Hear Hear
David de Bh?l www.v-practice.com On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Tim Cook <timothywayne.cook at gmail.com>wrote: > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100603/526fe6f2/attachment.html>
