The-Source.com

Even more analysis of some areas of the CodePlex Foundation.

One of the interesting things about this modern age is that you get to see all sorts of viewpoints on issues, some of which may even be interesting!

I’m not so alone

Consider The Standard Blog‘s take on the CodePlex Foundation. I like this blog a lot (even if it does get a bit wonk-ish sometimes). Here are some portions of that entry that raised some points for me:

While it’s good that Microsoft is willing to provide so much economic support in times like these, it’s not helpful in building trust that the organization really will be independent and neutral. For better or worse, if all of the money and all of the staff come from one company, it will be hard for most folks to believe that CodePlex it will really be neutral in action.

As always, when I say it, it’s because I’m Nutty McNutter the Nutty Zealot, so it’s nice to hear that it is absolutely reasonable to be skeptical of a commercial “Foundation” where all of the money and the super-majority of the staff come from one company.

I mean, I know it, you know it, and the American people know it, but ad hominem somehow became everyone’s favorite party game rather than a logical fallacy when I wasn’t looking.

A “rounding error”

One point I’d like to make here though is that $1M is not “so much economic support”. That is very small potatoes indeed if you view actions like the CodePlex Foundation through a “Good PR, No Substance” lens. Microsoft paid Jerry Seinfeld 10 times that much for that horrible commerical – the budget for the entire campaign was 300 times that much!

$1M would be significant economic support if it were a no-strings-attached anonymous contribution or something along those lines. However, $1M is bargain-basement for a good PR and a bit of good press.

Perhaps most significantly, when you go through the formation documents in greater detail, you also start running into “gotchas.” Some of these can be easily changed, and perhaps were meant to be open for discussion.

Quite right! One of the things I find strange is that people seem to be not only ignoring “gotchas”, but ascribing higher ideals to Microsoft for no apparent reason whatsoever. I’ll be the first to admit (as if it were necessary) that my default position is “distrust Microsoft”, but I’m often startled by those who take the “Microsoft is really doing good” over even a more neutral “wait and see” position!

To me, when someone starts heralding Microsoft – it instantly raises astroturf / shill suspicions in my mind. Automatic acceptance and praise not only puts aside natural and justified skepticism, but it also skips right over “wait and see” into fanboy-land. I do not see how that is an intellectually honest position to take.

Visit the man

I strongly suggest you visit the blog and read more. There is detailed and informed analysis along with clear recommendations on how Microsoft could have set things up.

Parting wisdom

A final point to make: this is another example of putting the lie to Microsoft’s “we didn’t have time to do it right” defense. There are a host of people with expertise on setting up independent foundations. Microsoft couldn’t get any of them to help out here?

A common defense is “oh you naysayers would complain no matter what Microsoft did”. That is simply not true – people complain because Microsoft insists on doing things wrong.

Do things right and there won’t be any room to criticize.

This article was cross-posted at mono-nono.com.