A few points that you seem to miss in posting this, bearing in mind, also what you post further down the line:
- The claim is not total responsibility for MusicCity. I feel that you've not even read the above article, and have applied a knee-jerk reaction, so popular with management totally removed from the technical side of things. The claim is to have aided your (You are an employee of MusicCity, or I'll eat my hat, by the tone of your message) sysadmins to maintain a stable infrastructure on a friendly informal basis.
- You say that the real heros of the system are the 'moderators' of a site. *Cough* If the administrators and people providing the network infrastructure don't set things up reliably, your moderators wouldn't have anything to do, as nobody could get through. This I know. I work for a company that's among the top European net sites (I think we just hit second or third). Infrastructure is vital. If your 'moderators' are also the administrators, please use the correct terms, and refer to them as such.
- You refer to anonymity here, indicating that you have no idea who this person could be. Yet in your later post, you strongly suggest that you know who this person may be. YEt you add the disclaimer that you don't use any of this software, and this person has been no aid at all.
Thinking about this for a moment: You're (Music City) a fairly sizable organisation, with quite a few people working on various projects. If someone REALLY had no input, or provided no aid at all, then, I'd expect them to be unnoticed.
The sheer act of noticing someone means they have stood out. Which makes it highly likely he did contribute significantly to the project.
From your posts, what you're actually attempting to do is fight an issue (who developed the opennap software) which is completely unrelated to the issue in question (deprecated
aided your sysadmins in creating a stable network infrastructure).
This is a common debating tactic, using a similar seeming fact to mislead people into believing that you have a valid point of attack, when in fact you have nothing at all to back you up on the relevant subject
After seeing deprecated
in action, I am pretty certain he has the tech savvy to pull off the claims he's made.
From the posts you've made, I don't think you actually know the real tech details of the setup, and until I read something to the contrary, I consider what you post to be irrelevant to the issue at hand.
I would love to be proved wrong, as enlightenment is always a value, and the truth, although sometimes unwelcome is always a better thing to base the future on than wishful thinking.
However, I think proving me wrong will not be easy. If possible.