01.11.21
Gemini version available ♊︎InteLeaks – Part XI: Accountability Issues and Disdain for Views/Opinions of Actual GNU/Linux Users/Developers/Communities
Summary: The truth about internal affairs at Intel and developers’ struggle with “low/non-tech involvement,” as told by insiders
THIS series is getting very long. We’ve got plenty to show. We have more issues to tackle, including ones we’ve not yet alluded to, and there have already been enough parts to justify a dedicated wiki/landing page (screenshot at the bottom of this post). It’s getting a lot longer than we originally envisioned or estimated; see our introduction, interlude, Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, and Part X as many people are seeing them this month (it seems like people discover the series and tell colleagues about it).
“As it stands, Intel seems to love Microsoft more than it loves its own autonomy.”“Non Proprietary Process required,” we’re told by one reader/viewer who experienced what we’ve been covering, “but [DX/nontechnical] team requested Google Docs…”
Sometimes (a lot more often than this) they request all sorts of Microsoft things. We’ll come to this later in the series. The latest video focuses on accountability and how Intel is basically assessing its own work instead of relying on an independent party. Moreover, just like at the Linux Foundation, totally non-technical people (or people who are technical in unrelated and irrelevant disciplines) make the important decisions and alienate technical people. Their objectives are inherently different and the products they cover or speak about they’ve never even used themselves (like a tons of Linux Foundation staff that never actually tried GNU/Linux… it’s just a brand to these people).
Get well soon, Intel. Or else… developers will tell you to get the hell out. Talent retention isn’t possible with patronising attitudes, mixed messages, and mere pretenses of “love”. As it stands, Intel seems to love Microsoft more than it loves its own autonomy.
The above speaks of “GNU Linux Developer Experience” and it’s not some jockeying or messing about. As a matter of fact, we’re being told on the record, this “was an approved internal document,” which was carefully prepared and then issued/passed on “due to issues with low/non-tech involvement with GNU Linux documentation.”
Again, this isn’t informal. This isn’t an infraction. “The document was released to appropriate business units,” we’re told. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA