Re: [hackers] Re: Legal Issues and dodo birds
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:43:39PM -0400, Zack Rosen wrote: > > a4d is *a* network. It's using tools developed by, for lack of a > > better > > name to clarify the point: hackers4democracy. > > Yes, we expect the tools we are creating to be used and extended far > beyond this campaign. The distinction and roles between A4D H4D and DFA > have been blurred since they have originally been decided, which is why > I have been avoiding trying to specify them - because right now it is a > little up in the air. Hopefully after the meeting tonight we will have > a much clearer picture. (#hack4dean irc.freenode.org 8:30 PM EST). I'll be there, with bits on. > I think the Lessig thing went well. I think it was messy and it made > history. It was more than worth it if not only for the fact that now > Dean is drawing up a policy on contemporary IP issues - a first as far > as I can tell and very dear to my heart. And drawing fire. That wasn't necessary. I suppose, as long as they spell his name right, but still... > "*inspired* by the Dean candidacy... as one specifically *for* DFA" : I > would agree with this observation, but to each his own. > > > And I think the organization needs to reflect that. > > What organization? :p Indeed. I'll clarify more if necessary, on IRC, but mostly just: separate the creation of the toolset (and the organization doing that) from the organization *employing* the toolset. The latter has to deal with legal crap; the former doesn't. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Floridahttp://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 OS X: Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows -- Simon Slavin, on a.f.c
RE: [hackers] Re: Legal Issues and dodo birds
> a4d is *a* network. It's using tools developed by, for lack of a > better > name to clarify the point: hackers4democracy. Yes, we expect the tools we are creating to be used and extended far beyond this campaign. The distinction and roles between A4D H4D and DFA have been blurred since they have originally been decided, which is why I have been avoiding trying to specify them - because right now it is a little up in the air. Hopefully after the meeting tonight we will have a much clearer picture. (#hack4dean irc.freenode.org 8:30 PM EST). > Yes, except for the Lessig (let's call a spade) debacle. :-) But I > think that the people who assert that this is as much a generic > project, > *inspired* by the Dean candidacy, as one specifically *for* DFA are, and > ought to be, right. > And I think the organization needs to reflect that. I think the Lessig thing went well. I think it was messy and it made history. It was more than worth it if not only for the fact that now Dean is drawing up a policy on contemporary IP issues - a first as far as I can tell and very dear to my heart. "*inspired* by the Dean candidacy... as one specifically *for* DFA" : I would agree with this observation, but to each his own. > And I think the organization needs to reflect that. What organization? :p -Zack -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jay R. Ashworth Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 4:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [hackers] Re: Legal Issues and dodo birds On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:26:21PM -0500, zachary rosen wrote: > > I think that, as I noted in my immediately previous email, > > delineating between a4d and h4d is probably something close to > > critical here. *I* tend to think a4d might get embroiled, but that > > h4d probably shouldn't, and that that split will make lots of people > > lots of happier. > > > > But what do *I* know; I just got here. :-) > > Well, when we decide on the name for the network it may end up that > both h4d and a4d get trashed. My proposition a week ago so far has > met no > resistance: that we should decide a network name, and buy a domain like: > deanspace.net - and set up the open source development community working > on the network there. The devlogs can be moved over to the new domain, and > the test node applications / feedback / tech help desk could aslo be > housed there. Then A4D can become , if we can find admins, an unnoficial > "top node" to the network, and eventually DFA will become the official > "top node". Comments / concerns / objections? Yeah, I think that your recap fails to address my point. :-) a4d is *a* network. It's using tools developed by, for lack of a better name to clarify the point: hackers4democracy. Was that enough, or should I go to round 3? :-) > > 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 is going to be to get the questions down into > > single sentences without losing anything... At least, that's what > > I've done for clients for about 20 years, and it seems to work well. > > If I can help.. > > So far my feedback from HQ has been stellar. They have been fine with > everything we've thrown at them basically, save the node hoster - and > that one isnt their choice. I have no concerns over potential > nefarious meme squashing rampages on their parts. You are correct, we > cannot afford mistakes - and Burlington probbly does not really know > how to handle this, because it has never really been handled before. > IMO so far they are doing a stellar job. Yes, except for the Lessig (let's call a spade) debacle. :-) But I think that the people who assert that this is as much a generic project, *inspired* by the Dean candidacy, as one specifically *for* DFA are, and ought to be, right. And I think the organization needs to reflect that. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Floridahttp://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 OS X: Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows -- Simon Slavin, on a.f.c
