[TriLUG] META - Red Hat Censorship? (was: TriLUG Venue)

[Tanner Lovelace]

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,
> thanks."

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?

Tanner
-- 
Tanner Lovelace
clubjuggler at gmail dot com
http://wtl.wayfarer.org/
(fieldless) In fess two roundels in pale, a billet fesswise and an
increscent, all sable.