Archive talk:2005-12-27 board meeting

[15:13] *** gavinb [n=44d22234@yossman.net] has joined #freeculture [15:13] *** Topic is: sign up for http://www.frappr.com/freeculture and show us where your hometown is! [15:13] *** Topic set by skyfaller [Thu Dec 8 03:53:36 2005] [15:13] *** gavinb mllerustad mecredis soufron poningru_sleep Omnifrog skyfaller paulproteus|lapt hbot` S11001001 sahal termie Lumiere jonsson justinca jwiens waglo Grantbow [15:13] *** Channel created on Mon Mar 15 01:09:37 2004 [15:13] *** #freeculture [freenode-info] If you're at a conference, please contact freenode staff to make sure we've made special allowance for many users coming into our network from a single internet address ( http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#gettinghelp ). Private messages from unregistered users are currently blocked, except to network staff, services and participating registered users ( http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#privmsg )... Thanks! [15:13] the death tax situation was interesting [15:13] but thats over the name of a specific bill [15:13] bonjour [15:14] hey [15:14] we were just discussing your intellectual monopoly proposal [15:14] I think a lot of people find it a really unnattractive trait of RMS's fight [15:14] that he is so viscious about people using language [15:14] I dunno... I think it's kind of like the open source v. free software debate... we use both, it's just that "free software" requires more context, e.g. "free speech, free software, free culture" [15:15] personally I see it as a form of powre struggle [15:15] mais oui... le RMS, c'est un asshole de temps en temps [15:15] Lol... [15:15] but it's valuable to have more tools in your toolbox [15:15] RMS refuses to ackwnoledge actual forms of property [15:15] so he resorts to mind control [15:15] yeah, RMS is a real dick [15:15] like, there are definitely times when it is more appropriate to say "free software" [15:16] I agree [15:16] but even Lessig struggles with the concept of "intellectual property" [15:16] although I question whether there are ever any times when it is worthwhile to say "GNU/Linux" [15:16] its a pain in the ass [15:16] why not say GNU/Linux/X11/GTK/libnet [15:17] etc [15:17] b/c then you'd be worse than RMS ;-) [15:17] obviously [15:17] but RMS's demands are no different [15:17] from those [15:17] there is a very real point in that "intellectual property" is very suggestive toward a certain POV if you don't know the facts, which most don't [15:18] even among university professors, so so many will carry on about not copying their "intellectual property" [15:18] anyway, what I'm saying is that I think that we shouldn't drop "intellectual property" from our vocabulary, but it may be worthwhile to introduce other phrases that are more reflective of truth, or at least of our side of the truth [15:18] and use them when appropriate just like we use "free software" [15:18] does anyone object to the idea of using copyright? [15:18] the term, that is [15:19] well, interesting as this is, i don't think we should make any decisions about this now... i propose we move on to the agenda [15:19] mecredis: no, but it doesn't cover all of the stuff we work on [15:19] gavinb: seconded [15:19] I agree [15:19] lets move on [15:19] Elizabeth doesn't seem to have made it, so we'll just have to survive without her [15:20] ok.. [15:21] incidentally, just one complaint... can people not create orphan pages on the wiki? [15:21] link to meeting agendas from the "meetings" page [15:21] so that people can find things without searching [15:21] it's in a category so it's not that hard to find [15:22] I try to avoid that in general [15:22] hvaen't made a page on the wiki in a while [15:22] heh [15:22] ok, anyway [15:22] so, bios [15:22] but in the long run we'll need to figure out how to deal with board meetings on the wiki... either way [15:22] if anyone needs my bio, just use the one on the creativecommons page for now [15:22] do people have their bios written, and headshots that we can use? [15:23] http://creativecommons.org/about/people#44 [15:24] mllerustad ? [15:24] gavinb ? [15:24] I still need to get a picture taken... I lack headshots. [15:24] I can do that today. [15:24] ok. [15:25] ...k [15:25] blog? [15:25] i don't have a good headshot either [15:26] we should wait until we have the bios to blog anything [15:26] ok [15:26] next [15:26] gavinb: if you don't get one, we'll just use the one from the Lessig blog ^_^ [15:26] taxes [15:26] can we try to have the bios in for thursday, to set an arbitrary deadline? [15:26] yeah [15:26] thats good [15:26] Sounds good. [15:26] well, wait, so who's responsible for collecting the bios and posting them? [15:27] somebody [15:27] I'd prefer not to do it, I'm working on the chapters database and such with Asheesh [15:27] have we decided where they're going to go? [15:28] i'll take that as a no [15:28] ok [15:28] so we'll add a section to the freeculture.org page [15:28] or just leave it on about? [15:28] The "current" listing of the board is on "about"... [15:28] Yeah. [15:28] ok [15:28] so we just add it as static text to that? [15:28] i think they belong on the about page [15:28] I guess on the about page we should have a link to a separate page to the board of directors [15:28] Sure. [15:28] * paulproteus|lapt waves [15:29] yeah, maybe a separate page for the board might make sense [15:29] well someone just do it [15:29] like the "people" page on sites such as CC [15:29] yeah [15:29] thats fine [15:29] if we're taking up space with bios and pictures, yeah, separate page [15:29] okay, i'll do [15:29] send your bios and photos to the list [15:30] gavin, do you need me to send mine? [15:31] you said we can pull from CC site? is there a photo on it? [15:31] yeah [15:31] yes, http://creativecommons.org/about/people#44 [15:33] that's fine by me then [15:34] gavinb: so we're sending our bios and headshots to the board list? [15:34] OK, I'm assuming that's what we're doing, once that's done, I'll blog it [15:34] let's move on to taxes [15:35] skyfaller: seems like a safe assumption [15:35] k... [15:35] okay, so as the person who's been handling money (sort of), i don't have a clue about taxes [15:35] so what is our income for 2005? [15:35] i know in like... october... we got a thing from state of FL asking for money, so i sent them some [15:35] k.. [15:35] i thought it was quarterly, but we haven't gotten anything else in the mail AFAIK [15:35] so what do we have to do about taxes? Did we in fact make enough money that we have to report anything? [15:36] well if the money is sent to any of us individually [15:36] we have to declare that through our own taxes [15:36] on the other hand, for our federal income taxes, our year thing ends on Dec. 31 [15:37] yeah... the AU grant is Nelson's income, not FC.o's [15:37] ok [15:37] and the other money is just cash [15:37] however, the income from selling shirts is FC.o's [15:37] So, besides that, how much did we make? [15:37] and thats in the fc.o bank account? [15:37] i don't know whether the actual shirts themselves would be considered income or an asset we have to report [15:37] lets ignore the AU check problem [15:38] so unless Web sites are considered assets, or P.O. Boxes, then that's the totality of our income and assets [15:38] * soufron is coming back from legal heaven [15:38] the cash from the tshirt sales [15:38] and the actual tshirts [15:39] we have to report the shirts even if we haven't sold them yet? [15:39] ok, as an asset [15:39] i really don't know [15:40] i think skyfaller is probably the most clueless here, but i'm probably 2nd most :) [15:40] i am not the guy to be in charge of this :) [15:40] How much did we make off shirts? [15:40] something tells me [15:40] its going to depend on the bank account [15:40] ... who holds the purse strings holds the power. Who wants power?! [15:40] Lol... [15:42] my understanding is we have about $400 in the bank [15:42] who has last checked the bank account [15:42] and where is it? [15:42] Alright. [15:42] ok, another piece of info to be divulged to the board [15:42] But we've spent money during the year, I assume? So that's not the same as income. [15:43] but hey, a minor problem with the board mailing list: the archives are public [15:43] ... [15:43] can't we change that? [15:43] yes, we can [15:43] if we want to? [15:43] I mean its not like we're talking about top secret stuff here [15:44] but on the other hand [15:44] it might be nice to have privacy [15:45] OK, I think I just made them private [15:45] someone wanna check? [15:45]  skyfaller: I'll check! [15:45] paulproteus|lapt: thank you ^_^ [15:45] oh, hey, is anyone taking minutes? [15:45] now private [15:46]  http://freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/board_freeculture.org [15:47]  took me forever to find that. [15:47] * paulproteus|lapt disappears in a puff of smoke [15:47] keep on tokin paulproteus [15:47] okay, so yeah [15:47] our total income from shirts is around $500, maybe $600 [15:48] ok [15:48] all of which is sitting in our bank acct... which you will receive instructions on how to check [15:48] except for some petty cash from shirts i sold at my chapter, that i never deposited... but we wrote it down somewhere [15:49] Hrm... [15:49] I don't know anything really about taxing for corporations, but for an individual I think that's low enough to not report. [15:50] ... our lawyer is mysteriously missing [15:51] parce que nous n'en avons pas, silly boy [15:51] who needs