> "damage control and image management" suggest that Debian would be a Company and a PR department doing such a thing.
No, damage control or image management in no way implies a Company or PR department. Any group can engage in these activities. Later you point out, the OP appears to be affiliated with Debian.
> Who, the OP? Even his nick name suggests affiliation with Debian, there is normally support and action of more people required to bring bigger change.
Yes, the OP. I perhaps should have used the words ‘commenting on’, or ‘responding to’ instead of ‘addressing’.
I am not expecting the OP to solve the problems, but I am suggesting that it would be more constructive to comment on the substantive content of the original article than to write innuendo about how many people are just quietly contributing, or implying that the author may be part of a ‘vocal minority’.
> No, damage control or image management in no way implies a Company or PR department. Any group can engage in these activities. Later you point out, the OP appears to be affiliated with Debian.
1. I said it seems he is affiliated, but anybody can nick name himself a variant of "debian developer" in any forum.
2. It implies that a formal body of the organisation, that can be a single person like the DPL, else it's not damage control by Debian like you suggest, but that of a single person - which can hardly be framed as damage control in this case, the blog did clearly refer to Debian as a whole, not a single person.
> I am not expecting the OP to solve the problems, but I am suggesting that it would be more constructive to comment [...]
That's what you say now, but not what you said originally. As said, change needs to come from Debian within, not some HN discussions - talk is cheap.
No, damage control or image management in no way implies a Company or PR department. Any group can engage in these activities. Later you point out, the OP appears to be affiliated with Debian.
> Who, the OP? Even his nick name suggests affiliation with Debian, there is normally support and action of more people required to bring bigger change.
Yes, the OP. I perhaps should have used the words ‘commenting on’, or ‘responding to’ instead of ‘addressing’.
I am not expecting the OP to solve the problems, but I am suggesting that it would be more constructive to comment on the substantive content of the original article than to write innuendo about how many people are just quietly contributing, or implying that the author may be part of a ‘vocal minority’.