote: > >> > >> > >>> right now they don't HAVE to disclose as they do not have > >>> any kind of US based npo that would force them to do so. > >>> We can inquire all we want to but they don't have to answer > >>> anything. > >>> > >> > >> 'they' who run a non profit under US law of which I am aware > >> have no general obligation to give the time of day to anyoue > >> -- Feel free to ask at the local Elk's lodge about their back > >> room poker party profits, and I am pretty sure you'll get a > >> tossed out on your ear > >> > > > > [...] > > > > This isn't about law anyway: It's about trust. > > > > For CentOS to continue to be a success, trust has to be maintained. > > Without trust, resources and community will disappear. > > > > I like CentOS. It meets my needs just about perfectly with its balance > > of stability and features (not to mention price ;) ). Don't take this as > > criticism of what has been a hugely successful enterprise. There are > > many people like myself who will be willing to donate more > > time/money/equipment/resources once a better level of transparency has > > been achieved. I am confident that it will be. The CentOS team seems to > > be working hard on it and I expect that it will just be a matter of > > time. I trust them, and I am grateful to them for the work they have > > done and continue to do. > > > > But, it is unhelpful when egos get in the way of communication. Lashing > > out at people who want to know what steps towards transparency are being > > taken just alienates the community. The FOSS community is well known for > > its tendency to eat its young. Try not to give in to the impulse, no > > matter how irritating, or even ungrateful, the questions can seem. > > > > ;) > > > I STILL do not understand why anyone would care what CentOS does with > money donated by people who used the product and wanted to donate. > > If we were having wild beer parties every week ... as long as the > packages are built, compared, signed, and released on time, what > difference does it make? > > If you don't trust the organization, then how in the world do you use > it's software. > > If you do trust the software, then what difference does it make how > money is spent or saved? > > You trust us enough to use our software for free ... but not enough to > donate? Then so be it ... that is what open source is all about. > > But open source is NOT about the users running the company. It is about > software freedom. I didn't raise the issue, but I can certainly understand people wanting to donate to support the resources that support the effort, which *may* include wild beer parties every night. But maybe some are interested in knowing that most dollars are used as *they* had in mind when they sent the donation. To understand *that* attitude does not seem hard to me. I understand your, but don't happen to agrre that it is *the* proper view. > <snip sig stuff> -- Bill