Hey all!

>From DFA's perspective, we're interested in getting this kit out as soon
as possible -- and for a bunch of reasons, we don't think we can push
DMT. (Most of them, but not all, are legal, fwiw, but as such critical
to our lawyer's ok and getting this out the door.) If anyone has any
questions about this, feel free to get in touch with me offline. 

So for the kits that we push, at least, whether or not we suggest a link
to DMT, we've got to do a distributed system for the modules. 

Finally, I'd love to push the vanilla version as soon as possible - I
don't want to push you guys, but I believe that the usability of the kit
depends on people using it, experimenting, telling us what works, and
then improving it. Much more important than the media part is the
section linking to the Get Local tools. It should be a simple module,
but its critical to us that people use these tools to reach out in their

What's your collective sense of time frame?

Thanks so much.  


The work DMT has done is fantastic, but, in brief, centralized nervous
systems create a different set of responsibilities for the campaign. In
fact, just a few issues with the video production related to a
centralized system can throw off our ability to connect to it at all. We
have to be cautious here -- I'm sorry if its tough. 

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 Ka-Ping Yee
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 2:40 AM
To: Zack Rosen
Cc: 'Jon Lebkowsky'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [hackers] Edge-to-Edge Principle / Reed's Law

Zack & Jon -- i'm not sure it's a good idea to copy David Reed and
Larry Lessig on these huge e-mail messages.  It might be impolite to
ask their opinion Without giving them the context of the discussion.

(And for God's sake i finally had to fix the spelling in the subject.
I couldn't take it any more...)

Anyway, i just wanted to address one thing for now --

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Zack Rosen wrote:
> So either the media-network intelligence goes in the nodes of the
> network, or it goes straight to the center of the Dean Media Team
> mother-ship.

A few times now you've talked about "having to get permission from DMT"
or being "controlled by DMT", and now the "DMT mother-ship".  It's clear
that you don't like the idea of someone else telling us what to do.
But it's unfair to describe DMT so adversarially, as though they were
some sort of independent controlling entity.

There is no "us" and "them".  We are all on the same team.

We're in this together.  Would you feel different if we were talking
about america.fordean.net as the search hub instead?  Why does it

Slashdot has a reasonably open moderation system, where they hand out
moderator access to lots of people.  The end result of the moderation
is a pretty good consensus on which comments are informative and which
ones are pointless flames.  And i don't have a sense that the discussion
there is being stifled or censored by single-minded moderation.  (The
discussions may be biased because of the user population, but that's a
different thing).

Would you be so unhappy with a system that worked as well as Slashdot?
It would probably be better, since (a) we wouldn't be relying on a
couple of dictators to select all the articles, and (b) our user
population would probably be better-behaved.

-- ?!ng

Reply via email to