Re: [hackers] Re: Legal Issues and dodo birds
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:26:21PM -0500, zachary rosen wrote: > > I think that, as I noted in my immediately previous email, delineating > > between a4d and h4d is probably something close to critical here. *I* tend > > to think a4d might get embroiled, but that h4d probably shouldn't, and that > > that split will make lots of people lots of happier. > > > > But what do *I* know; I just got here. :-) > > Well, when we decide on the name for the network it may end up that both > h4d and a4d get trashed. My proposition a week ago so far has met no > resistance: that we should decide a network name, and buy a domain like: > deanspace.net - and set up the open source development community working > on the network there. The devlogs can be moved over to the new domain, and > the test node applications / feedback / tech help desk could aslo be > housed there. Then A4D can become , if we can find admins, an unnoficial > "top node" to the network, and eventually DFA will become the official > "top node". Comments / concerns / objections? Yeah, I think that your recap fails to address my point. :-) a4d is *a* network. It's using tools developed by, for lack of a better name to clarify the point: hackers4democracy. Was that enough, or should I go to round 3? :-) > > 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 is > > going to be to get the questions down into single sentences without losing > > anything... At least, that's what I've done for clients for about 20 years, > > and it seems to work well. If I can help.. > > So far my feedback from HQ has been stellar. They have been fine with > everything we've thrown at them basically, save the node hoster - and that > one isnt their choice. I have no concerns over potential nefarious meme > squashing rampages on their parts. You are correct, we cannot afford > mistakes - and Burlington probbly does not really know how to handle this, > because it has never really been handled before. IMO so far they are > doing a stellar job. Yes, except for the Lessig (let's call a spade) debacle. :-) But I think that the people who assert that this is as much a generic project, *inspired* by the Dean candidacy, as one specifically *for* DFA are, and ought to be, right. And I think the organization needs to reflect that. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Floridahttp://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 OS X: Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows -- Simon Slavin, on a.f.c
Re: [hackers] Re: Legal Issues and dodo birds
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 01:27:47PM -0700, Joshua Koenig wrote: > You at HQ are right to be cautious about how all of this is > implemented, about how the Sites will be hosted and who will offer > support. But as I see it, it's really not something you want to try to > control. On the one hand you won't be able to -- the genie is already > out of the bottle as they say -- and on the other hand, the more > controlling force you exert, the less participation you will have. Which is almost exactly the same thing that applies to the MeetUp's and why I'm sure Burlington is glad to *have* MeetUp.com "in the way" and why our local steering committee tries (or at least, I do) to maintain a clear line of demarcation: we recommend to people where they should vote to meet, but we don't *tell* anyone. > Maybe the campaign needs to have a "party line" on these issues, a > stance they're sticking with; something that will legally protect you > from whatever any individual might attempt to do with the products of > our collective efforts. Individuals can either toe that party line (and > work under the campaign) or remain independent, which means they are > not allowed to coordinate. "... with Burlington." They'll likely be semi-automatically coordinating with one another. Remember the Gilmore quote, though, about routing around censorship. It's gonna get windy out by and by, folks. > > I see the main advantage of working with the campaign being, from a > > political point of view, that the work you are doing can not only win > > the presidency but transform politics. Because there is a driver behind > > it -- Dean -- it will grow exponentially. > > I'll have to respectfully disagree with you here, Zephyr. As much as I > like Howard Dean and want him to win the presidency, the truly > transformative power of what we're doing comes from it's ability to be > picked up and used by any campaign by any party anywhere in the world. > If it's just a DeanTool this will not happen. It will need to die (and > hopefully be