PJ gets a day job [LWN.net]

PJ gets a day job

Posted Feb 4, 2004 18:46 UTC (Wed) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link]

This new job could put PJ in an awkward position, if her employer's interest is to persuade people that they need indemnification insurance if they run open source software.

True -- only if her title was "Director of Sales and Marketing." But as Director of Litigation Risk Research, there is no promotion for or against indemnification implied.

That has hardly been the GrokLaw party line up to now.

Are you saying that PJ has changed her position on indemnification? Are you accussing her of changing her opinion because of a new employment position? Got anything to backup the insinuations?

That an organization has hired a researcher to head up research related to its field is not in any way surprising. What would be surprising is if they had hired someone else!

Research is subject to peer review. You can't fake it. People can draw different conclusions but the underlying research is not opinion.

There is no conflict of interest for PJ to continue what she has been doing while getting paid to do it. Otherwise no researcher should ever receive a paycheck from an interested organization, which means scientists would become unpaid researchers in order to be seen as credible. Hardly reasonable.

PJ gets a day job

Posted Feb 4, 2004 22:14 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

You seem a bit touchy about this. Do you have enough information about
her new job to know there won't be a conflict of interest? It seems to
me like there is a possibility. PJ certainly hasn't said anything about
changing her position on indemnification but that doesn't mean there
isn't the possibility of a conflict. Having said that I also have enough
trust in her based on Groklaw that it won't become a problem.

PJ gets a day job

Posted Feb 4, 2004 22:45 UTC (Wed) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link]

Do you have enough information about her new job to know there won't be a conflict of interest?

Do you have enough evidence to prove you aren't going to commit a felony tomorrow? Then how could you argue passionately aginst me if I told everyone I was worried that you might commit a felony tomorrow, and in fact, felt it was possible you could join the ranks of felons? Are you ready to mount a defense that it is NOT possible for you to commit a felony tomorrow?

Gee, it doesn't seem fair to associate a person with a negative action just because a thing is "possible" does it? In fact, it seems likely that vague "possible" infractions could be seen as causing harm to one's reputation. Perhaps, then, before casting aspersions on one's character a higher standard of proof is required than "possible." How about "likely" or fitting with one's pattern of behavior.

According to the standards of what PJ is likely to do based upon her pattern of behavior to date, yes, I think I have enough information to surmise there will not be a conflict of interest for her to continue her research as a paid researcher.

What's that trite, old-fashioned phrase? ...oh yes... "innocent until proven guilty."

PJ gets a day job

Posted Feb 4, 2004 23:24 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

A conflict of interest is not a crime. It is something which is best to
avoid though. And a conflict of interest is not an act and does not
depend on the character of the person who might be put in a position of
conflict. Please re-read the original post you responded to and also my
post. Especially look at the last portion of my post where I specifically
say I trust PJ not to do the wrong thing. But that's not the same as
saying there is no conflict of interest.

PJ gets a day job

Posted Feb 5, 2004 0:21 UTC (Thu) by mdekkers (guest, #85) [Link]

dude, take a chill-pill. I don't read anybody here as saying or insinuating anything at all against PJ. Relax, take it easy....

PJ gets a day job

Posted Feb 5, 2004 7:36 UTC (Thu) by TimCunningham (guest, #10316) [Link]

>Are you saying that PJ has changed her position on indemnification? Are you >accussing her of changing her opinion because of a new employment position?

Nope, no one said that. Time to re-read what was said, I suppose.

PJ gets a day job

Posted Feb 4, 2004 19:41 UTC (Wed) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link]

That has hardly been the GrokLaw party line up to now.

To clarify, here is a direct quote from PJ:

Here's my message to IBM and Red Hat on the subject of indemnification: Please don't offer indemnification across the board. If a corporate customer wants it and wishes to pay for it individually, go right ahead. But I don't want it. I don't need it. Openness is my indemnification anyway. I especially don't want you to offer it in the current circumstances.

PJ's opinion on indemnification, as expressed in Groklaw, has been quite consistent: nobody really needs it, and it can do more harm than good, especially when it is linked to a restriction of the user's freedom.

So you're right -- it would put PJ in a spot if her employer wanted her to talk people into getting indemnification. But it would be ... ummm ... astonishing if she were to accept a job under those conditions.

And while I'm in the posting mood ...

Posted Feb 4, 2004 19:57 UTC (Wed) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link]

PJ herself has herself explained, in the press release cited above, why there is no conflict between Groklaw's position and her new duties:

I see a need for low-cost vendor-neutral protection that will at the same time make it possible to allow continued free modification of the code. No one else has successfully done so. I believe OSRM has come up with the right answer.

It is important to distinguish between indemnification offered by a vendor, often with strings attached, and defense insurance supplied by a third party. PJ is right -- the latter alternative affords some protection for those who need it, without taking away the freedom to modify or furnishing SCO with a target of opportunity.