[Foundation-l] Opinions/suggestions for "outside" members of the board?

[Ray Saintonge]

Anthere wrote:

>Fred Bauder wrote:
>  
>
>>I have always viewed Jimbo's suggestion that we "distribute a paper  
>>encyclopedia to African children" as quixotic but I have in  
>>connection with a possible board member wondered if we could create a  
>>series of documents which focus on public health which would prove  
>>useful in Africa, possibly also in China and other regions, and be  
>>worth distributing as part of a public health education campaign.  
>>There was lately a cholera epidemic in Angola which affected most of  
>>the country. There is a lot of ignorance involved in this sort of  
>>situation. I don't see this project so much directed to children as  
>>to local decision makers. It would contain information about disease  
>>and disease prevention, etc. The question, bottom line, is would a  
>>project of this nature actually prove effective? Or should we first  
>>see if we could even mobilize around it? One of the good aspects  
>>regarding this possible board member is that he is a hands on,  
>>computer literate guy with experience in give and take.
>>    
>>
>Regarding "would a project of this nature actually prove effective", I 
>am giving a presentation end of august in an international health forum 
>(http://www.hcuge.ch/genevahealthforum/) and this is exactly the type of 
>question I hope can receive a beginning of an answer.
>
>I do not really believe we can mobilize around it before setting up a 
>framework around. We need partners for such project and these partners 
>input will be essential to define which content should be included or 
>not included, and what the audience would be.
>
>However, admittedly, what I would worry about is, if a framework is set, 
>with partners and of course, a deadline, I am not sure we would succeed 
>to mobilize enough and in a sufficiently effective way to respect the 
>limits. I think we can do huge things, but generally, we are bad with 
>deadlines because a volunteer may come and go.
>
>Also, one of the reasons why Wikipedia typically is successful is that 
>it can be build by tiny bits. Doing just a bit is easy. A little step 
>that most of us can climb without too much efforts. It is much more of a 
>problem to participate to a long term project, in which significant 
>amounts of efforts must be brought be each contributor.
>
The idea is commendable but strikes me as well beyond the scope of the 
things we do.  We are more in a kind of educational publishing business 
rather than a vehicle for mibilising health care.  Our information could 
include medical information, but publishing that information is not 
enough.  We could include "The Barefoot Doctor's Manual" in Wikisource.  
(The English translation was published by the National Institute of 
Health in 1974, and that would likely make it copyright free as a US 
government publication despite the claims of subsequent reprinters.)

But the advances in Chinese medical practice at that time involved more 
than just publishing a book.  It was a textbook for teaching.  Putting 
it on-line won't do much for people who don't have computers.  What the 
barefoot doctor mobilization did in China was was bring medical care to 
rural areas where no care at all was previously available; one should 
not, therefore, judge the skill of these practitioners by reference to 
the medical personel in developed countries where there is access to 
sophisticated equipment and drugs. 

What's needed is to mobilize local people, give them a basic level of 
medical training, and send them out through the country  where, as much 
as possible, they can use indiginous supplies in the practice of 
medicine.  This may seem like quackery by Western standards, but it's 
better than the nothing that that public currently has.  Our role in 
this can only be very limited.

Ec