reborn) on election day. If it's something else -- the > virtual town hall -- then it has a life and an impact that reaches far > beyond Decision 2004. Very eloquently put, Josh, and I agree. > > In my vision, Howard Dean will not just mention Meetups on the > > stump, but setting up Dean Community Sites. I really believe this is > > the > > next phase of the revolution -- and I'm sorry if you're feeling some of > > the constraints, but I hope you decide that they are worth it. > > I think we all share this vision, but at the same time I strongly doubt > the campaign exercises any direct control -- legally or content-wise -- > over Meetup. And by corollary, I don't see any reason why DFA ought to need to exercise *control* over either the design or implementation of the "kit". They can promulgate *standards*, certainly, just as Avon has for websites run by it's independent distributors -- and indeed, perhaps that's the best analogy here: modulo FEC regs, local committees which have *not* yet formally affiliated with Burlington are "independent contractors". As long as they don't violate the law, they can say, editorially, what they like. Whether they have a license to use materials supplied by DFA, likely, is where such control as they campaign might impose would come from. > Similarly, IMHO our effort needs to be fundamentally independent from > the campaign for a time (as it has been for the past months and > functionally still is now), until it is mature enough that we (the > hack4dean working group) can release our code. At that point, the > campaign is free to pick up the ball and run with it, and various > elements of this group will be free to do the same, to pursue whatever > other dreams they have for this movement. > > We're not there yet. Bummer. > Now with Dean as a frontrunner, we run the risk of turning too much in > the opposite direction. To my mind, it's of the utmost importance that > the effort of developing this kit be an all-volunteer Free software > effort. Once this is done, it seems likely that the hack4dean group > will splinter: some will continue to work on the kit, some will break > off and focus on helping people set up nodes, some will go to work > directly for the campaign in one capacity or another, some will attempt > other things. This is natural and good. Yeah, I don't know how to deal with success either. ;-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Floridahttp://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 OS X: Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows -- Simon Slavin, on a.f.c
RE: [hackers] Re: Legal Issues and dodo birds
"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..." Yep! 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 :) Z Zephyr Teachout Internet Organizing & Outreach Dean for America [EMAIL PROTECTED] Meetup at http://www.deanforamerica.com/meetup Get local at http://action.deanforamerica.com Contribute at http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jay R. Ashworth Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 3:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 we > 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 would > be a conscious choice, and to knowledge there was not one objection. > > Yes there are very real conflicts with this development community having > such close ties with the official campaign, but in my opinion the problems > are almost completly mitigated by the fact that this project is completly > 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* tend to think a4d might get embroiled, but that h4d probably shouldn't, and that 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 is > very probable we will change our name because of it. The fact that a > _presidential campaign_ - the official campaign - is willing to embrace > and endorse an open source development project is so outragously cool that > name of the working group working on the tools isn't so important to me > personally anymore. Besides, i would rather win this election than save > the word "hack". Speak for yourself. :-) > * Correct, the fact that the development community is becoming somewhat > "official" spells out conflict with the abilities for the communities > using our software to voice their opinion. However, HQ has already stated > 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 perceivable > conflicts between control over the campaign message. That doesn't seem to coincide with what I think I've heard Z say here in the last 24 hours. Now, I understand that Burlington probably doesn't *know* how to approach 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 is going to be to get the questions down into single sentences without losing anything... At least, that's what I've done for clients for about 20 years, and it seems to work well. If I can help... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Floridahttp://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 OS X: Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows -- Simon Slavin, on a.f.c
Re: [hackers] Re: Legal Issues and dodo birds
