How are we protected from outside lobbyists?

[cl333r]

Hi folks,
the title is the question.
This issue is actually critical for a company that widely takes decisions based on feedback from its open source community.
Simple example (but there are more complex ones):
I noticed here and on the ubuntu brainstorm site enough (imo) good ideas being disposed by not saying why the idea is bad but because "Linux is not windows" and other sneaky tactics and reasons.

Taking into consideration companies (like Microsoft) who have been found guilty for lobbying at high and low levels their interests in different areas and companies - does Canonical admit there are/might be lobbyists and if so, how does it deal/fight with these issue(s)?

[handy]

It's the inside lobbyists that you have to watch out for.

The ones that carefully straddle the CoC so as not to get banned or have their threads banished to the bureaucratic oblivion.

Like me! :-D :lolflag:

[cl333r]

I appreciate your humor but I'd also like a link to some resource that shows that Canonical has an official opinion on this.

[UbuKunubi]

Perhaps protection is not required because most reasonable folk can tell the difference between a valid post and attempts to use threads and posts to bury ideas and suggestions.

On the other hand, if you see a thread being subverted by lobbyists, then action will speak louder than posts and use the report facility?

Im interested in this because i see a lot of such activity not just here but in so many other places where any linux story attracts FUD, and/or burying by nonsense.

[handy]

Personally, I think that the IQ of the Canonical administration is high enough, & that their view is also broad & far reaching, to the point that they will not allow themselves to be conned.

[red_Marvin]

A good argument or suggestion, should be met based on itself alone, not on who wrote it.
If it is good, take a note of the suggestion.
If it is not, ignore it.

[cl333r]

Personally, I think that the IQ of the Canonical administration is high enough, & that their view is also broad & far reaching, to the point that they will not allow themselves to be conned.

I think every company thinks it has a "high enough IQ", nonetheless many of them get "conned".



A good argument or suggestion, should be met based on itself alone, not on who wrote it.

Of course, but that doesn't apply to polls and perhaps other issues I might be missing.

I'd still like to know whether Canonical ever touched this subject.

[Sporkman]

That would be more of an issue if open source development were more centralized & controlled, so that you could get more leverage in your opinion influencing. However, it seems to me that open source development is so decentralized, with basically various project groups doing whatever they want (please refute if I'm way off), stealth lobbying efforts wouldn't be worth the money.

The best way for open source opponents to use lobbying would be to influence the opinions of those who pay for software & software services (via FUD, etc), and to influence lawmakers to craft laws that are beneficial to proprietary software & that hinder (or even criminalize) open source software & its adoption.

One interesting example of lobbying, if I'm not mistaken, was Intel getting itself onto the OLPC board, then (allegedly) using its influence on that board to dissuade potential OLPC customers from choosing OLPC (please refute if I'm mistaken here).

[BuffaloX]

I see quite a bit advocating for Microsoft and Apple.
This may be authentic users, who just also like their other OS,
but sometimes I wonder.

[handy]

I think every company thinks it has a "high enough IQ", nonetheless many of them get "conned".

I agree, but I was referring to Canonical.

We can all wobble a little when involved in a project, especially a complex one. So long as we don't let our ego's stop us from accepting that we may have made a mistake, we don't have to go very far down an inferior path.

Having 6 month version cycles for Ubuntu helps, as there would be constant review & there is always plenty of real live feedback going on in the forums.

[red_Marvin]

Of course, but that doesn't apply to polls and perhaps other issues I might be missing.

Yes, that would be a problem, anybody could press a vote button for any reason. I'm not sure that it is possible to protect oneself from such a case, unless you know those who vote.

[BuffaloX]

This article proves that Microsoft does some pretty shady stuff to ruin competition.

http://boycottnovell.com/2009/02/08/microsoft-evilness-galore/