Hi Sam & Alex, Just a quick note on conflicts on interest since I'm the one who dragged that label into the conversation--though the concept was implicitly present already.
At 2026-08-01T15:38:42+0100, Sam James wrote: > Alejandro Colomar <[email protected]> writes: > > FWIW, regarding the possible conflict of interest that was mentioned > > yesterday, I'll say that I don't get paid for my contributions to > > ISO C as a member of WG14. There's no benefit to me other than > > public recognition. I'll also disclose the exact quantity that I've > > been paid for maintaining the Linux man-pages project: > > You can have a conflict of interest in responsibliity without money > being involved. In fact, I have never believed you were influenced by > money, Sam makes a good point, and Alex, I think you overlooked one. Disclosure of the quantity of your compensation as Linux man-pages maintainer is of less importance than _who_ sponsored your work. When we're speaking of currency, yes, quantity eventually has a quality all its own. But knowing who's been signing the checks is almost always the more valuable information because it tells us who is in a position to expect favorable treatment. Sometimes that's because the parties negotiate a quid pro quo, but more often sponsors can count on "self-regulation" by their beneficiaries. Money men understand that people's minds and uncritical loyalties can often be bought cheaply. Free your mind and something else will follow, I think someone said. Here's a backgrounder that's less antiseptic than a corporate ethics slide deck training module on conflicts of interest. https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-complaints-sparked-resignation-fears-scotus Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
