Dieter made a good reference to devops and the open source community and (correctly) points out that, even in a more collaborative scene such as the free software communities', there is still distinction between development and operations. And it isn't hard to see commonalities between enterprise organizations and free software communities in that respect.
But is the comparison correct? If you look at a distribution as an enterprise, then surely the distinction between upstream (project development) and "downstream" (distribution) should be compared with the relations between an enterprise and its ISVs, not its internal development / operational divisions. If we look at internal divisions, then distributions tend to provide better integration between (internal) projects and the distribution. I cannot talk for every distribution, but in those I do know, the infrastructure team ("operations") has a firm grip on the infrastructure, yet leaves out sufficient space for development to do their releases/production activity: uploading files, changing documentation, ...
This works, if the provided interface does not allow for developers to harm the principles that infrastructure has. This is what many (enterprise) organizations are still lacking, but there is no simple solution for this. Often, the operations team has principles that are difficult to match with the goals of development. Finding the correct balance between development and operations in that respect is quite a challenge - usually, free software communities can get there faster, often because their mass is sufficiently low. With a total 'employee' count of a few hundreds it is statistically easier to find a balance than within enterprises of a few thousand employees.
I believe that both teams should write down their principles, policies and standards, and see if they can find matches (which is good) and mutually exclusive distinctions (which is challenging) where more investigation can be done. Both teams should be allowed to question decisions made by the other (but without pretending to know better) and make suggestions. This should lead to the emergence of interfaces where a team has sufficient freedom to get to their own goals autonomously.
With such interfaces, people will start thinking that devops is growing apart (after all, they're starting to work autonomously and independently of each other). That isn't true. In my opinion, devops is about interacting on a high level (which is less time-delimited) so that interactions on a low level (which is very time-limited and focused on releasing, releasing, releasing) aren't necessary. Less interaction means that the teams that are responsible for getting to a specific, short time-framed goal, can cooperate closely and have a better grip on resources and requirements.