[okfn-coord] people for OKCon 2008

Rufus Pollock rufus.pollock at okfn.org
Mon Nov 19 18:40:59 UTC 2007

Jo Walsh wrote:
> dear all,
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 01:52:28PM +0000, Rufus Pollock wrote:
>> I think this is a good approach though we need to be careful to allow 
>> adequate space for the CFP ...
> Right, it seems there are already enough people on the invite list as
> to obviate the need for a CFP for any more than "open space" type demo
> sessions.

That is what I thought the CFP was for -- though this year I hoped we 
would have even more time for the open space than last year. In 
particular I'd hoped we might be able to have 2 main sessions before 
lunch and only one after leaving at least: 1530 - 1830 for the open 
sessions ...

Is this too little time?

>> Re. AMEE and Gavin Starks having heard nothing from Jo I've bitten the 
>> bullet and invited Gavin Starks on my own account (we really need to 
>> start getting the programme together).
> Sorry, i didn't realise i needed to issue a confirm/deny, or that
> there was a question being addressed to me - i must have blanked an
> email. I found the presenttational rhetoric of AMEE seemed to

There was an email from 9/11 with some suggestions following up the 
original discussion. I'd still be very grateful for you input on the 
other people listed there (e.g. Sean Gillies)

> leave a lot of room for maneouvre. The "We at Google are developing
> layers in association with our partners at DEFRA, etc" particularly
> set my back up. 

Sure, but my point is that ultimately I do think they are doing 
something quite interesting and would probably do a good presentation ...

> I am not anti-commercial, but i am anti the exploitation of insider
> networks to commercial ends in ways that could not be done in the
> open. I'm following Francis' blog posts about "Google OpenSocial" with
> interests, aghast at the plausible rumours of their next year's
> release of a non-open-service OpenStreetmap-killer, etc. 
> Peraps this is insufficiently pragmatic of me, to not wish to give
> such things extra promotional momentum, beyond their existing
> association with the "rhetoric of open".

Well I entirely agree that if people are trying to kill of truly open 
stuff with semi-open that's bad. I'm also no Google fan, see my post 
back in january:


However I'm not sure how this relates to AMEE -- ok they've got some 
google widget thing but they've also got a whole bunch of interesting 
data which they are openly licensing ...

>> we can put him in the Open Services stream rather than 
>> transport/environment if this is an issue ;)
> I also missed the memo in which an "open transport" session became
> "open transport/environment". I heard so much gushing capitalisation around

It was mooted I think on the basis that maybe we'd have difficulties 
with finding 3/4 speakers purely on 'open transport. If have 
misunderstod I'm sorry really didn't mean to put your back up and hope I 
haven't 'got your goat' :)

> environmental "concerns" last year, and pushing action down to an
> individual/consumer level just seems to be a mistake. What *isn't*
> "environmental"? And why does a transport debate have to descend to
> "buy a shiny new hybrid car to save the planet"? 

I don't think it does and i am 100% in agreement with you that that kind 
of thing is pretty much a waste of time.

> Energy and equity and all that, but translating impact into terms of
> "carbon footprint" seems to blur the terms of debate and make it
> easier to translate 'blame'/imposition of externalities, away from
> where it is being incurred. "Environment" is a topic which is unnecessarily
> emotive in a way which too easily becomes evasive and inconclusive. 

ok but it is also a term many people know about ...

> I guess it was incumbent on me to raise these reservations on the
> public list or on this one sooner,  it's probably proceeded  past
> intervention now. I don't have any real logistical or conceptual 

No, nothing is finalised. I have so far sounded out/invited only a 
couple of people.

> problem with the way this OKCon is being put together, it looks like a
> good lineup and interesting messages. My disquiet is a vague,
> philosophical one which i am finding it difficult to articulate and 
> probably has more to do with distance from the group mind of public
> opinion-forming in the UK. In either case it seems best for me to step

I'm not quite clear what the difficult is. Generally we all have a 
preference for the small, authentic and unfunded over the megacorps but 
is that what is being debated here?

> back from active organising, which i have not been at all useful at

That would be a great loss Jo. The open transport theme sounded the most 
intriguing of all and who else is going to organize it?

> this year anyway, and help out with the promotional stage when that
> becomes necessary/viable. 

There's not much to do to get this show on the road. But without a 
little bit of effort right now stuff won't happen. The room is booked, 
the CFP almost written. We just need to sort out our basic panels, etc 
and we're done for the next few months. :)


PS: i'm trying to hang out on #okfn more regularly ...

More information about the foundation-board mailing list