4 ms·

Your post are downvoted because it is borderline racist. The maintainer happened to be Chinese and that gave you 'chills'. There are 1.4 billion Chinese and mo

Your post are downvoted because it is borderline racist. The maintainer happened to be Chinese and that gave you 'chills'. There are 1.4 billion Chinese and most of them live in China, there are also open source projects hosted in China, and a lot of open source contribution coming from people living in China, if only because there are many people there. The media links you posted are also made of conjecture ('Trump administration claims' is literally in the title) and you've then stretched them with your own imagination to arrive at your 'concerns'.

belter 5y ago
The comment is not racist because if you did read it the concern was NOT about the maintainer being Chinese and I made that VERY CLEAR. The concern was that in the Chinese group discussion commentators were mentioning he was Chinese. Now why would that be relevant indeed ? It can be relevant because it open the possibility to him being pressured by a company that is partly owned by the Chinese Army. That is where the chill was coming from... Hopefully he is based in the US. Now tell me, where is the racism ?
- belter 5y ago
  Who Owns Huawei ? https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3372669 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3372669 Who Owns Huawei? The Company Tried to Explain. It Got Complicated. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/technology/who-owns-huawei.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/technology/who-owns-huawe...
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    This is a detailed refutation of that paper: https://pekingnology.substack.com/p/who-really-owns-huawei-a-response https://pekingnology.substack.com/p/who-really-owns-huawei-a... It goes into the specifics of the Chinese laws governing employee share ownership, and why the employee shares are held by the union (it has to do with arcana of 1990s-era Chinese laws governing stock distribution by non-publicly-traded companies). Balding & Clarke fundamentally misunderstand why the union is used as a share-holding vehicle, and what the legal implications of that are.
  - markus_zhang 5y ago
    The majority of the stock is held within 华为投资控股有限公司工会委员会. Of course one would be naive to believe that the _power_ is held within the same instituition too.
- Aperocky 5y ago
  All of that hoop you jumped through is (seen from my perspective) thinly veiled xenophobia/racism. Now it maybe that you did not intend it that way, but it came across as such, for instance you've posted: > partly owned by the Chinese Army None of the sources that you've posted supported this, The PLA is also specifically banned to operate/control business since 1998. The ownership structure of Huawei is also available in more detail here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Ownership If it's not some deep seated bias, what lead you to straight up invent or stretch claims like this?
- belter 5y ago
  =========== DiogenesKynikos 7 minutes ago [–] This is a detailed refutation of that paper: https://pekingnology.substack.com/p/who-really-owns-huawei-a https://pekingnology.substack.com/p/who-really-owns-huawei-a... It goes into the specifics of the Chinese laws governing employee share ownership, and why the employee shares are held by the union (it has to do with arcana of 1990s-era Chinese laws governing stock distribution by non-publicly-traded companies). Balding & Clarke fundamentally misunderstand why the union is used as a share-holding vehicle, and what the legal implications of that are. =========== https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_relations_in_China#All-China_Federation_of_Trade_Unions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_relations_in_China#All-C... "Independent unions are illegal in China with only the All-China Federation of Trade Unions permitted to operate." "The Trade Union Law in China forces the all trade unions in China dependent with the Communist Party of China."
