MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-11 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Re: status
|
I don't really believe that bruce ws ever prepared to negotiate taking
MS off the panel anyway.
Ruben
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 10:42:53AM -0500, David Sugar wrote:
> 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....
>
--
__________________________
Brooklyn Linux Solutions
__________________________
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn....
1-718-382-0585
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
