Revolution RUMORS!

[David Burgun]

On 14 Feb 2006, at 02:13, Phil Davis wrote:

> Kay C Lan wrote:
>> On 2/14/06, Heather Nagey <heather at runrev.com> wrote:
>>> Dear list folks,
>>>
>>> I regret that Richmond is back  on the moderated list - he won't be
>>> able to post without approval.
>> I would hope that now that 2.7 is 'Official' that Richmond's time  
>> in the
>> corner may be over. I agree with a few others here that Richmond's  
>> act was
>> not so much a case of intentional hacking but merely an indication  
>> that he
>> is more curious than most.
>> Curiosity may have moderated the cat, but let's face it, the cat's  
>> now out
>> of the bag:-)
>
>
> My two cents' worth:
>
> Curiosity is no excuse for taking license with someone else's  
> property. Richmond circumvented RunRev's control of their own  
> product marketing activities. If he had done that in an employment  
> context, it could even be considered an offense worthy of  
> dismissal. As I see it, RunRev will be completely justified even if  
> they decide to never let him back on the list.

All he did was to press the cancel key, the only action that was  
available to him unless he wanted to Command+Option+Escape his way  
out of the page and thereby lose whatever else was open in the  
Browser. I also fail to see how he "circumvented RunRev's control of  
their own product marketing activities", it's clear from that fact  
that he managed to do what he did with very little effort that they  
didn't have "control" to start with.

In the case he were employed then RunRev would have been paying him a  
salary, that's why they may have dismissed him, e.g. paying him to  
keep his mouth shut. Since (I assume) they are not paying him  
anything, I hardly see that he owes them anything. In fact, since  
presumably he pays RunRev a license fee and promotes their products,  
he could be argued that RunRev in fact owe him he the duty to keep a  
functioning website or at least to keep him and the other developers  
informed of what is going on and not just "go silent" for a few days  
at a time.

> Think of it this way: What if it had been your company, your  
> product, your marketing he compromised? How would you feel?

If it had been my Company then I would have had more consideration  
for my developers and would have kept them better informed of what  
was going on with the product(s) that they had put their faith in and  
invested time and money on. Also if I'd made such a hash of "keeping  
the cat in the bag (pipe?)" then I'd have felt embarrassed and a bit  
annoyed I suppose, but I'd like to think that I'd have been grown up  
enough to realize where the real fault lay and not let pride get in  
the way of sense and fair play.

All the Best
Dave