On 6/19/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I gave a brief explanation of what I think Erik is talking about wrt Larry Lessig. For an example of the dispute, see also http://intelligentdesigns.net/blog/?p=25
So you believe Erik opposed Lessig for being pragmatic enough to believe that there is a place in the world for unfree but not outrageously limited content?
I won't speak for Erik, but I've read enough by Lessig to know that his philosophy on this matter goes well beyond mere pragmatism. Lessig doesn't just recognize that he lives in a world with unfree content, that's the world he wants to live in.
I'd hope that Lessig would realize that "free as in beer" media is already done rather well by NPR, and that while there is a place in the world for unfree things, that place isn't Wikimedia. I'd hope so, and nothing from my limited conversations with him has suggested otherwise... It would seem to be rather disrespectful to dismiss him on the basis of such presumptions.
I don't think he should be dismissed completely. I just don't think it's appropriate to put him on the governing board, especially a strong governing board with essentially no limits on its power, without the community first getting to know him, within the context of Wikimedia, a lot more.
His problem with Mitch Kapor seems clear. For more background see [[Mozilla Corporation]].
I'm not sure what his problem with RMS and Eben Moglen are.
As above these people have a proven track record and substantial experience. They may hold some views which are incompatible, but we can't know that based on assumptions and our own criticisms related to circumstances which are vastly different from our own...
And that is precisely why I don't think it's a good idea to put outsiders on the governing board in the first place.
It's clear that they all have vision and experience which could benefit us, and a proven trackrecord to back up their claims. It's not like anyone is discussing handing them board seats without discussion.
If you think there's going to be a public announcement that X is being considered for appointment to the board, and that the community now has a chance to interview the candidate and see how well he or she fits in with Wikimedia, I think you're sadly mistaken. I'm under the assumption that this *is* that discussion. It seems to be going about similar to the discussion over who to name as the chief executive.
These people don't bring particularly different perspectives to the organization, but I do think their input is useful, because they represent some of the most influential people with regard to those perspectives. I'd love to have RMS and Larry Lessig battling it out on this mailing list over how best to implement Wikimedia project copyright policies (with Eben Moglen presenting his own opinions as to how best to implement these policies). But I think it's pretty obvious that they're already invited to do so.
Presumably they aren't here arguing on the list because they are busy getting something done. :)
I would think, considering your participation in this discussion, that engaging in open dialogue with the goal of determining the right thing to do is often just as useful as actually doing it.
Unfortunately I don't know much about Mitch Kapor. But given what I do know I would love to hear his input on how best to bring sustainable revenue to the foundation. This doesn't mean I know enough to say he should be given a vote.
Absolutely, I don't know enough either. But I know enough not to dismiss them off hand...
Maybe I've done that, and if so I guess I shouldn't have. But I repeat the question asked by others in this thread. What is the purpose of putting one of these people on the board in the first place? What is the purpose that isn't served equally by some other position?
Anthony