On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 02:43:07PM -0500, zachary rosen wrote:
> > Astute observations CMR - I don't disagree with a word you said.  If we
> > are official, then we have sold out.
> >
> > That being said I remain almost completly unconcerned with the problems of
> > such a close association. All through the process of deciding how
> > "official" our organization would be come it was made clear that it would
> > be a conscious choice, and to knowledge there was not one objection.
> >
> > Yes there are very real conflicts with this development community having
> > such close ties with the official campaign, but in my opinion the problems
> > are almost completly mitigated by the fact that this project is completly
> > open source.
>
> Or maybe not.
>
> I think that, as I noted in my immediately previous email, delineating
> between a4d and h4d is probably something close to critical here.  *I* tend
> to think a4d might get embroiled, but that h4d probably shouldn't, and that
> that split will make lots of people lots of happier.
>
> But what do *I* know; I just got here.  :-)

Well, when we decide on the name for the network it may end up that both
h4d and a4d get trashed.  My proposition a week ago so far has met no
resistance: that we should decide a network name, and buy a domain like:
deanspace.net - and set up the open source development community working
on the network there. The devlogs can be moved over to the new domain, and
the test node applications / feedback / tech help desk could aslo be
housed there.  Then A4D can become , if we can find admins, an unnoficial
"top node" to the network, and eventually DFA will become the official
"top node".  Comments / concerns / objections?



> > * Yes, HQ is very concerned about the name "hack" and in my opinion it is
> > very probable we will change our name because of it.  The fact that a
> > _presidential campaign_  - the official campaign - is willing to embrace
> > and endorse an open source development project is so outragously cool that
> > name of the working group working on the tools isn't so important to me
> > personally anymore.  Besides, i would rather win this election than save
> > the word "hack".
>
> Speak for yourself.  :-)

Certainly am :)

> > * Correct, the fact that the development community is becoming somewhat
> > "official" spells out conflict with the abilities for the communities
> > using our software to voice their opinion. However, HQ has already stated
> > and I truly believe that communities using our tools will remain
> > unofficial, and thus unrestricted by the official campaign.  There are
> > very reall PR and legal reasons why this must be so, beyond perceivable
> > conflicts between control over the campaign message.
>
> That doesn't seem to coincide with what I think I've heard Z say here in the
> last 24 hours.
>
> Now, I understand that Burlington probably doesn't *know* how to approach
> this; no one has ever tried, I don't think, to intersect something as
> free-wheeling as open-source with something as tightly-controlled as a
> presidential campaign.
>
> And yes, we can't afford to make as many mistakes here.
>
> And yes, we need strategic thinking.
>
> And yes, (alas) they're likely to have to come from the political side of the
> house.  I think, as much as anything else, the job over here in hackland is
> going to be to get the questions down into single sentences without losing
> anything...  At least, that's what I've done for clients for about 20 years,
> and it seems to work well.  If I can help..

So far my feedback from HQ has been stellar.  They have been fine with
everything we've thrown at them basically, save the node hoster - and that
one isnt their choice.  I have no concerns over  potential nefarious  meme
squashing rampages on their parts. You are correct, we cannot afford
mistakes - and Burlington probbly does not really know how to handle this,
because it has never really been handled before.  IMO so far they are
doing a stellar job.

-Zack



> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth                                                [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Member of the Technical Staff     Baylink                             RFC 2100
> The Suncoast Freenet         The Things I Think
> Tampa Bay, Florida        http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274
>
>    OS X: Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows
>         -- Simon Slavin, on a.f.c
>

Reply via email to