"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..."


We certainly haven't answered everything, but there are a bunch of
things we have made decisions on, and I'm happy to answer any questions!

And no, this opensource/presidential campaign confluence is a hell of a
fun ride! Just let Rove try it :)


Zephyr Teachout
Internet Organizing & Outreach
Dean for America
Meetup at http://www.deanforamerica.com/meetup
Get local at http://action.deanforamerica.com
Contribute at http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute

-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Jay R. Ashworth
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [hackers] Re: Legal Issues and dodo birds

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
> 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
> be a conscious choice, and to knowledge there was not one objection.
> Yes there are very real conflicts with this development community
> such close ties with the official campaign, but in my opinion the
> are almost completly mitigated by the fact that this project is
> 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*
to think a4d might get embroiled, but that h4d probably shouldn't, and
that split will make lots of people lots of happier.

But what do *I* know; I just got here.  :-)

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

Speak for yourself.  :-)

> * Correct, the fact that the development community is becoming
> "official" spells out conflict with the abilities for the communities
> using our software to voice their opinion. However, HQ has already
> 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
> conflicts between control over the campaign message.

That doesn't seem to coincide with what I think I've heard Z say here in
last 24 hours.

Now, I understand that Burlington probably doesn't *know* how to
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
going to be to get the questions down into single sentences without
anything...  At least, that's what I've done for clients for about 20
and it seems to work well.  If I can help...

-- jra
Jay R. Ashworth
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
        -- Simon Slavin, on a.f.c

Reply via email to