I was under the (perhaps mis)apprehension that all this had been hashed out with the hackers, but it sounds like it may not have been. Of course it's a tough choice. You guys have two choices, really: (1) work w/the campaign (2) work outside the campaign Hmmm... I was going to respond to some of the other messages, but I think CMR already hit all the important notes. So I'll talk simply about working with/without the campaign. I don't think it's as simple as that. Here's the deal as I see it. Hack4Dean as an organization is highly informal.In many ways, there is no us. We have no leaders. We have no qualification for membership. We are an ad-hoc collective of individuals motivated by common cause, but we are by no means an official organization. It's quite unlikely that we will en masse agree to work under or be independent of the campaign. There are also many facets to what we envision, and it's similarly unlikely that all those facets would fall under direct campaign purview, or that the campaign would even want them to. For example, the tool (the kit) we're building will not be owned by the campaign. It must not be. It will be a free-standing unit of open source software. Much of it is copyrighted by the original Drupal people and the new stuff belongs by default to whoever coded it. There's nothing for the campaign to gain from owning this part of the movement, by owning the "kit". Where it does make sense for the campaign to step in and own things is on the meta level: the ideas of the Visable Volunteers (MetaDean Talent) and a Dean Space central aggregator (MetaDean) are both good ones for the campaign to run. The campaign can also promote the kit much as it does meetup, and of course once the network is up and running the campaign will be a major source of content. You at HQ are right to be cautious about how all of this is implemented, about how the Sites will be hosted and who will offer support. But as I see it, it's really not something you want to try to control. On the one hand you won't be able to -- the genie is already out of the bottle as they say -- and on the other hand, the more controlling force you exert, the less participation you will have. Maybe the campaign needs to have a "party line" on these issues, a stance they're sticking with; something that will legally protect you from whatever any individual might attempt to do with the products of our collective efforts. Individuals can either toe that party line (and work under the campaign) or remain independent, which means they are not allowed to coordinate. I see the main advantage of working with the campaign being, from a political point of view, that the work you are doing can not only win the presidency but transform politics. Because there is a driver behind it -- Dean -- it will grow exponentially. I'll have to respectfully disagree with you here, Zephyr. As much as I like Howard Dean and want him to win the presidency, the truly transformative power of what we're doing comes from it's ability to be picked up and used by any campaign by any party anywhere in the world. If it's just a DeanTool this will not happen. It will need to die (and hopefully be reborn) on election day. If it's something else -- the virtual town hall -- then it has a life and an impact that reaches far beyond Decision 2004. In my vision, Howard Dean will not just mention Meetups on the stump, but setting up Dean Community Sites. I really believe this is the next phase of the revolution -- and I'm sorry if you're feeling some of the constraints, but I hope you decide that they are worth it. I think we all share this vision, but at the same time I strongly doubt the campaign exercises any direct control -- legally or content-wise -- over Meetup. Similarly, IMHO our effort needs to be fundamentally independent from the campaign for a time (as it has been for the past months and functionally still is now), until it is mature enough that we (the hack4dean working group) can release our code. At that point, the campaign is free to pick up the ball and run with it, and various elements of this group will be free to do the same, to pursue whatever other dreams they have for this movement. We're not there yet. From my recollection, this project has always taken a longer view than the Dean campaign. When I first started, there was significant doubt that Dean would even make it to the GE, yet I/we continued to work because we felt our project had more to do with the spirit of the Dean campaign (participation, empowerment, community) than with the actuality of it's success or failure. Even if Dean didn't make it, I thought, our project would help carry his energy forward. Now with Dean as a frontrunner, we run the risk of turning too much in the opposite direction. To my mind, it's of the utmost importance that the effort of developing this kit be an all-volunteer Free software effort. Once thi
Re: [hackers] Re: Legal Issues and dodo birds
