On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 13:30:44   Calle Hedberg wrote:
...
>I would
>believe the Open Source community - just like any "technical" sector -
>comprise people from all parts of the political spectrum. If e.g. Raymond
>CONSISTENTLY is misusing his participation to post irrelevant stuff on any
>list, ask him to stop it and remove him from the list if he don't listen
>(same list rules as for anybody else).

Hi Calle,

Should 1) the group make a collective decision first and then notify him or 2) 
individuals directly ask him to stop it?

If 1), then should individuals communicate in secret first before making their 
collective displeasure known to the offender? :-)

...
>This individualist approach is typical for the US, whereas e.g. Europe and
>other continents often defines "rest in our hands" as much more a COLLECTIVE
>responsibility. 

Still, "individual acts" are the necessary components of a "COLLECTIVE act". There 
have been clear and frequently regretable instances in history (and in psychological 
experiments) where deferring responsibility to the "COLLECTIVE" leads to lack of 
action.

>Things don't boil down to "individuals making specific
>decisions and taking concrete actions", but to GROUPS and NETWORKS OF PEOPLE
>"making specific decisions and taking concrete actions".

There is nothing wrong with groups of people making decisions together and working in 
concert towards a common goal. I think what ESR emphasizes is the individual's 
responsibility to act. If there are no individual acts, then there will be no 
groups/networks of people. It has to start somewhere.

>To me, it seems like this individualist approach is the root cause of why so
>many Open Source in Health projects are so small - they are all initiated
>and run by individualists firmly convinced that "the welfare of our
>community clearly rest in my hands". 

Unfortunately, it does take highly goal-oriented individualists to start any project. 
Speaking for myself only, if I am not firmly convinced that I have something unique to 
offer, it would not make sense to continue. In practical terms, it means if I can find 
another project that delivers a better tool than the OIO Project, I will gladly 
merge/move to that project.

As far as why all the projects are so small, my guess is that it is because they are 
not useful enough to most of the targeted users. Health settings and clinicians are 
understandably conservative in adopting new tools and technologies. As mentioned many 
times before by others on this list, they have to be highly risk adverse given the 
serious consequences of product/services that they deliver.

>They want collaboration, but mainly on
>their own terms.

This is not unique to this group or this type of endeaver. Most people would like to 
live and work on their own terms :-). The challenge is to facilitate communication so 
that available opportunities to collaborate are clearly delineated.

Once the opportunities are sufficiently described and accessible (which is the major 
contribution of Minoru's openhealth list), then it is up to each individual to assess 
and decide whether they are willing to collaborate.

...
>This tradition is
>under threat everywhere from patenting and commercialisation, not only the
>US.

As a patent holder and an initiator of an open source project, I think the negative 
impact of the patent system needs to be assessed in the context of its positive 
impacts. I suspect this is also applies to commercialisation.

Once an invention becomes widely accepted and adopted, certainly patent can hinder 
access by its monopolistic nature. However, without patent, many inventions may not 
become widely accepted or adopted. In my view, patents are good for motivating 
investment in new technology. It is, therefore, important to assess their impact on 
both widely accepted and radical inventions.

...

>I've been informed that my proposal for a workshop at Medinfo 2001 called
>"Global networks of users and developers for Open Source development" has
>been accepted. 

Congratulations! I look forward to reading your outline/paper.
...

Best regards,

Andrew
---
Andrew P. Ho, M.D.
OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes
www.TxOutcome.Org
Assistant Clinical Professor
Department of Psychiatry, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center
University of California, Los Angeles


Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at 
http://www.eudoramail.com

Reply via email to