On 14 Feb 2006, at 02:13, Phil Davis wrote:
Kay C Lan wrote:
On 2/14/06, Heather Nagey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