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > 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 we > > 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 would > > be a conscious choice, and to knowledge there was not one objection. > > > > Yes there are very real conflicts with this development community having > > such close ties with the official campaign, but in my opinion the problems > > are almost completly mitigated by the fact that this project is completly > > 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* tend > to think a4d might get embroiled, but that h4d probably shouldn't, and that > that split will make lots of people lots of happier. > > But what do *I* know; I just got here. :-) Well, when we decide on the name for the network it may end up that both h4d and a4d get trashed. My proposition a week ago so far has met no resistance: that we should decide a network name, and buy a domain like: deanspace.net - and set up the open source development community working on the network there. The devlogs can be moved over to the new domain, and the test node applications / feedback / tech help desk could aslo be housed there. Then A4D can become , if we can find admins, an unnoficial "top node" to the network, and eventually DFA will become the official "top node". Comments / concerns / objections? > > * Yes, HQ is very concerned about the name "hack" and in my opinion it is > > very probable we will change our name because of it. The fact that a > > _presidential campaign_ - the official campaign - is willing to embrace > > and endorse an open source development project is so outragously cool that > > name of the working group working on the tools isn't so important to me > > personally anymore. Besides, i would rather win this election than save > > the word "hack". > > Speak for yourself. :-) Certainly am :) > > * Correct, the fact that the development community is becoming somewhat > > "official" spells out conflict with the abilities for the communities > > using our software to voice their opinion. However, HQ has already stated > > 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 perceivable > > conflicts between control over the campaign message. > > That doesn't seem to coincide with what I think I've heard Z say here in the > last 24 hours. > > Now, I understand that Burlington probably doesn't *know* how to approach > 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 is > going to be to get the questions down into single sentences without losing > anything... At least, that's what I've done for clients for about 20 years, > and it seems to work well. If I can help.. So far my feedback from HQ has been stellar. They have been fine with everything we've thrown at them basically, save the node hoster - and that one isnt their choice. I have no concerns over potential nefarious meme squashing rampages on their parts. You are correct, we cannot afford mistakes - and Burlington probbly does not really know how to handle this, because it has never really been handled before. IMO so far they are doing a stellar job. -Zack > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 > The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think > Tampa Bay, Floridahttp://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 > >OS X: Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows > -- Simon Slavin, on a.f.c >
RE: [hackers] Re: Legal Issues and dodo birds
A few random thoughts on this. I don't think one can really say that hack4dean has hashed this out, or that it is necessarily all that clear cut. Being a big fan of self organizing systems, it seems to me that what we have is a self organized system of hackers. Some part of the group is very eager to work with the campaign. Perhaps another part is as eager to work outside of the campaign, and probably a third group is somewhat indifferent. Personally, I have one primary goal. That is to get Howard Dean elected President. I will do everything I can to make that happen. To the extent that involves working on some 'official' part of the campaign, I will do it. To the extent it involves throwing up webpages from my home site, hacking some code, putting a bumpersticker on my car, wearing a button, and handing out leaflets where ever I go, I will do that too. I hope that this is the attitude of most of the people here. That said, I also am a programmer, and a social scientist. I am eager to develop tools that will further the cause of democracy globally and to write about the social implication of such tools. I imagine most people here are eager to see tools that further the cause of democracy developed, and we will work on this as much as possible within the campaign, and continue to work on this beyond the campaign. I hope that this is reflects not only my thoughts, but the thoughts of others here as well. Aldon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Zephyr Teachout Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 12:46 PM To: 'CMR'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [hackers] Re: Legal Issues and dodo birds Hey CMR: I was under the (perhaps mis)apprehension that all this had been hashed out with the hackers, but it sounds like it may not have been. Of course it's a tough choice. You guys have two choices, really: (1) work w/the campaign (2) work outside the campaign We're not indifferent to what you decide to do -- the opposite, really (you are a complete godsend, and can transform the campaign) -- but completely respect whatever you decide upon. It is your choice. I see the main advantage of working with the campaign being, from a political point of view, that the work you are doing can not