From acoliver at gmail.com  Mon Feb  6 17:41:25 2012
From: acoliver at gmail.com (Andrew Oliver)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 11:41:25 -0600
Subject: [Communications] [Board] FOSDEM slides
In-Reply-To: <20120206164322.GK3596@loric-alpo.emea.hpqcorp.net>
References: <204687B8-6327-48C9-A8B0-F39AC8D4053A@webmink.com>
	<20120206160823.GE3596@loric-alpo.emea.hpqcorp.net>
	<90AEED3C-8889-4B1A-AA1B-F9A8F70AA3EB@webmink.com>
	<20120206164322.GK3596@loric-alpo.emea.hpqcorp.net>
Message-ID: <CAF9=+5PPV2e10HPFwAkzvkre3Ob6JohNfs6R+_faHVJLNqv1LA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Martin Michlmayr <tbm at cyrius.com> wrote:
> * Simon Phipps <simon at webmink.com> [2012-02-06 16:33]:
>> The blog entry is my own statement and I've said that at the top of
>> the blog post (which is now online at
>> http://www.opensource.org/node/604); I've made sure I don't mention
>> software freedom in the home page link to it.
>
> Right, but because you're so visible on behalf of the OSI, I'm not
> sure that people know how to make a distinction between the things
> which are your personal opinion and OSI's.
>

We have had this discussion before.  Unfortunately, that I know of, the list
was not archived at that time.  Now that it is
(http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/board/),
I think we should have it one last time, come to a consensus and
reference the thread whenever it comes up.

In the past we've been reluctant to create official messaging for OSI.
 We trended away from that by creating a
communications working group.  At the moment Simon is AFAIK the only
active participant (as chair).  This was
intended in part to give a shorter way to be able to respond in the
news cycle.  What didn't follow is anyone else
participating.

IMO, I think we're being a bit hard on Simon because he, Karl and Jim
are doing the majority of the heavy lifting at OSI
at the moment.  As a result it is easy to pick some things out of any
communication.  Instead I think this should be
happening on the communications list
(http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/communications).
 I think
that the messaging should be a community activity going on there.

For the matter at hand.  We've in the past avoided the idea that
someone "speaks for OSI" but cut Michael wide latitude --
even he has said things that we didn't all like (mainly inappropriate
analogies).  We should have the communications
working group collaborate on the overall material.  That being said
for "official" OSI sessions (as organized by the
communications working group), the materials should reflect the view
of OSI.  However a speaker should be (as a speaker)
able to go "off message" so long as they are not overall derogatory or
counter to the OSI's message and clearly identified
as their personal opinion.  Even JBoss gave me that latitude when I
worked there and I was sort of infamous for pushing
the bounds of that (and good taste).

A concern is that we seem to be unraveling a long held consensus of
"detante" with the free software movement.  I had
thought we'd built a consensus that we certainly agree with the four
freedoms, but would say "open source".  If we
still have that consensus then this "do/don't use the word freedom"
becomes a bikeshed argument.

A second concern (and the reason I've been less critical on my way
out) is that it is easy to criticize Simon, Karl and Jim
while they carry more of the workload.  My hope is that everyone takes
an inventory and generates at least as much
productive energy as stop energy.  Stop energy is certainly important.
 All engine and no breaks crashes the car...but if the breaks weigh
more than the engine you're not going anywhere.  OSI has had strong
breaks for as long as I can remember (minus CPAL which remains a
terrible idea and I will never consider it an open source license no
matter what the OSI says).

Lastly, While I wasn't there, I imagine very few people actually
analyzed the talk at FOSDEM to this level and I kind of regard such
events as more "recruiting drives" so as long as we don't get too
crazy, if it makes them want to join then great.  If not, then
refactor the message for next time...in the communication working
group.  I think we should judge overall messaging effects rather than
individual words in a long talk.

Thanks,

Andy

PS the reptile analogy always makes me think of PJ O'Rourke (offensive
to people who are able to be offended by words):
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/reptile.html