MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-09 |
| FROM | From: "Stanley A. Klein"
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] Re: eGovOS conference in D.C.
|
At 01:06 PM 2/9/2003 -0500, Ruben Safir wrote:
>>
>> I'm not talking about compromise. Letting them speak at a conference where
>> they will be skewered is not compromising.
>
>The conference is not an academic debate.
>
>Regardles of the election, dialague is never part of the proces.
>
The conference is sponsored by a university and is being held at a
university. There better be an academic component to it or there is no
justification for university sponsorship.
Universities are all about dialogue. Try to stop it and you bring down the
entire academic community on your head.
>
>> >From that perspective, Tony is doing the right thing letting Microsoft
>> speak.
>
>Tony is not doing the right thing. Tony never has done the right thing.
>Tony wouldn't know the right thing if it hit him in the head.
>
>Tony is giving a platform for Microsoft, and giving them a free ride.
>This is a morally depraved act, in Washington, New York or Pitsburgh
>
>We will not be part of that.
>
>
>> They effectively spoke at the last conference (through their puppet
>> from the Alexis de Toqueville Institute, whatever that is). At least they
>> want to show up to take the heat themselves.
>
>That is proper Marketing technique. And it is why it i important not to give
>them a platform. Negative publicity is publicity.
>
>>
>> We are running a guerilla, stealth campaign and doing quite well at it with
>> a very limited budget.
>
>It' not a guerilla stealth campaign. It's a routine grassroots movement
>and we are LOOSING, not winning.
>
>
>> Terry Bollinger, who is on the conference committee
>> and will speak, wrote the Mitre report on free/open-source penetration in
>> the Defense Department. He showed it runs around 40% and opened a bunch of
>> eyes (and raised a lot of hackles in Redmond).
>>
>
>Never heard of him. His paper had so much influence that there are thousands
>of FedBizOp jobs requiring GNU Desktops....
>
>Right?
>
His paper documents the existing situation. And what makes you think the
work shows up as a stated requirement for free/open-source in FedBizOp?
BTW, he works for Mitre. You've certainly heard of them. Haven't you?
I sat in a meeting listening to contractors report on their use of
free/open-source on government projects and wondering how I can get some of
that action. At a Maryland High Tech Council event, I asked a federal CIO
about his use of free/open-source and he told me he has a couple of
contractors and is making major use of it. You need to know the
ins-and-outs of federal contracting to figure out how it happens.
Terry simply documented -- recently -- that it has been happening with good
results. That provides a basis for further growth.
>> Susan Turnbull and Brand Niemann, who are both on the conference committee
>> and will also speak, run a monthly government/industry "Collaborative
>> Exploration Workshop" that is helping government CIO's learn about
>> free/open-source and a bunch of other disruptive ideas that can save money
>> and improve productivity. I hope to speak there about a forthcoming
>> IEEE-USA broadband position that will really make things interesting
>> politically. (Bayonne could easily become a widely-used, superstar product
>> in that environment.)
>
>
>Ditto
It was in their meeting that I listened to the contractor reports. BTW,
they don't trumpet the fact that the software is free/open-source. They
trumpet the cost savings, improved service, greater productivity, and other
benefits, and oh-by-the-way it is free/open-source and that's what made it
work.
>
>>
>> David Wheeler, another conference committee member who will also speak,
>> works for a government contractor but has independently made a name
>> collecting business case numbers on the benefits of free/open-source and is
>> the author of the "stacker" module of the Linux Loadable Security Module
>> effort.
>
>Ditto
His work provides ammunition for business cases to prove that
free/open-source really saves money. Microsoft FUDsters are claiming
otherwise. David's work is a primary resource for justifying consideration
of free/open-source.
>
>>
>> Microsoft's next point of attack will be in the area of security. They
>> poured in money and got their Windows 2000 product certified at Common
>> Criteria EAL-4+. (I recently met the manager of the evaluation lab that
>> did the certification.) Tony has been working on countering that for some
>> time by getting Security Enhanced Linux evaluated. That's probably what
>> the Microsoft lobbying at NSA was all about.
