MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-03-12 |
| FROM | Dave Williams
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] Re: MS cancels "Shiftpoint" forum; Response to Dave Williams
|
Bruce -
Although I'm not certain this message will reach you due to spam
filters, I thought I would address some of your points. Obviously it
wasn't my intention to describe you as wealthy, or your contributions as
strictly in the past, so I'll skip over those remarks.
I believe it can all be reduced to simple reciprocity, or fairness. In
the interest of better public relations you agree that a small gesture
in the direction of a Microsoft representative and an affiliated
organization will appear enlightened and magnanimous. And maybe it
will. But the reverse is not the case: You are not invited to discuss
the merits of your development philosophy in Microsoft sponsored
events. In fact they host a "government leaders" conference which has
included anti-OSS rhetoric on occasion.
The reactions of a large number of OS developers and supporters to the
conference was enthusiasm. They viewed this as a chance to address Mr.
Matusow and the ISC people. When faced with complaints about these
appearances, you mentioned that it might be possible to have a brief Q&A
session -- apparently there wasn't supposed to be anything of the sort
originally, so the vocal supporters were operating under a delusion.
Yes, it is acceptable to pick apart the descriptions of the event and
label it "none of the above", but the use of Open Source in the title
and the tone created by the Request For Presentations/Papers suggested
that at the very least the subject centered around Open Source
Software. The loose interpretation of these details is characteristic
of the legal profession. Lack of clarity seems to have confused
supporters and opponents alike.
When someone like Ruben Safir becomes upset about the loss of
opportunity, it isn't necessarily central to the purpose of the
conference but it is a valid concern. Sure, some people will discuss
failures of Open Source and its shortcomings, but others can draw
attention to the projects they are committed to, which just might
address those failures. They may also document the ability to succeed
professionally in the Free/Open Source world. The political maneuvering
around expositions and conferences may just be hurting the "little guy",
and even if two people are excluded that's two too many.
Back to the public relations issue: Does this appearance of fairness
reflect well on Open Source specifically, or does it also paint a nice
picture of the people involved in the conference? If someone suspects
that Mr. Stanco is positioning himself politically in the DC Beltway by
bending the rules while affiliating himself with a popular movement, are
they just being paranoid? And if there is any possibility that the
rumors of registered guests being excluded are true, Mr. Stanco will be
guilty of exactly the kind of hypocrisy he publicly charged the "free
software loons and wackos" with.
The issue of accountability is a valid one. You describe yourself as a
leader in the free software movement, and that is fair enough. But who
watches the watchmen? You say that you haven't avoided this issue, but
after an extended lapse you have only now explained how you define this
event. That would have gone a long way toward clarifying things several
weeks ago.
In the end I hear something along the lines of, "This is what we're
going to do, because we can and because we like it. You're welcome to
disagree (at least *I* think so, if not Tony), but we do know best. If
you push me on the subject I'll split some hairs."
Truthfully, I don't expect to convince anyone of anything. This subject
made me realize that some people refused to give up their lust for
engaging in verbal combat against Microsoft long enough to think about
the larger issues. You may think it harmful for MS to draw attention to
their participation, but they may not agree. Someone in the crowd may
"get it", but someone else might not. People are asking for
accountability, and if it appears to be missing someone may attempt to
fill that vacuum. At the very least, someone will draw attention to
it's lack, and hopefully they won't be barred from attending a
conference that wishes to demonstrate, among other things, a lack of
hypocrisy.
- Dave
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 16:53, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Rather than just in the past, I am still creating benefit for the
> community on a daily basis. Hopefully, that's what you mean to
> acknowledge.
>
> > Likewise, no one doubts that you have gained personally from your
> > participation, as demonstrated by your public profile.
>
> I have done well by doing good. And doing well is making a reasonable
> income, not getting rich in any way. I paid for my home with proceeds
> from Pixar, not anything to do with free software. I don't have any
> significant wealth other than that.
>
> > But you still haven't answered the question of why there will be
> > Microsoft and Software Choice Initiative presentations at the eGovOS
> > conference.
>
> Because I, as a leader of the free software community, think this is the
> right tactic to get the maximum benefit from the conference. I want to
> show that we aren't afraid of what MS has to say, and that our arguments
> stand on their own with Microsoft in the room.
>
> > As a member of the Cyber Policy Institute creating the event (as well as
> > the OSI), you are accountable for these choices.
>
> Just FYI: Neither CSPRI nor OSI pay me. If we are talking _legal_
> accountability, there is some regarding funds and disposition of
> assets of OSI. There is not any legal accountability in connection
> with CSPRI as far as I can tell. But I think you are really speaking
> of ethical accountability.
>
> As far as ethical accountability is concerned, I am willing to stand up
> before the scrutiny of the community and defend this decision. Not all of
> them agree with you.
>
> > Based on the conference's definitions and requirements there
> > is no substantial justification for these presentations, and the
> > possibility of harm is arguable enough to be considered.
>
> OK. So I still don't believe there's any ethical fault in inviting MS
> and CompTIA to make two out of 100+ speeches.
>
> I believe the general message in favor of the free software community is
> improved by the perception that we aren't afraid to let those folks speak.
>
> These seem to be the points upon which we differ.
>
> > An OS advocacy and demonstration event is about Open Source Software,
> > something you yourself defined.
>
> I agree that those two particular talks won't be advocacy of free
> software or open source.
>
> In addition, I think a lot of the other talks are not advocacy.
> A lot of the folks will be talking about how they use OS and what
> their experiences are - both in using it and in dealing with their
> particular political climate in getting it deployed. I would expect
> that many of them will be coming from a "pragmatic" or analytical
> stance and will report rather than advocate.
>
> In addition, I expect some talk about failures of free software to do a
> particular job for a particular user, and warnings to others that some
> field isn't a good application for us yet. These may end up being the
> opposite of advocacy.
>
> So, I don't think we can classify this as an advocacy event. Is it a
> debate? No. Is it a scientific conference? In a way, but we haven't
> been really careful about peer review, etc. Is it a bunch of people
> getting together and sharing their experiences and thinking about the
> topic? Yes. Are there formal rules about the structure of such a thing?
> No.
>
> Next, you'd go on to whether the organizers are in general credible
> on the topic. Much as you may disagree with Tony about a few tactics,
> he is still generally credible about the use of free software in
> government. On the other hand, I don't see that Microsoft has any
> credibility in putting on its Shiftpoint forum.
>
> > If this isn't an OS Advocacy event please rename it.
>
> I don't see that it's being promoted as an advocacy event.
>
> > clarify that fact in the conference literature.
>
> What part of the conference literature do you object to?
>
> > The other day you wrote that the ability to admit one's mistakes is a
> > good quality (regarding the tuxedo website). If you don't believe you
> > have made an error in judgment, at least accept the possibility of
> > dissent.
>
> Well, I've been discussing this with you folks for quite a long time, so
> wouldn't you think that I've admitted the possibility of dissent? When I
> see that there's a mistake, I'll admit one. You still haven't convinced me.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
