[Foundation-l] [Commons-l] We should permit Flash video playback

[GerardM]

Hoi,

When Gregory writes that Erik is "under informed about efforts of other
people and other organisations", he implicitly recognises that those efforts
are happening outside of the WMF. These efforts do not have any status in
the WMF that I know of.

There are many organisations that we are connected to through personal
connections. Some of these connections are more or less obvious, for
instance the people who are part of the advisory board also represent a rich
variety of organisations. Other connections are less obvious like SJ and the
OLPC or Gregory's connection to unspecified projects re codecs.

In my opinion, the WMF seems to be on the one hand well connected as there
are many personal ties to organisations but on the other hand, the lack of
organisational ties make it an environment where you cannot expect to see
the effects of these personal ties to be sustained organisationally.

My hope is that with an organisation that will grow in its efficiency, there
will be more room for and importance given to explicit partnering with
organisations with whom we share objectives. Of importance is that we are
true to our principles in what we do. When we completely share the same
values and objectives, we should certainly partner and maybe even consider
merging.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On 7/21/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/21/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > Gregory, the problem with your position is the fundamental assumption
> > of bad faith that runs through so many of your arguments. Whether it's
> > Creative Commons 3.0 or a collaboration with the Archive, other
> > organizations are always insufficiently committed to freedom and
> > therefore impossible to collaborate with.
>
> Way to form a character assault Erik.  :(
>
> At this point I think I have a right to push on these things.
>
> For video, I've been involved for ages, building actual support
> software, quietly pushing things along like the progress on WhatWG
> HTML5 standards,  advocating participation.
>
> It's insulting as hell that you just trampled all over the work I've
> done on video, by running around totally underinformed about the
> efforts of people other than you and orgs other than ours.
>
> Regarding Creative Commons 3.0:  I saw a draft which included the
> unacceptable language in December 2006. I politely pointed out the
> flaws in the proposed wording. Out of common courtesy I respected the
> confidentality of the draft, but even without that factor there was no
> reason for public discussion at that point.
>
> The flawed language was not included in any of the public drafts which
> were released later. I thought the matter was resolved. Then the
> license was released with the problematic language included.
>
> No one from Creative Commons has been willing to comment on the matter
> in an official capacity, to the best of my knowledge. It's been months
> since the release. Plenty of time to talk and respond. There is
> widespread agreement that at best the license is confusing.
>
> As far as I can tell we are easily one of the largest repositories of
> strongly-free content. For us it's pragmatic and business as usual to
> say that we won't use it until the issues are addressed, not dogmatic.
>
> > hoping for. It will lead to other projects which haven't spend a
> > minute even thinking about the implications of copyright and file
> > format policies becoming dominant, simply because they choose to adopt
> > mainstream technology and put ease of use before anything else. It
>
> Yet we are the 800-pound gorilla in some spaces today, even given the
> limitations we have chosen.
>
> There are many risks we face, but we must analyze them carefully and
> weigh them.  We must treat our peers with respect, but we can not make
> decisions based on the friends we'll be able to claim by simply
> appeasing people whose goals diverge from ours.
>
> If you think that video support and cc-by-(sa)-3.0 are really our
> biggest risk factors, you have wildly misplaced priorities. They are
> both minor areas.
>
> No one in the video space is honestly competing with us in our core
> business space... and the overwhelming majority of CC license users
> are using licenses we don't accept because they are clearly
> incompatible with our goals.
>
> Meanwhile, other projects like CZ might actually solve the terrible
> quality consistency problems we have... As a reader that's what would
> make me switch favorite encyclopedias... not a six-month delay in
> accepting cc-by-*-3.0.
>
> [snip]
> > I, too, would prefer it if these
> > institutions would generally advocate similarly high standards of
> > freedom as we do, and where this is not the case, I generally try to
> > persuade them to do so.
>
> Often what they do is perfectly right considering their goals. I don't
> think our business should be to persuade them. We should speak clearly
> about where we stand and look for commonalities.
>
> We also shouldn't walk in completely misinformed. I know you mean
> well, Erik, but the reality is that you have your own agenda, one
> which has much in common with mine, and with Wikimedia's, but I am not
> so foolish to think it is the same.
>
> [snip]
> > and allies, not alienate them with a priori assumptions about their
> > motives and their direction.
>
> Where did I say that anyone has a bad motive?
>
> Some people don't have the same motives that we do, that doesn't make
> them bad. There is more than one right answer to many problems, and
> neither I nor WE are so bright to have the right solutions to
> everything.
>
>
> > Case in point: You argue that the Archive is not a suitable partner
> > because they are currently not supporting Theora.
>
> Cite?
> I've given a half dozen reaons why there is no cause to host video
> there. So have several Wikimedians and Wikimedia employees. Are we all
> guilty of insulting the Archive?
>
>
> > If you want to effect policy changes in other organizations, you need
> > to start talking to them!
>
> Indeed. Yet the board was unresponsive when I asked for permission to
> approach Mozilla on the matter of format support a year ago.
> Eventually the message that I, and Mdale, wanted to bring got brought
> to them through other avenues.
>
> [snip]
> > Have you tried to
> > send them feedback about it? Once again, _talk_ to people, don't just
> > condemn what they are doing.
>
> I didn't condemn it. They are a library. It's fantastic work. It's not
> the same as our work.  Their TOS has been raised before, but perhaps
> not in the right forums.
>
> And of course I'd love to talk to them about it, but your like to
> harbor meetings with technical projects for yourself, often holding
> them under the guise of your other projects... You do not invite other
> Wikimedia folks to attend in most cases, or even ask for input from
> other Wikimedia folks before these.
>
> (Easy examples being your meetings with Encyclopedia of Earth, and the
> recent meeting with the Internet Archive.)
>
> > It's exactly the same with CC 3.0 and many other issues. Your stance
> > tends to be: "No! These people are doing bad things! We should stay
> > away from them! Don't you dare talk to them!"
>
> Don't you dare misrepresent me like that Erik. You know that is
> untrue. The only reason I have suggested that we reject the licenses
> is that they refuse to talk to us.
>
> [remove insults]
> > That's regrettable, and I do not
> > share it,
>
> I'm glad I'm different than you. I regret you can't find more polite
> language to discuss our differences.  If your words were not just
> selected to spite me then you misunderstand me greatly... Perhaps I
> misunderstand you as well, but we aren't going to advance by hurling
> insults.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>