"Adam Lang" <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com> writes:
> I wasn't judging. I was mentioning to others what the concerns probably
> were. Also, it isn't a concern of "Company B" taking over. It is of the
> possibility of development put in the direction that best benefits of
> Company B as opposed to the project itself.
> ...
> It is merely a conflict of interest issue.
Right, exactly. That was why we originally suggested putting a limit on
the number of core members employed by any one company: to reduce both
the actual and perceived potential for core decisions being taken in a
way that is more for the benefit of some company than for the project as
a whole.
I am not sure that the *real* potential for bad choices is all that
high. I think all the core members understand very well that we are
stewards of a shared resource, and in the long run decisions counter
to the community-wide best interest will also not be in the best
interest of our companies. But it's also important that the rest of
the PG community *perceive* that core decisions are well-founded.
However, given recent events the original two-of-six idea isn't feasible
any more --- and certainly none of us were going to tell Bruce that he
couldn't take that job because that'd make three GB employees on core.
So the question is, what do we do now?
regards, tom lane