[Foundation-l] Response to message by thread breaking nazi.

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Jan 19, 2008 12:25 AM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> If that's what you think I was doing, then I apologize.  I thought I
> was making a subtler point, but, then, maybe it was too subtle.

I saw a subtler argument in your message, but I don't see how I could
have followed it without implicitly accepting the notion that the only
reasons to have a strong preference for free tech was a religious on,
which seems a rather dismissive position. It would not have been the
first time someone here has accused the other side of zealotry on this
particular set of issues.

If I've completely misunderstood where you were going, then you have
my sincerest  apology.

> That is not the approach I meant to be understood as taking.

Ok.

> > No religion is required. Only a willingness to value long term goals
> > over short term convenience.
>
> And here you assume that only those who believe as you believe value
> long-term goals over short-term convenience.

No. There I go pointing out why I think my position can be understood
as reasonable without too many deep philosophies or acceptance by
faith. To be complete I should have also said that I think following
my argument only required a few other beliefs, such as valuing
freedom.  From there the rest of my argument follows by incremental
reasoning.

I'm glad I didn't say more, since it appears I would have given the
impression that I was claiming you didn't value freedom!  Gah. I'm
sorry for creating a misunderstanding.

>  I should think it
> apparent to pretty much everybody that the Kaltura collaboration is
> not convenient in the short term.

The choice of a partner which fundamentally requires proprietary
technology, over alternative paths which use or create non-proprietary
technology (which may currently be less mature or less adopted), is
short term advantageous compared to other options.

> I should think it apparent to pretty
> much everyone familiar with my work that I value long-term goals over
> short-term convenience.

It was not my attention to accuse you of being short over long term.
If I thought you were the sort of person who did that I would have
never recommended that the foundation were to hire you.

I understand how you could have read my discussion as a claim that I
think you are a short-term-thinker, and I apologies for not
considering that in advance and leaving that avenue for
misinterpretation open.

On the other hand, I am also not so foolish or rude to think you can't
think about short term value, where that makes sense too.

> At this point, I was sufficiently upset by how you mischaracterized my
> position, and because you used the word "nazi" in reference to me,
> that I ceased to read further.
>
> This is the first time in a long time that anyone has called me a
> nazi.  Not impossibly, your friends are comfortable being called nazis
> in jest. I'm not, for I think obvious historical reasons, and for
> reasons that I've written about.

I'm very torn on how to respond to this point.

On one hand I am truly and deeply sorry for offending you, which is an
outcome which has taken me completely by surprise.

On the other hand, I am offended at your offense and I feel compelled
to spell out what you missed:

You, Mike Godwin of [[Godwin's law]] fame, should be the first to
understand why comparing the other side to something bad (Nazism;
Religious fundamentalist reasoning) is both a loosing argument
technique, and a disservice to valid comparisons.

While you went on to make a whole argument based on the notion that
the other side is purely engaging in fundamentalists reasoning,  I
responded asking you not to take that approach. I included an utterly
non-sense reference to nazism in my subject line in parody of your own
inflammatory subject line,  as a reference to the type of escalation
the those attacks always produce, and as a fitting word choice
considering the person I was speaking to.

I did not actually expect or intend anyone here, yourself included, to
think I was actually calling you a nazi. Doing so would have made no
sense, it would have been left entirely unsupported by my comments,
and it would have made me a huge hypocrite considering that my message
opened by pointing out that attacks kill reasonable discourse.

For the record,  I do not think Mike Godwin is a nazi, and through no
stretching of logic can I imagine an argument which would allow me to
do so in this context.

That dispensed with, .. Will no one here respond to the issues I've
raised about the foundation's handling of this, about the importance
of avoiding proprietary formats, etc?  Have I just offended everyone,
or does no one with a contrasting view really have anything to say in
response?