[okfn-discuss] OKFN and Reset the Net

Fri Jun 6 09:01:31 UTC 2014

Hi everyone,

I am surprised by this whole discussion, to be honest.

To me, the support of OKF to the RtN initiative was a given. Before getting
to another question, I would suggest that people reconsider the speculative
"if no opposition is shown, then necessarily people disagree". When someone
says nothing, well... someone just says nothing. Lastly, do not forget the
limitations of written communication: sometimes, written things come out as
much drier than intended. I didn't witness insult or disrespect in the
emails, only people expressing their opinions -- and yes, there are a lot
of opinionated people within the network. And it is sane to have active
no-sayers, right?

More important than how stuff was said though: this discussion begs the
obvious question of how support for third-party initiatives is decided
upon. Yesterday's discussion was an emergency discussion in the sense that
some think OKF would naturally join until the precise question was asked,
and the whole went on *on the day* of the initiative. In other words: how
is support (or the lack thereof) decided? And should the community be
involved in the decision making?

My personal opinion is that yes, we need to be involved. The onus is
collective. We need however to clearly define what we support and how the
support is decided upon. An example workflow might be that, if someone
suggests a "+1" from OKF to an initiative, the person does it ahead of
time. On the side of these voting for/against, we need to have enough time
to understand what the whole thing is about. You cannot accuse people of
being against when they didn't speak -- nor you can consider them being in
favour. We are all in different countries: how do you know that some of
these who haven't responded here are not involved in support activities in
their own country? You can't. I'm quite heavily insisting on not engaging
into speculations about what silence means because I have seen how harmful
this may be elsewhere.

So, the discussion is open: how do we decide upon supporting or not an
initiative? What timeline? What requirements? (Also, think about this
question being a possible discussion topic for our OKFest community session
;) )

Thanks to everyone for the insights,
Rayna

2014-06-06 10:22 GMT+02:00 Andy Lulham <a.lulham at gmail.com>:

> Hi there,
>
> On 6 June 2014 07:42, John Baxter <john at jsbaxter.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > I think 'consensus' is going to far.  'Consent' at best.  It was a
> limited consultation, that arrived at a new position due to a strong
> response from a vocal segment (minority?).
> >
> > I don't really mind either way but I think the suggested initial
> position was pretty reasonable, and probably the most reasonable position.
> > I still don't see the relationship, but if people are happy to endorse
> it then why not.
> >
> > I think the conduct of some of the pro-RtN segment on this thread was
> borderline antagonistic/unacceptable.  Lucky I'm not the decision maker ; )
>
> +1 to everything John Baxter says here. Many thanks for your contribution,
> John.
>
> I’m not sure who “the rest of the 'net” are. I guess we’re talking
> about individuals, whose attitudes and behaviour towards privacy the
> pro-privacy campaigners are hoping to adjust? If so, this thread
> honestly suggests to me that pro-privacy campaigners may first need to
> adjust their own attitudes and behaviour in their campaigning.
>
> Sorry to get all eggy.
> Andy
>
>
> > John Baxter
> > jsbaxter.com.au
> > 0405 447 829
> > @jsbaxter_
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Well done - this is an excellent example of how open discussion can
> rapidly come to a practical consensus. It also leaves a mail trail so we
> can look back in a few months time and see what issues we have discussed
> and how they turned out.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:59 PM, William Waites <ww at eris.okfn.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > All the input today has been really helpful, and so Open Knowledge is
> >>> > now endorsing Reset the Net, as a significant initiative in an area
> >>> > with a strong bearing on our work. We've tweeted, Facebooked, and
> >>> > signed up on the site :)
> >>>
> >>> Horray! Well done and thank you.
> >>>
> >>> -w
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> okfn-discuss mailing list
> >>> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> >>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Peter Murray-Rust
> >> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> >> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> >> University of Cambridge
> >> CB2 1EW, UK
> >> +44-1223-763069
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> okfn-discuss mailing list
> >> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> >> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > okfn-discuss mailing list
> > okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
> >
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>

-- 
"Change l'ordre du monde plutôt que tes désirs."

http://me.hatewasabi.info/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20140606/7808419e/attachment-0002.html>