> I talked to our lawyer again and he urged me STRONGLY to please ask you
> guys not to deal with legal issues. This is different than Meetup hosts,
> where people are looking for legal advice as independent groups, and not
> coordinated with the campaign. Since we're working together, and
> building a product the campaign will offer as a service, it is critical
> that all legal decisions be made by Eric.

Observation time boys and girls:

As this thread develops, I think it's becoming clear just what the
difference is in becoming a movement "of Dean"  as opposed to one "for
Dean". I'm not passing judgment here, but just making the observation that
ceding the independence of the project, and subsequently it's ultimate
nature and function, comes at a "price".As do all choices.

We've reached (and passed?) a crossroads here. Coordinating with Burlington
in a evermore "intimate" manner way well be the optimal path to follow at
this juncture, but that's a judgment call; anyone who says it's not, is
being disingenuous. We (or some of us, in any case) have become "players"
and that's a seductive experience indeed. But players often are required to
play by someone else's rules. Nothing wrong with that, right? Got to have
rules, after all.

Thing is, I recall Zack's first posts regarding this "vision" on the
coffeehouse list. He was carrying on about decentralized organic networks
and reeds law and so forth... I could hear the eyes roll. But he got my
attention because I see the cosmos as an "organic", adaptive,
interconnected thing. A complex open self-organizing system so to speak. And
the thing about open systems is that you start with some very simple ground
rules and then you get out of the way. It'll make it's own rules from then
on and if you try constrain it with boxes, or walls or straight lines it'll
either overwhelm you or it'll die. But what it won't be is the same.

My rather circuitous point here is simply that by choosing to directly link
the project into the Dean organization, we lose some of that self-directed,
self-sustaining, and, yes, self-organizing character; for better or ill.

One of the initial threads-become-firestorm was about the true meaning of
hacking, remember? I was first educated, then convinced, that the label
meant something very important to many of those involved. Well, based on my
recently corrected definition, we're now less about hacking and more about
"suits". And perhaps that's in fact the best outcome we could ever have
hoped for; perhaps not. I really don't know. I just know we've started down
a new path here and it feels different.

What I do know is that, given this linkage, if Dean isn't nominated the
movement will be a different "animal" then if it had remained independent
and it'll be standing around wondering what to do next. Will it be robust,
generalized and adaptive enough to redefine itself, grow and prosper? Or
will the constraints it "bought" by tying it's fortunes (and helm) to a
(the?) man render it too "specialized" to morph and thus extinct?

I don't know. I just read between the lines and thought I'd make an
observation. Read it, delete it, advise me to take my medication...
whatever. But think about it a bit, then put the shoulder once again to the


<--enter gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here-->

Reply via email to