On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 12:15 +0200, Erik Sundvall wrote: > Is the case that Sam or somebody else has later presented strong > arguments to the board that could not and will not be presented to the > community in the mailinglists or on the wiki? If arguments can not be > presented openly, then the risk increases that people suspect the > board or some of its members to have hidden agendas, and that is a bad > thing for an open project like openEHR.
Thanks for that research and organization work Erik. Whether Sam (as a Board member) or anyone else has presented any 'strong arguments' to the other Board members is an unknown and frankly, I think, is irrelevant. Over the past decade, we can probably count on our fingers the number of threads that a Board member other than Sam has participated in on any of the open mailing lists. They have participated on the ARB list and in private group mails where the audience is controlled. IMHO, this speaks loudly as to the desire of (or lack of desire) those members have to demonstrate any community building leadership. Neither has there been any move towards true open democracy in Board membership. A sparkling precedent exists that free-for-all openness works. The Internet we have today would not exist if Bob Kahn, Vint Cerf and others at DARPA had taken the same stance that we see the openEHR Board of Directors taking today. Even though they worked for the US Department of Defense. They realized that autonomous but cooperating groups was the best way to ensure (and insure) global uptake of the TCP/IP specifications. Even if they weren't perfect (the 32 bit address space being a glowing example) they were a perfect starting place. The fact that they could be passed around, translated, etc. gave rise to the many implementations. The comments regarding "protecting the users" is, IMHO, a Trojan Horse. What I perceive that is inside the horse, I'll keep to myself for the time being. So, Trojan Horse or Red Herring; it is a mis-leading reasoning. People need to be able to FREELY copy, derive and implement the specifications as they see fit. No one is going to intentionally attempt to monopolize the specifications using an embrace and extend or any other approach. To do so would simply isolate them. But after nearly 10 years of trying to convince them otherwise I have given up on changing the minds and approaches of the central authority of openEHR. This is why the Multi-Level Health Information Modeling (http://www.mlhim.org) umbrella project was created. In less than one year we are already seeing project funding and porting of existing projects to MLHIM. Attitude makes a difference. You are all welcome to join us if you wish. Kind Regards, Tim -- *************************************************************** Timothy Cook, MSc LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook Skype ID == (upon request) Academic.Edu Profile: http://uff.academia.edu/TimothyCook You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100602/d5c4e893/attachment.asc>