only win the presidency but transform politics. Because there is a driver behind it -- Dean -- it will grow exponentially. The main disadvantage is that HQ ultimately has to make final decisions on content, presentation, and legal issues. The legal issues come up throughout, because they are the hammer of the conservatives. The content and presentation come up as the project nears completion. The closer we work together, the easier it will be to take the project immediately into the public sphere. We at HQ are committed to building a kit that allows decentralized, bottom up creativity and communication. We want to build something that allows each Dean site to control its own content and still be connected to the movements of the campaign, official and unofficial. That kit, perversely, as the expression of the campaign's commitment, is extremely important -- in legal as well as message presentation. I REALLY REALLY hope you decide (or affirm, if it is already decided) to work with us. It will be very hard for us to do it another way. I believe, personally, that the functionality built here will take off and be used to transform politics altogether, but that Dean is the driving force that will allow it to happen -- and our coordination, and a close connection to the campaign, will be the synergy necessary to make it work. In my vision, Howard Dean will not just mention Meetups on the stump, but setting up Dean Community Sites. I really believe this is the next phase of the revolution -- and I'm sorry if you're feeling some of the constraints, but I hope you decide that they are worth it. Thanks so much, Z Zephyr Teachout Internet Organizing & Outreach Dean for America [EMAIL PROTECTED] Meetup at http://www.deanforamerica.com/meetup Get local at http://action.deanforamerica.com Contribute at http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CMR Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 10:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [hackers] Re: Legal Issues and dodo birds > I talked to our lawyer again and he urged me STRONGLY to please ask you > guys not to deal with legal issues. This is different than Meetup hosts, > where people are looking for legal advice as independent groups, and not > coordinated with the campaign. Since we're working together, and > building a product the campaign will offer as a service, it is critical > that all legal decisions be made by Eric. > Observation time boys and girls: As this thread develops, I think it's becoming clear just what the difference is in becoming a movement "
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 we > 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 would > be a conscious choice, and to knowledge there was not one objection. > > Yes there are very real conflicts with this development community having > such close ties with the official campaign, but in my opinion the problems > are almost completly mitigated by the fact that this project is completly > 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* tend to think a4d might get embroiled, but that h4d probably shouldn't, and that 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 is > very probable we will change our name because of it. The fact that a > _presidential campaign_ - the official campaign - is willing to embrace > and endorse an open source development project is so outragously cool that > name of the working group working on the tools isn't so important to me > personally anymore. Besides, i would rather win this election than save > the word "hack". Speak for yourself. :-) > * Correct, the fact that the development community is becoming somewhat > "official" spells out conflict with the abilities for the communities > using our software to voice their opinion. However, HQ has already stated > 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 perceivable > conflicts between control over the campaign message. That doesn't seem to coincide with what I think I've heard Z say here in the last 24 hours. Now, I understand that Burlington probably doesn't *know* how to approach 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 is going to be to get the questions down into single sentences without losing anything... At least, that's what I've done for clients for about 20 years, and it seems to work well. If I can help... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Floridahttp://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 OS X: Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows -- Simon Slavin, on a.f.c
Re: [hackers] Re: Legal Issues and dodo birds