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    The article that I linked goes into great detail about what the legal relationship between the employees and the union committee is, what level of control the union committee actually has over the shares, what happens if the company dissolves, and so on. Just saying that the union is a member of the national federation, and that the company is therefore owned by the Communist Party, is grossly inaccurate. The bottom line is that the union committee acts as a legal vehicle that allows more than 100 employees to hold shares, and that it can't just do whatever it likes with the shares, because of its legal responsibilities to the employees. This structure was used because decades ago, it was not possible (or at least legally tricky) for large private companies in China to issue shares to their employees.
    - belter 5y ago
      "What’s the Deal with Huawei’s Ownership?" https://sayari.com/resources/huaweis-ownership-opaque-unusual/ https://sayari.com/resources/huaweis-ownership-opaque-unusua... "Huawei claims to be owned entirely by its employees, but verifying this claim is a tricky proposition...However, comparing Huawei to other Chinese corporations reveals that Huawei’s ownership is highly unusual." .... "Using Chinese corporate data, we determined that Huawei’s ownership structure is very uncommon, particularly for a company of its size. Fewer than three hundredths of one percent (0.0249%) of active Chinese corporations in our dataset are owned by trade union committees, like Huawei." "...We set out to answer this question using Sayari’s database of 55 million Chinese corporate entities... ...Of these 55 million Chinese corporate entities, approximately 38 million are active." "...But ownership by a “labor union committee” (工会委员会), like the Huawei case, is very rare. We identified just 4,547 active Chinese corporate entities that list a labor union committee as a shareholder. This represents just 0.0249% of the active non-household enterprise companies in our dataset. Among companies operating in the technology sector, ownership by a labor union committee is even more rare. Only 794 active technology companies in our database—or 0.0201%—are owned directly by a labor union committee..." "...Of these 794 companies, Sayari was able to identify the registered capital in Chinese Renminbi for 526. Of these, just three had registered capital greater than 1 billion RMB (approx. USD $148 million); Huawei has registered capital of more than 16 billion RMB. Chinese companies of this size usually are major state-owned enterprises, publicly-traded, or both. In other words, it is practically unheard of in China for a labor union committee to own a company of Huawei’s size, scope, and global reach..."
- yorwba 5y ago
  > commentators were mentioning he was Chinese. Now why would that be relevant indeed ? Because the maintainer could've been a foreigner who sees a "huawei.org" email address and imagines that they might want to apply unpleasant pressure to get their typo fixes merged. Having a Chinese name makes it a bit less likely that the maintainer is influenced by such stereotypes and makes the critique of Huawei harder to dismiss out of hand.
908B64B197 5y ago
The real question is how likely is it for this mainland Chinese maintainer to have allegiances to the Chinese regime. Actually, even when holding convenience passports, the question still holds [0]. And it wouldn't be the first time Huawei employees tried questionable things. [1] [2] [0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/former-raytheon-engineer-sentenced-exporting-sensitive-military-related-technology-china https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/former-raytheon-engineer-... [1] https://globalnews.ca/news/7275588/inside-the-chinese-military-attack-on-nortel/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7275588/inside-the-chinese-milita... [2] https://blogs.cisco.com/news/huawei-and-ciscos-source-code-correcting-the-record https://blogs.cisco.com/news/huawei-and-ciscos-source-code-c...

