[okfn-discuss] OKFN and Reset the Net

Fri Jun 6 16:52:05 UTC 2014

Just my 2 cents:

I am about certain that *all* of the aggressive tone and intensity in
yesterday's discussion came *entirely* from people feeling shocked. They
had expected (perhaps for good reason), that as Rayna said, the support for
Reset the Net was a given that barely would need discussion.

I suspect that virtually nobody would have complained if the support had
been explicit prior to any discussion. I suspect it is a large minority
(but not majority) that felt SO surprised about the situation as to express
their shock.

So things are complex. But I reject the supposition that some minority here
with political leanings are overly aggressive inherently. I really think
this is a case where people have some emotional reactions when their
(reasonable) expectations are strikingly violated. Others simply didn't
know about the details or had no expectations (but weren't in opposition).

All that is partly speculation, of course.

-Aaron

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Rayna <rayna.st at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20140606/e524d97a/attachment-0002.html>