>
>This is an old story already which started with NT3. And the White Papers
haven't
>had any impact. NONE
>
What white papers are you talking about and how do you gauge their impact?
>>
>> Come in here with New York tactics, disrupt the conference, and raise the
>> level of controversy to in-your-face 24/7 and you will cut all these people
>> off at the knees.
>
>
>Not at all. If it's done well and in an organized way, it will be an
impressive showing
>and it will break the ice finally. We've done it before, and we'll do it
again. We
>have had nothing but success in Washington. And if our political tactics
were used
>nationalwide, we would be done with this phase of the Free SOftware and
DRM battle
>already.
>
Organization is one thing and abrasive, in-your-face tactics are something
else. It sounds to me like you are wedded to abrasive, in-your-face
tactics because that's the only thing you know.
The Free Software issue and the DRM issue are two separate issues, although
they have points of connection.
Take a look at the IEEE-USA position paper on DRM. I think it is being
actively lobbied.
>Instead, I have Linus making DRM chips for Transmeta.
>
>All Hail the Perens/Cohen political doctrine.
>
>Correct political tactics work everywhere. And they are always the same.
One size always fits all? Hmmm. How sophomoric.
>
>And I repeat, this is not a political conference. It's a marketing of
Free Software
>Conference.
You don't recognize a political conference when you see one? You need to
learn about politics in the large sense.
>
>I'm pretty much done with this conversation at this junction. You guys
will either
>do what is wrong, or what is right. If you do what is right, your and
ally. If you
>do what's wrong, you'll be identified as a political enemy.
Us guys? I'm not an organizer of the conference. I'm just a very
interested bystander and free/open-source software advocate who sees what's
going on and wants to help prevent a train wreck.
>
>I'd like to end this conversation by saying that the last time we went to
Washington, we
>spent over 2 hours talking with our representitive on the House IP
sub-committee.
>He has traded an agressive Pro-War stand for a pro-DRM stand with
Congressman Berman.
>As a result, he aggressive pushed his agenda on us and didn't listen to a
word we said,
>but finally through his support against the Berman Bill..a strictly based
on our persistence
>and ability to deliver votes.
>
>The analysis on the ride back up to NY was very enlightening to the
membership. For many,
>it was their first real political experience. Niether business decisions
or political
>decisions get decided on fair debate. Everyone is focused on accessment
of your political
>strength, their ability to gage if you have an ability to sell your
position to the public,
>and your skill as an organization to deliver votes, and a sellable message.
>
>Besides campain funding, these are the only thing people care about.
Right now I am gaging
>if it is more profitable for our movement to loudly oppose you, or if your
too small of a fish
>to fry. I'm not worried in the least bit about cutting the knees of
speakers which are having
>no positive affects in New York.
>
Let's see. Wall Street is one of the fastest growing markets for
free/open-source. And Wall Street is where? True the conference is
focused on "e-government" and not the private sector, but as my
father-in-law says, "One hand washes the other." I don't know about the
federal contracting situation in New York. Have you looked at Fort
Monmouth? Or is New Jersey too far away?
BTW, my fish size depends on perspective. I don't know if I'm large or
small, but I have a lot of involvements in a lot of things. Time will tell
what my size is. I like to think I have at least some small influence in a
lot of diverse areas.
>Our people need protection of Fair Use with regard to digital media,Free
Software adoptance,
>Free Software Contracts, and Free Software Jobs, with a competitive Free
Digital systems
>market.
>
>Your conference can not deliver that is currently hurting our efforts.
It isn't *my* conference. I just happened to be the most mature person
listening to a conversation among a bunch of young hot-heads who seemed to
be planning something very counterproductive and decided to point that out
to them.
Stan Klein
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
