Bruce Perens and the OSI board [LWN.net]

Bruce Perens and the OSI board

Posted Mar 25, 2008 6:18 UTC (Tue) by ekj (subscriber, #1524)
Parent article: Bruce Perens and the OSI board

The tone of this article is hopeless. You should atleast be PRETENDING that you are presenting
the subject, rather than doing PR-work for your own personal pet-opinion on the issue.

One may think that having Bruce onboard would be a good or a bad thing, it's perfectly fine to
disagree. But I don't like personal attacks, and a lot of this article reads as that.

Words are loaded. Troughout Bruce "claims" this and that, whereas people who disagrees with
him "state" stuff. And what's up with "signatures" in quotes ? What makes them so-called ?
That they're online ? Most signature-lists mentioned on Lwn are so, that's nothing special, I
see no reason to question that (unless one had evidence of stuffing or suchlike, but such
ain't mentioned in the article)

Choose of quotes is also heavly weighted. Of 7 large quotes, only one is from Bruce, or
someone who supports his candidancy, and that single one is then strongly argued against.
(with other quotes and article-text)

As this article stands, it should be relabeled: "Why Jake Edge thinks that Bruce Perens would
be bad for the OSI-board".

(Log in to post comments)

Bruce Perens and the OSI board

Posted Mar 27, 2008 6:08 UTC (Thu) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link]

I'd have to agree here. Far too much editorialising, and nowhere near the objectivity of
presentation that one has come to expect from LWN. Whatever you think of Perens, you have no
excuse for not being at least as even-handed about him as LWN was about Jeff Waugh recently
(and Perens doesn't have a queue of people lining up to essentially describe him as a
sociopath)... and you really weren't, here.