[notacoward]

> Poettering, Sievers, and Drepper

Three employees among thousands, representing two projects out of hundreds. Why generalize from that sample? Why ignore all those contributions to the Linux kernel or Fedora, OpenStack or Kubernetes, gcc or coreutils? Some pretty good leaders in there. And if "creating leaders" is supposed to be how we judge companies, what should we make of much larger companies where few employees engage with the community at all? I don't even mean unpopular companies like Microsoft or Oracle. What about Google, for example, or Apple? When it comes to community leadership, they're net negatives; existing leaders go in, and are never heard from again. When every single developer at a billion-dollar-a-year software company is engaged with some open-source community or other (often several), there will be a few losers. That's a poor reason to insult thousands of others.

[digi_owl]

The way i see it is not so much the individuals, but that so much of the traffic between them happens within the corporate realm that by the time it hits the public repositories they have all agreed on some iron clad world view.

The whole thing reminds me of how priests and monks would debate the number of angles that could dance on the head of a pin.