Astute observations CMR - I don't disagree with a word you said. If we 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 would be a conscious choice, and to knowledge there was not one objection. Yes there are very real conflicts with this development community having such close ties with the official campaign, but in my opinion the problems are almost completly mitigated by the fact that this project is completly open source. * Yes, HQ is very concerned about the name "hack" and in my opinion it is very probable we will change our name because of it. The fact that a _presidential campaign_ - the official campaign - is willing to embrace and endorse an open source development project is so outragously cool that name of the working group working on the tools isn't so important to me personally anymore. Besides, i would rather win this election than save the word "hack". * Sure, the campaign will have the final say into what goes int othe final distribution of the code that will constitute the "campaign community kit" distributed by the campaign. But whether we were working with them or not, this would not change, and furthermore - it is open source - anyone can make a "kit". * Correct, the fact that the development community is becoming somewhat "official" spells out conflict with the abilities for the communities using our software to voice their opinion. However, HQ has already stated 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 perceivable conflicts between control over the campaign message. What do you guys think? -Zack On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, CMR wrote: > > I talked to our lawyer again and he urged me STRONGLY to please ask you > > guys not to deal with legal issues. This is different than Meetup hosts, > > where people are looking for legal advice as independent groups, and not > > coordinated with the campaign. Since we're working together, and > > building a product the campaign will offer as a service, it is critical > > that all legal decisions be made by Eric. > > > > Observation time boys and girls: > > As this thread develops, I think it's becoming clear just what the > difference is in becoming a movement "of Dean" as opposed to one "for > Dean". I'm not passing judgment here, but just making the observation that > ceding the independence of the project, and subsequently it's ultimate > nature and function, comes at a "price".As do all choices. > > We've reached (and passed?) a crossroads here. Coordinating with Burlington > in a evermore "intimate" manner way well be the optimal path to follow at > this juncture, but that's a judgment call; anyone who says it's not, is > being disingenuous. We (or some of us, in any case) have become "players" > and that's a seductive experience indeed. But players often are required to > play by someone else's rules. Nothing wrong with that, right? Got to have > rules, after all. > > Thing is, I recall Zack's first posts regarding this "vision" on the > coffeehouse list. He was carrying on about decentralized organic networks > and reeds law and so forth... I could hear the eyes roll. But he got my > attention because I see the cosmos as an "organic", adaptive, > interconnected thing. A complex open self-organizing system so to speak. And > the thing about open systems is that you start with some very simple ground > rules and then you get out of the way. It'll make it's own rules from then > on and if you try constrain it with boxes, or walls or straight lines it'll > either overwhelm you or it'll die. But what it won't be is the same. > > My rather circuitous point here is simply that by choosing to directly link > the project into the Dean organization, we lose some of that self-directed, > self-sustaining, and, yes, self-organizing character; for better or ill. > > One of the initial threads-become-firestorm was about the true meaning of > hacking, remember? I was first educated, then convinced, that the label > meant something very important to many of those involved. Well, based on my > recently corrected definition, we're now less about hacking and more about > "suits". And perhaps that's in fact the best outcome we could ever have > hoped for; perhaps not. I really don't know. I just know we've started down > a new path here and it feels different. > > What I do know is that, given this linkage, if Dean isn't nominated the > movement will be a different "animal" then if it had remained independent > and it'll be standing around wondering what to do next. Will it be robust, > generalized and adaptive enough to redefine itself, grow and prosper? Or > will the constraints it "bought" by tying it's fort
RE: [hackers] Re: Legal Issues and dodo birds
> Thing is, I recall Zack's first posts regarding this "vision" on the > coffeehouse list. He was carrying on about decentralized organic > networks and reeds law and so forth... I could hear the eyes roll. > But he got my attention because I see the cosmos as an "organic", > adaptive, interconnected thing. A complex open self-organizing system > so to speak. And > the thing about open systems is that you start with some very > simple ground > rules and then you get out of the way. It'll make it's own rules from > then on and if you try constrain it with boxes, or walls or straight > lines it'll > either overwhelm you or it'll die. But what it won't be is the same. As Zack and I have already discussed, I've been carrying a similar vision for a while. I've thought about it enough by now to realize that we get there, not with something overnight/revolutionary, but with small steps. Yes, in helping Dean we have to adapt to the practical issues of a transitional campaign (i.e. transitional between traditional politics and our stake in something more like the "emergent democracy" that Joi et al have been trying to describe and work through). So I say we do what we have to for Dean, and that might mean compromises, but we also think about a more (inherently) independent set of initiatives as well, which can be spun off from the same vision. There are already some other initiatives where these kinds of tools would be a good fit, but first things first? best, Jon