belter 5y ago

The comment is not racist because if you did read it the concern was NOT about the maintainer being Chinese and I made that VERY CLEAR. The concern was that in the Chinese group discussion commentators were mentioning he was Chinese. Now why would that be relevant indeed ? It can be relevant because it open the possibility to him being pressured by a company that is partly owned by the Chinese Army. That is where the chill was coming from... Hopefully he is based in the US. Now tell me, where is the racism ?

belter 5y ago
Who Owns Huawei ? https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3372669 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3372669 Who Owns Huawei? The Company Tried to Explain. It Got Complicated. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/technology/who-owns-huawei.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/technology/who-owns-huawe...
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  This is a detailed refutation of that paper: https://pekingnology.substack.com/p/who-really-owns-huawei-a-response https://pekingnology.substack.com/p/who-really-owns-huawei-a... It goes into the specifics of the Chinese laws governing employee share ownership, and why the employee shares are held by the union (it has to do with arcana of 1990s-era Chinese laws governing stock distribution by non-publicly-traded companies). Balding & Clarke fundamentally misunderstand why the union is used as a share-holding vehicle, and what the legal implications of that are.
- markus_zhang 5y ago
  The majority of the stock is held within 华为投资控股有限公司工会委员会. Of course one would be naive to believe that the _power_ is held within the same instituition too.
Aperocky 5y ago
All of that hoop you jumped through is (seen from my perspective) thinly veiled xenophobia/racism. Now it maybe that you did not intend it that way, but it came across as such, for instance you've posted: > partly owned by the Chinese Army None of the sources that you've posted supported this, The PLA is also specifically banned to operate/control business since 1998. The ownership structure of Huawei is also available in more detail here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Ownership If it's not some deep seated bias, what lead you to straight up invent or stretch claims like this?
belter 5y ago
=========== DiogenesKynikos 7 minutes ago [–] This is a detailed refutation of that paper: https://pekingnology.substack.com/p/who-really-owns-huawei-a https://pekingnology.substack.com/p/who-really-owns-huawei-a... It goes into the specifics of the Chinese laws governing employee share ownership, and why the employee shares are held by the union (it has to do with arcana of 1990s-era Chinese laws governing stock distribution by non-publicly-traded companies). Balding & Clarke fundamentally misunderstand why the union is used as a share-holding vehicle, and what the legal implications of that are. =========== https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_relations_in_China#All-China_Federation_of_Trade_Unions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_relations_in_China#All-C... "Independent unions are illegal in China with only the All-China Federation of Trade Unions permitted to operate." "The Trade Union Law in China forces the all trade unions in China dependent with the Communist Party of China."
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  The article that I linked goes into great detail about what the legal relationship between the employees and the union committee is, what level of control the union committee actually has over the shares, what happens if the company dissolves, and so on. Just saying that the union is a member of the national federation, and that the company is therefore owned by the Communist Party, is grossly inaccurate. The bottom line is that the union committee acts as a legal vehicle that allows more than 100 employees to hold shares, and that it can't just do whatever it likes with the shares, because of its legal responsibilities to the employees. This structure was used because decades ago, it was not possible (or at least legally tricky) for large private companies in China to issue shares to their employees.
  - belter 5y ago
    "What’s the Deal with Huawei’s Ownership?" https://sayari.com/resources/huaweis-ownership-opaque-unusual/ https://sayari.com/resources/huaweis-ownership-opaque-unusua... "Huawei claims to be owned entirely by its employees, but verifying this claim is a tricky proposition...However, comparing Huawei to other Chinese corporations reveals that Huawei’s ownership is highly unusual." .... "Using Chinese corporate data, we determined that Huawei’s ownership structure is very uncommon, particularly for a company of its size. Fewer than three hundredths of one percent (0.0249%) of active Chinese corporations in our dataset are owned by trade union committees, like Huawei." "...We set out to answer this question using Sayari’s database of 55 million Chinese corporate entities... ...Of these 55 million Chinese corporate entities, approximately 38 million are active." "...But ownership by a “labor union committee” (工会委员会), like the Huawei case, is very rare. We identified just 4,547 active Chinese corporate entities that list a labor union committee as a shareholder. This represents just 0.0249% of the active non-household enterprise companies in our dataset. Among companies operating in the technology sector, ownership by a labor union committee is even more rare. Only 794 active technology companies in our database—or 0.0201%—are owned directly by a labor union committee..." "...Of these 794 companies, Sayari was able to identify the registered capital in Chinese Renminbi for 526. Of these, just three had registered capital greater than 1 billion RMB (approx. USD $148 million); Huawei has registered capital of more than 16 billion RMB. Chinese companies of this size usually are major state-owned enterprises, publicly-traded, or both. In other words, it is practically unheard of in China for a labor union committee to own a company of Huawei’s size, scope, and global reach..."
yorwba 5y ago
> commentators were mentioning he was Chinese. Now why would that be relevant indeed ? Because the maintainer could've been a foreigner who sees a "huawei.org" email address and imagines that they might want to apply unpleasant pressure to get their typo fixes merged. Having a Chinese name makes it a bit less likely that the maintainer is influenced by such stereotypes and makes the critique of Huawei harder to dismiss out of hand.

908B64B197 5y ago

The real question is how likely is it for this mainland Chinese maintainer to have allegiances to the Chinese regime. Actually, even when holding convenience passports, the question still holds [0]. And it wouldn't be the first time Huawei employees tried questionable things. [1] [2] [0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/former-raytheon-engineer-sentenced-exporting-sensitive-military-related-technology-china https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/former-raytheon-engineer-... [1] https://globalnews.ca/news/7275588/inside-the-chinese-military-attack-on-nortel/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7275588/inside-the-chinese-milita... [2] https://blogs.cisco.com/news/huawei-and-ciscos-source-code-correcting-the-record https://blogs.cisco.com/news/huawei-and-ciscos-source-code-c...