On 28 Jul 2002, Ian Anderson wrote: > The fact that Canopener is not incorporated has no real effect on it's > ability to lobby as, last time I checked, one did not have to be > incorporated to lobby the government.
No, but it helps. Not being incorporated means you speak for yourself. Being incorporated allows you to (at least appear to) speak for a collective. > There are lobby groups but CLUE is not one of these either. It has served in that capacity in the past, at least to the extent that CLUE directors have been quoted in the press as giving "the Linux side" of events and the Canadian side of global Linux events. Examples: http://www.plesman.com/index.asp?theaction=61&sid=49087 http://www.plesman.com/index.asp?theaction=61&sid=27026 http://www.itworldcanada.com/portals/portalDisplay.cfm?oid=A943D277-7D2E-4FF2-9F66D82AEFC6AA03 CLUE is recognized already in the Canadian newsmedia as a legitimate national voice. That gives extra leverage when expanding into more-active advocacy roles. > Contacts for sponsorship and affiliation is actually a knock against > CLUE as far as advocacy and lobbying goes, there should not be the > appearance of corporate influence. Hardly. When the corporations are IBM and HP and Mandrake, which are all trying to advocate the use of open source in Canada, their involvement in CLUE gives respectability and legitimatcy to our aims. The "influence" part is tempered by having a number of companies involved. If both IBM and HP are involved, there's an assurance that neither would let the other "control" things. Again I'll defer to the LPI example. It has quite a few corporate sponsors; not one has ever meddled in the development of the organozations programs. > CLUE has a choice, it can either be governed by the rules of a charity, > or it risks being influenced by corporations or individuals with deep > pockets. Either one has potential for abuse and/or extra work. I'll take my chances with the corporations. It's less hassles than the charity route, offers a level of credibility that would take a grassroots-only charity years to achieve, and provides a more-stable funding formula. > LPI is a special case, there are many organizations that would have a > direct immediate interest in it (training and publishing) and to a > lesser extent other organizations that need to advertise Linux-related > services. The general population had next to no interest in it. No, LPI is not a special case. There are many organizations that would have a direct immediate interest in CLUE (advocacy of getting Linux in more use within government and in general within Canada). Look at the roster of companies who are sponsors of Linux international. All have an interest in the commercial success of Linux. After all, if the government *does* decide to install Linux, they'll want a commercial org to install and support it. There are many companies who stand to profit financially if the Linux advocacy message is successful. The general public has no interest in CLUE, nor would it have an interest in a grassroots charity. Both models would act as vehicles trying to advocate a method of using technology over others -- a minority method at that. > > - Position papers to present to the CRTC and parliamentary committees on > > issues that affect open source users, such as the punitive tax on > > blank media that assumes that all CD burning exists to illegally > > reproduce copyrighted material; > > > Not directly Linux-related, this also encompasses all the independant > artists, private software developers etc. I never said it was completely Linux-related, but the open source community does have an interest in the issue and ought to speak on it > > - Publicity and advertising resources and info that LUGs can use when > > working with their local media outlets; > Shipping a person cross-country is expensive. But worthwhile, and capable of being financed, if there is seen to be a real gain. Heck, IBM just sent me on a speaking tour of four cities in *China* to talk up Linux, for heavens' sakes. SGI sent me to Vancouver and Tokyo last year. Cross Canada should be a piece of cake :-). In the meantime, what I just said above is that LUGs should be given the tools to be able to deal with local media, to complement what CLUE can do at a national level. > Until Linus and RMS are household names no one is going to gather the > crowds to make that endeavor worth while. Who said them? The purpose of this exersize is not to parade around celebrities so much as to identify people capable of delivering the message. Every city's media should have its "who do I call for the Linux point of view" person or persons. (In any case, RMS is the *absolute last* person I'd want speaking to the media on open source -- he'd get us all lableled as nutbars.) > A more useful idea is to prepare presentation notes that someone in > the area familiar with the topic can use for making a presentation. Not good enough. That someone also needs to know how to handle the nastiness that the media is capable of coming up with, how to handle the reporter or analyst who has something to lose if Linux becomes popular. Preaching to the converted is something LUGs already do extremely well. Talking to the world outside is far more difficult. Indeed, every city needs one or more people who can do this, but equipping them the the right raw information is only a part -- the easiest part -- of the challenge. > This has the added bonus of creating better > speakers who can public-relations and PR locally. Giving people slides and notes does not make them good speakers, or capable of dealing with hostile questions. > > - A constant and effective counterpoint to Microsoft's heavily-funded > > FUD campaigns (and to a lesser extent Sun's scattered anti-Linux efforts); > Trying to compete with Microsoft head on is a great way to burn through > money. Baloney. There are nicely creative ways to take on Microsoft. We certainly don't need their expensive tactics to do so! > > - Lobbyists who will meet and keep contact with MPs (and MPPs and MLAs etc.) > > charged with technical issues, be it Ministers or Deputy Ministers or > > Shadow Ministers or committee chairs or relevant committees of political > > parties or whatever; > This should be done at the local level. All MPs should be lobbied by > their constituents. One activity does not negate the other. But my point is that lobbying local MPs without a central co-ordination, or lobbying appropriate members of the Cabinet, is futile. Lobbying individual MPs is a numbers game -- can you get enough names on your petition -- which we cannot win on that level alone. > > The tasks above require salesmanship more than debating skill, and real > > people's time and hard work. They require PR forms and lawyers who > > understand what's at stake if laws are changed and can help teach us the > > rules of the games we will be forced to play. These are all resources > > which are IMO in fairly short supply in this community. > Don't bring lawyers into this. Maybe that's the difference in our approaches. Lawyers can be useful in helping to play the game. I've worked with lawyers who will work pro-bono for causes they believe worthy, and their help can be immeasurable in playing the influence game. > > The difference between conventional Linux advocacy and what *really* needs > > to be done is to consider the target audience. We must provide messages > > that are simple, non-technical and unambiguous, presented in the times and > > places where they make the most impact. > In that case you don't advertise Linux, you advertise Open Source. Poppycock. The IT mainstream (and indeed the public) knows Linux more than it knows Open Source. Linux is a product, something you can put in a box; open source is a philosophy that allows you to demonstrate why Linux is so successful -- but you can only explain that once the original introduction (using the tangible Linux) has been made. > Once you leave the technical world the difference between Linux, > FreeBSD, OpenBSD becomes trivial. On the contrary, it just clouds the water. Until people can truly grasp what this Linux/opensource thing is all about, introducing variations such as BSD (or the subtle difference between "free software" and "open source") are impediments. > Why are you so interested in corporate sponsorship? Duh. It provides money and credibility, both of which are absolutely essential in order to accomplish any more than shouting from a website. > Open source is about sharing ideas and information, not about making > money. Actually, it's about both. Most people I've spoken to in LUGs would *love* to get a career working with Linux. And Linux won't make it into government use without the support of companies willing to provide the hardware, help desk, integration, and other related goods and services. In the goal of increasing awareness and use of Linux and open source, the corporate sector can (and should) be our friend. > You may think that providing information to people is trivial, but it > is why people use computers and the Internet. To people who know how to use the Internet, getting such information is trivial. If you're in Halifax and you want to know what's going on at the Vancouver LUG, doing the serach and finiding their site is indeed trivial. To people who don't know how to use the Internet, or for others who might otherwise choose to be ignorant or hostile to our message, technical means aren't good enough. - Evan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
