MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-11 |
| FROM | David Sugar
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Re: status
|
One important correction. It was actually me that injected the poleaxe
comment :). I simply thought a bit of good natured humor might break the
immediate impass that Ruben and Bruce reached with each other and I thought
some humor would make Bruce more willing to listen to the rest of what was
being said. Since I was at the time thinking of midevil weaponry, and how
various pole arms were used in combat, that was the reference I had in mind.
David
On Tuesday 11 February 2003 10:20, Dave Williams wrote:
> I'm going to have to agree with David on this one.
>
> Bruce, I guess you tuned out of this thread after feeling attacked by
> Ruben.
>
> But if you were reading these messages in between cab rides around
> Holland, you may have noticed something.
>
> The question was "Why is Microsoft participating in this event?"
>
> Mr. Stanco, Esq., gave a nice soundbite about being in the middle of two
> camps, and how good that was (he must be doing something right, or
> something like that).
>
> Dr. Stallman succinctly pointed out that the conference appeared to be
> primarily about advocacy for Open Source Software in government, but the
> organizers have been hiding behind the explanation that this is an
> "academic" conference that requires fairness and balance whenever
> someone asks about Microsoft.
>
> Mr. Perens has avoided the question. He has defended Mr. Stanco and
> pointed out that Mr. Safir is an unpleasant person (a "poleaxe", I
> think).
>
> It appears that in exchange for a seat in Mr. Stanco's GWU Cyber Policy
> group, Mr. Perens is willing to allow the Open Source movement to be a
> attached to Mr. Stanco's personal ambitions. If not Mr. Stanco's then
> somebody's ambitions at least.
>
> The conclusion is the same: If this is advocacy remove Microsoft. If
> this is academic change the title.
>
> I'm with David on this one: Mr. Peren's offer to have a "long Q&A" seems
> kind of patronizing, along the lines of "Oops, you caught me! Look, I'm
> getting a lot out of this Tony guy, so just play nice. Here's a bone
> for you, though."
>
> - Dave
>
> On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 09:57, David Sugar wrote:
> > Bruce,
> >
> > what you said is precisely the reason why I think it was wrong to have
> > them at this event in the first place. What this has done is given them
> > a legitimate forum to try and persuade a less than fully suffisticated
> > audience that Shared Source is a form of Open Source, and that freedom
> > does not matter, for this is the substance of their presentation. It was
> > wrong to do when their abstract was accepted in the first place and it
> > remains wrong to do today.
> >
> > I tend to agree that one cannot easily revisit the original flawed
> > decision without some fallout. One cannot fix the problem effectivily by
> > simply extending their Q&A, which, of course, as they are now a
> > "legitimate" speaker at this event, they are not obligated to accept, as
> > that would be special or selective treatment of speakers, which also
> > would be wrong to do.
> >
> > I have come to believe a terrible error has been made, and we can choose
> > to have differening opinions of how this came about, but that does not
> > change these facts. The question is what can be done to fix this
> > problem, and with minimum negative impact. What I would suggest as a
> > valid option is that the program committee exercises it's authority to
> > eject an inappropriate speaker from the program. Would it have some
> > negative impact at this stage? Yes, it would. But I think it would be
> > both a responsible decision since I believe the original decision to
> > accept their abstract was flawed, and perhaps far less damaging than some
> > of the other options I have heard being activily considered.
> >
> > Another option that Richard suggested would be to change the nature of
> > this conference and presentations appropriately. That the conference was
> > presented as essentially an opportunity to educate and market OS/FS ideas
> > to governments is clear by the forum and style of presentations sought in
> > the cfp. If this conference wishes instead to become some kind of
> > acedemic event to discuss or debate software licensing, that is certainly
> > fine, but I think it is far too late to do such a large change, nor fair
> > to the other speakers who are appearing based on the former assumption.
> >
> > I am not offering any solutions in this message, but simply pointing out
> > the flaws with your suggestion and past comments. Having such a debate
> > in front of an audience that you have not yet fully educated and which
> > has already likely been in many intense and closed vendor sponsored
> > conferences promoting their message is counter-productive. All it does
> > is send a mixed message and dilutes the already hard work of the other
> > speakers IMHO.
> >
> > On Tuesday 11 February 2003 06:01, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > > Well, I certainly have no problem with tacking on a _long_ Q&A period
> > > onto this program. Is that what you want, and can you ask polite
> > > questions that they will have trouble answering without it becoming a
> > > food fight? If so, I will strongly advocate that to Tony and will find
> > > someone mutually respectable to moderate. Note that MS will be _very_
> > > well rehearsed.
> > >
> > > I think it's extremely important that we be dignified in front of the
> > > expected audience of this program.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Bruce
>
> ____________________________
> New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
> Fair Use -
> because it's either fair use or useless....
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
