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 >
