[TriLUG] META - Red Hat Censorship? (was: TriLUG Venue)
clubjuggler at gmail.com
Mon Aug 13 17:11:46 EDT 2007
On 8/13/07, Matt Frye <mattfrye at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 8/13/07, Magnus <magnus at trilug.org> wrote:
> > >> What about the Google speaker that they did not want to have at RHT HQ?
> > Matt Frye wrote:
> > > It was actually Red Hat who refused to allow a Google speaker. They
> > > don't want what is effectively a Google recruiting event in their
> > > building.
> On 8/13/07, Mark Turner <markt at siteseers.net> wrote:
> > Whoa, whoa, whoa! Red Hat vetoed a speaker from Google? Isn't Red Hat
> > supposed to be a company that values freedom of speech?
> > Am I the only one who has a problem with this?
No, you're not.
> Dude, you're way off base. Consider the following:
> 1) Red Hat is nice enough to sponsor our meetings every month. They
> don't have to. We don't pay them. They just do it because it's nice.
> It's basically a donation. Red Hat has every right to say "No,
They do, but as I stated in my previous message, being able to do
whatever we wanted in our regular meetings was a prerequisite for
us moving to the space. If that has changed now, that is a problem.
> 2) This wouldn't have been a regular meeting. It would have been a
> Google sponsored event complete with schwag, etc. Google sees this as
> a recruiting opportunity for Lenoir. Again, Red Hat has every right
> to say "No, thanks."
Would this have been a regular monthly meeting or a special meeting?
If it was a special meeting, then that's different. If it would have been
a regular meeting, then that's a problem.
Of course, TriLUG, in the past, has refused companies offers of
speakers when we thought it would just be a sales pitch. I personally
don't want to come to a LUG meeting to see a sales pitch. However,
if Google wanted to send a linux engineer to talk about linux stuff,
that would be different. We got Oracle to do that several years ago
and it went over very well.
> 3) Google has essentially dropped the ball on this event, so it looks
> like it's not going to happen anyway.
> 4) Red Hat has no editorial control over our content. Remember the
> Jeff Waugh meeting?
Matt, your last statement seems a bit at odds with your previous statements.
Could you please explain more. How exactly does "no editorial control"
match with Red Hat saying "no thanks" to us holding a LUG meeting?
clubjuggler at gmail dot com
(fieldless) In fess two roundels in pale, a billet fesswise and an
increscent, all sable.
More information about the TriLUG