>but not all disruptive things are EEE. I'd agree with that, there are no rock solid definitions we're going to agree on. Still, there are a number of places w

>but not all disruptive things are EEE. I'd agree with that, there are no rock solid definitions we're going to agree on. Still, there are a number of places where a small concession from Redhat would have made other people's lives a lot easier. See also, this very thread and support for server-side-decorators. A decision made by someone directly employed by Redhat. Innovation without compromise that significantly impacts downstream software, and where patches aren't accepted. That looks a lot like using a market position to unduly influence other projects to me, and they'd get a lot more sympathy if they at least said "pull requests welcome" or if Redhat paid an engineer to make libdecor less awful. (Note that redhat is also paying developers for libdecor development work) There are a lot more examples like that floating around.