MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-11 |
| FROM | Dave Williams
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Re: status
|
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 10:41, Ruben Safir wrote:
> I don't really believe that Bruce was ever prepared to negotiate taking
> MS off the panel anyway.
>
> Ruben
Maybe, maybe not. I guess it could be argued that another approach
might have worked, but in the end I have to agree with you. The
decision was already made.
Judging from some of the responses to the article on NewsForge though,
it seems like a lot of people are "getting" the nature of your
complaint. And that's in spite of the fact that Ms. Gasperson put the
article together with a strong slant in favor of the conference
organizers. Ironically there's now an article by Robin Miller about an
Open Source in Government conference in Mexico, which didn't include
Microsoft! It came across as a very pleasant and informative gathering.
Try as I might, I just can't find any justification for a Shared Source
speech. I've looked at all the information posted on the site, as well
as whatever else I have at hand, and it just seems like some strange
back-room politics are going on. Mr. Stanco's quotes in the article
just seem to confirm that impression. As a lawyer he can always find a
loophole or ambiguous phrase to justify his decision, but it violates
the spirit if not the letter of the conference.
What I find particularly distasteful is that people don't hesitate to
bend a movement to their will, knowing that they can get away with it
since it is an informal, "ad hoc" type of collection of like-minded
people. No one stops to think, "Hey, should I really be attaching my
personal ambitions to an organization that might actually make the world
a little better?" But I guess that's always been the case in every
movement. And the irony is that the same people won't hesitate to point
out such behavior when it affects them negatively (such as the Desktop
Linux Summit). But when they are held accountable there's nothing but
silence or misdirection.
Perhaps bad publicity is good publicity even for the conference
organizers, and they all stand to gain by the attention they receive.
Maybe boycotting is a good approach. But when someone assumes the
authority to hijack a movement for their own personal gain I don't think
it serves anyone to be quiet about it.
If I gave myself the right to represent a group without their consent,
and started picking fights, making deals, and handing out my business
card to people in high places I would expect some consequences. The
least I could do is get some feedback from the community before climbing
onto a high horse.
Showing up at the forum and asking penetrating questions seems too much
like playing by the rules. It demonstrates tacit approval of the
dismissive tactics used against you, kind of along the lines of "Alright
you win -- you're the boss now, but I'm going to make some small petty
rebellion to make myself feel better." In the process you end up
actually serving someone else's purpose.
All that leaves is public protest. Not only is the speaker to be
protested for having a harmful position, but the event organizers should
be protested for putting their personal ambitions above the needs of the
subject itself and of others. They have become that which they opposed:
Autocratic insiders who confuse their own self-image for the cause which
they espouse. No taxation without representation? How about, "No
political maneuvering without the consent of your constituency!"
Oh, I know. You can't get anything done if you have to talk to the
little people all the time! Trust me -- I know what's best.
- Dave
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