RE: [hackers] Re: Legal Issues and dodo birds
Hey CMR: I was under the (perhaps mis)apprehension that all this had been hashed out with the hackers, but it sounds like it may not have been. Of course it's a tough choice. You guys have two choices, really: (1) work w/the campaign (2) work outside the campaign We're not indifferent to what you decide to do -- the opposite, really (you are a complete godsend, and can transform the campaign) -- but completely respect whatever you decide upon. It is your choice. I see the main advantage of working with the campaign being, from a political point of view, that the work you are doing can not only win the presidency but transform politics. Because there is a driver behind it -- Dean -- it will grow exponentially. The main disadvantage is that HQ ultimately has to make final decisions on content, presentation, and legal issues. The legal issues come up throughout, because they are the hammer of the conservatives. The content and presentation come up as the project nears completion. The closer we work together, the easier it will be to take the project immediately into the public sphere. We at HQ are committed to building a kit that allows decentralized, bottom up creativity and communication. We want to build something that allows each Dean site to control its own content and still be connected to the movements of the campaign, official and unofficial. That kit, perversely, as the expression of the campaign's commitment, is extremely important -- in legal as well as message presentation. I REALLY REALLY hope you decide (or affirm, if it is already decided) to work with us. It will be very hard for us to do it another way. I believe, personally, that the functionality built here will take off and be used to transform politics altogether, but that Dean is the driving force that will allow it to happen -- and our coordination, and a close connection to the campaign, will be the synergy necessary to make it work. In my vision, Howard Dean will not just mention Meetups on the stump, but setting up Dean Community Sites. I really believe this is the next phase of the revolution -- and I'm sorry if you're feeling some of the constraints, but I hope you decide that they are worth it. Thanks so much, Z Zephyr Teachout Internet Organizing & Outreach Dean for America [EMAIL PROTECTED] Meetup at http://www.deanforamerica.com/meetup Get local at http://action.deanforamerica.com Contribute at http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CMR Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 10:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [hackers] Re: Legal Issues and dodo birds > I talked to our lawyer again and he urged me STRONGLY to please ask you > guys not to deal with legal issues. This is different than Meetup hosts, > where people are looking for legal advice as independent groups, and not > coordinated with the campaign. Since we're working together, and > building a product the campaign will offer as a service, it is critical > that all legal decisions be made by Eric. > Observation time boys and girls: As this thread develops, I think it's becoming clear just what the difference is in becoming a movement "of Dean" as opposed to one "for Dean". I'm not passing judgment here, but just making the observation that ceding the independence of the project, and subsequently it's ultimate nature and function, comes at a "price".As do all choices. We've reached (and passed?) a crossroads here. Coordinating with Burlington in a evermore "intimate" manner way well be the optimal path to follow at this juncture, but that's a judgment call; anyone who says it's not, is being disingenuous. We (or some of us, in any case) have become "players" and that's a seductive experience indeed. But players often are required to play by someone else's rules. Nothing wrong with that, right? Got to have rules, after all. Thing is, I recall Zack's first posts regarding this "vision" on the coffeehouse list. He was carrying on about decentralized organic networks and reeds law and so forth... I could hear the eyes roll. But he got my attention because I see the cosmos as an "organic", adaptive, interconnected thing. A complex open self-organizing system so to speak. And the thing about open systems is that you start with some very simple ground rules and then you get out of the way. It'll make it's own rules from then on and if you try constrain it with boxes, or walls or straight lines it'll either overwhelm you or it'll die. But what it won't be is the same. My rather circuitous point here is simply that by choosing to directly link the project into the Dean organization, we lose some of that self-directed, self-sustaining, and, yes, self-organizing character; for better or ill. One of the initial threads-become-firestorm was about the true meaning of hacking, remember? I was first educated, then convinced, that the label meant something very important to m
