>Though her job could easily be to be the competent at politics and communication, not code. It is extremely difficult to adequately communicate about somethin

>Though her job could easily be to be the competent at politics and communication, not code. It is extremely difficult to adequately communicate about something you fundamentally do not understand. She is either lying or disastrously misinformed when she claims corporations do not fund open source projects, which are provided for the common good. This statement alone should disqualify her, because it shows that she is either lying or does not understand the point of her work. The truth is that many important open source projects are either completely, partly or mostly supported by corporations, who provide this software for the benefit of the general public. Her prediction about the "tragedy of the commons" is not universally seen in reality. What is simultaneously true, is that many important open source projects are not funded by corporations or at least completely underfunded. If the key leader of such a project claims that the later is generally true, any serious political debate will make her look like a liar and fool, when her opponent point out the numerous examples of the later. Funding open source is not important because corporations just endlessly consume open source projects and never giving back. It is important because, some open source projects are neglected and inadequately funded. Not making that distinction is political suicide if you ever have to defend your budget.