On Saturday 18 October 2003 03:39 am, Ron Stodden wrote:
> Simon Oosthoek wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 11:04:01AM +1000, Ron Stodden wrote:
> >>Another 9.2 showstopper!
> >
> > Post it at: bugs.mandrakelinux.com
>
> No.   I have legally carried out my only duty - to notify MandrakeSoft,
> the owner of the cooker mailing list.     To do that is all that can
> possibly be required.
>
> It is not required of the public to know anything about MandrakeSoft´s
> internal structure or methods of working - it is their job to
> efficiently manage their internal communications.   To the public,
> MandrakeSoft is a single legal entity, IOW in effect a single person.
>
> That is true of all corporate entities, including the various government
> entities.  So if I write a letter to George W Bush, then I am correct in
> assuming that all relevant groups and individuals operating below him
> will have received it and will co-ordinate a single comprehensive timely
> reply.   The same would be true if I had written personally to the most
> humble counter clerk in a remote branch on a subject far removed from
> his/her daily operations - the corporation has been notified.
>
> I know it´s not easy on corporations, but that´s the law, you know, and
> the law encapsulates accrued wisdom.   It is hard to see how things
> could possibly be otherwise.  The way things are wisely prevents the
> common accountability escape of deniability - no officer can deny
> knowledge of anything that happens within the corporation or level of
> government (¨I did not know¨, ¨Nobody told me¨ are not acceptable
> responses - they indicate a mentally diseased corporation - i.e.
> schizophrenic).

You might be right, if you had used the official method for reporting bugs.  
Since MandrakeSoft has informed us that the official method for reporting 
bugs is to enter them in bugzilla, your communication fails and they mey 
safely ignore it.  

Every corporation may designate particular individuals or groups of 
individuals to receive specific kinds of communication on behalf of the 
corporation.  As long as there is adequate notice to the public, a 
communication fails if it not designated to the direct person or done using 
the prescribed method.

You cannot send a message to the maintenance guy saying that you are going to 
show up for $1,000,000 on a specific day, and then show up at the accounting 
department on that day to collect the money stating that since no one 
replied, they therefore they owe the money.   
-- 
/g

"Outside of a dog, a man's best friend is a book, inside
a dog it's too dark to read" -Groucho Marx

Reply via email to