Eric S. Raymond writes on his blog: "There's been a lot of debate in the community about how OSI should properly handle Microsoft's planned submission of some of its licenses for OSD certification. That debate has been been going on within OSI, too. OSI's official position, from the beginning, which I helped formulate and have expressed to any number of reporters and analysts, is that OSI will treat any licenses submitted to Microsoft strictly on their merits, without fear or favor. That remains OSI's position. But I find that my resolve is being sorely tested."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-02
Who's throwing a tantrum, here? The whole affair is already behind me. You're the one who keeps bringing it up.
As for calling her a shill, I have expressed my suspicions. It's a free country, and expressing doubt at someone's true nature is not the same as saying "she works for so-and-so, and I have proof of it." If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's not out of line to state one's suspicions that it *might* be a duck. People have wondered before if I wasn't an IBM shill, on this very web site, and I'm fine with that.
Again, I apologized if you thought I was rude. Maybe I was. Frankly, I don't care that much - MollyC hasn't been above making derogatory comments about FOSS advocates herself. I think you're making too big a thing out of this.
You may respond if you want, but personally that's all I have to say about the matter.
Member since:2005-07-24
I'm gonna defend Archie on this one. His original post was a question. It did not get answered for some time. I got frustrated about that and forced the issue. My bad. Molly answered. And the *only* respectful thing that we can do is to accept that response.
I believe that Archie also feels that way. Perhaps a bit grudgingly.
If a PR agent paid by client did show up here, advocating their client, and did not disclose that fact , I *would* have reservations about his ethics. If he actively denied his true identity, and then was shown to be, in fact, a PR agent paid by a client to advocate that client, I would take a very dim view. We may disagree on that point.
If he were simply a Microsoft employee advocating for Microsoft, I would say that it was his choice to disclose or not. But a paid PR agent engaging in astroturfing? Archie was right to bring up his suspicions.
But in the absence of hard evidence, I think we are all pretty much in agreement that the matter should be dropped.
Member since:2005-07-06
But in the absence of hard evidence, I think we are all pretty much in agreement that the matter should be dropped.
In the absence of any real evidence, it shouldn't be raised in the first place. All raising suspicions does, with no real evidence to back it up, is to serve to discredit the other person.
Member since:2006-12-28
To some extend I agree with the astroturfing argument, but archie never had a shred of evidence to support his claims and even admited to using the claims as a tool in his arguments.
Both archie and molly have been posting on this site for a while and I consider that alone to be reason enough not to consider either a shill. In my experiance, shills don't hang around.
To try and discredit someone because you don't agree with them is bad enough. To then act all blasé about it and pretend like 'it ain't sh*t' is pretty sad really.
Member since:
2006-12-28
Just because you end up with egg on your face does not mean that you shouldn't take responsibility for your actions.
You did call her a shill, on several occasions and calling someone a shill is calling someone names. I have no issue with you being rude or not, just not to happy with you not wanting to take the rap.
As you so fervently pointed out, the internet is a public medium. Coming across PR firms doing they're jobs is just one of the risks of participating in online forum.
You can throw a temper tantrum my way if it makes you feel better, I don't really care. I just find it in bad taste.