professional advice? guesstimate! [15:51] that's the way we do it around here... [15:51] OK, let's just assume that you don't have to report $500 [15:52] Am trying to decipher the IRS site... [15:52] and skip taxes until we have more than $1000 at least [15:52] So far as I've found though, apparently corporations have to file even if they have no income... a-boo. [15:52] skyfaller: poor assumption [15:53] heh [15:53] good thing I'm not in charge of finances [15:54] we don't have to fix this right now, but we need a plan to fix it [15:54] what would be ideal, i think, is a pro-bono accountant... maybe a friendly org can lend us theirs [15:54] one sec [15:54] either way, we need a plan [15:55] so [15:55] are we incorporated? [15:55] (i'm on the phone with someone who has some authority to speak abou this) [15:55] mecredis: yes [15:55] ok [15:55] in Florida [15:55] good [15:57] still on phone [15:57] mecredis: you'll have to tell us who your lawyer friend is, so that we can thank them [15:58] hah [15:58] we've nothing to thank for yet [15:59] Ignoring the five billion stipulations, it looks like our tax rate is 15%... http://www.irs.gov/publications/p542/ar02.html#d0e2119 [15:59] Which would be about $75 or so. [16:00] yes... the RMS, it is a asshole from time to time (says Babelfish) [16:01] mais oui... le IRS, c'est un asshole de temps en temps [16:01] brb... lemme get electricity [16:02] OK, so it seems we have to pay the IRS even though we make BS [16:03] elizabeth's computer is broken [16:03] she just called me [16:03] i'm 99% certain we have to file something... that filing should indicate whether we have to pay anything [16:04] she's been on hold with Apple [16:04] trying to fix her laptop [16:04] That sucks... [16:05] excuses, excuses... computers are everywhere these days, she should just install Linux on her refrigerator and use that for IRC [16:05] okay, we've been here for an hour and accomplished precious little... what's our plan for dealing with taxes and finances generally? [16:06] ... I take the ostrich method isn't going to work? [16:06] I think that points to getting a probono lawyer [16:06] *take it [16:06] Unfortunately. [16:06] ok [16:06] so [16:06] we have a couple of orgs that are friendly to us [16:06] Anyway, we probably need to learn how to do this anyway... [16:06] CC [16:06] PK [16:07] EFF [16:07] we should ask them [16:07] volunteers? [16:07] yeah [16:07] a pro bono lawyer [16:07] so [16:07] I can ask CC [16:08] anyone want to put out feelers for other groups? [16:08] I don't think anyone else is going to help us [16:08] ok [16:08] so I just ask CC [16:08] and if that doesn't work [16:08] ? [16:08] then we need a treasurer to just sit down and work through the taxes [16:08] my mom has volunteered to be treasurer, if nobody here is interested :-/ [16:09] she is a certified accountant [16:09] ok [16:09] If she's willing, she's gonna be more competent at this than any of us... [16:09] so she would be willing to file for us? [16:09] like we need someone who is going to follow through [16:10] on this [16:10] The form itself isn't that bad, actually... [16:10] let me talk to her again, she volunteered a while back [16:10] and I told her Gavin was taking care of it [16:10] The problem is just whether or not there are exceptions or whatnot that apply to us. [16:11] i'll take care of the FL stuff, being the only one in FL [16:11] hrm [16:11] so [16:11] gavinb: so what aren't you taking care of? [16:11] not that i know what i'm doing, but hopefully they'll tell me [16:11] Federal. [16:11] whatever isn't FL... e.g. IRS [16:11] ... there really should be just one treasurer [16:12] whether they enlist other people to help them or not [16:14] ok [16:14] so yes, this is an important part [16:14] of a club [16:14] we need a treasurer [16:15] any ideas or nominations? [16:16] ok or we could just not do any of this [16:16] and see what happens [16:16] well, i've been doing what i could, and it's clearly not good enough [16:16] ok [16:16] i don't want to continue doing it, either [16:16] ok... [16:16] alright, i just talked to my mom [16:17] she's willing to be our treasurer [16:17] ok [16:17] thats good [16:17] Yay! [16:17] but she's kind of worried about our current record-keeping practices, or lack thereof [16:17] well [16:17] our bank account [16:17] We shall have to bake her cookies, or something... [16:17] should work well [16:17] to some extent [16:17] *** sleebus [n=erik@adsl-210-137-231.sdf.bellsouth.net] has joined #freeculture [16:17] but I suppose we do need receipts and what not [16:17] yes, she needs a monthly statement from our bank, etc. [16:18] she also said that we need to officially designate her as our treasurer [16:18] through the minutes of an official board meeting, for instance [16:18] so [16:18] all those in favor of nelson's mom as treasurer? [16:18] Aye! [16:18] heh, her name is Wing-Yee Pavlosky [16:18] aye [16:19] aye [16:19] the aye's have it [16:19] ok [16:19] so nelson's mom is now freeculture.org's official treasurer [16:19] done [16:19] so now [16:20] I still think we need a lawyer [16:20] she said that she wants a list of all of our income and expenditures over the past year, and if we can't give her that we shouldn't file this year, we should start filing next year [16:20] well, if you don't mind... we really need to start talking about harvard and docs [16:20] ok [16:20] almost there [16:21] for an update, Pedro is going to mail the AU check back to Nelson this week [16:21] so can our bank account provide that? [16:21] so hopefully Nelson will get it this week or next week and try to deposit it ASAP... and so we'll know whether or not that works soon enough [16:21] as the guy with whatever documentation i have, i [16:22] *about finances, i'll put together what i have [16:23] ok [16:23] and get that to nelson's mom [16:23] so [16:23] harvard + the docuemnts [16:24] .... [16:24] okay [16:25] so as important as it is to keep our i's dotted and keep the org simply rolling, that's basically all we've been doing for a while, without advancing much [16:25] one of the things this board really has to accomplish is to get some foundational documents written [16:26] arguably the most important of which is the mission statement [16:26] nelson, can you summarize what are the docs PK wanted? [16:26] PK wanted (1) a mission statement, so that people know what our org is supposed to do [16:27] (2) general legislative principles that we want our legislators to follow [16:27] ok [16:28] legislators as in politicians [16:28] in USA government [16:28] (3) specific policy suggestions [16:28] right/ [16:29] that's it [16:29] so [16:29] and PK had said (admittedly a long time ago) they would help us find funding once we had (1) [16:29] what has freeculture done? [16:29] do we have 1? [16:29] I'm satisified [16:29] no [16:29] with whats on the wiki [16:30] yeah, i guess let's talk about that [16:30] nelson, karen, and i decided among ourselves that what's on the wiki was ok, but to add a preamble [16:30] ok [16:30] which basically discusses how we accomplish our mission [16:31] specifically, 3 points: [16:31] 1 that we are a student movement [16:31] ok [16:31] 2 that we are localized and work in our local communities [16:31] ok [16:32] that sounds fine [16:32] 3 that we work with other groups, businesses, etc. across the political spectrum [16:33] in one sentence what do you think freeculture's mission is? [16:33] i'm somewhat new and rather curious.... [16:34] seriously... i don't mean it as a provocation [16:34] and don't worry if you all are busy [16:34] we're working with [16:34] http://wiki.freeculture.org/index.php/Mission_statement [16:34] right now [16:35] not quite a grammatical sentence [16:35] but its a concise mission statement [16:35] thanks [16:35] In the previous meeting, Gavin suggested a preamble along the lines of "FreeCulture.org is a student activist organization dedicated to advancing the cause of free culture. We organize on college and university campuses worldwide to acheive our fundamental goals: (1) (2)" [16:36] (anyone with a sec.... what else should i read to get up to speed?) [16:36] I think that first sentence is quite redundant [16:36] sleebus: this is a Board of Directors meeting [16:36] oh [16:37] sleebus: you're welcome to listen in, but we're really only talking to each other ;-) [16:37] i kind of prefer a preamble along the lines of what mllerustad quoted [16:37] skyfaller, well..... i'm out [16:37] *** sleebus [n=erik@adsl-210-137-231.sdf.bellsouth.net] has quit ["Leaving"] [16:37] with the 3 points going into some other document, maybe called Organizational principles [16:39] gavinb: I think it belongs in the mission statement [16:39] how many "official documents" are we producing? jeez [16:39] yeah [16:39] my beauracracy geiger counter is freaking out [16:40] I think it should be part of our mission to bring together diverse groups [16:40] to work locally, and with students [16:40] yeah [16:40] let me get FC @ NYU's mission statement [16:40] which is obviously not far off [16:40] in terms of intent [16:40] from what FC.org's should be [16:41] it kind of gives us two parts to our mission statement, though: (1) intra-movement mission (2) our understanding of the mission of the movement [16:41] http://clubs.nyu.edu/viewclub.cfm?ID=773 [16:41] thats quite old [16:41] but NYU people liked it [16:41] gavinb: where's UF's mission statement? [16:42] the one on the wiki is UF's new mission statement [16:42] here's Swarthmore's: http://wiki.freeculture.org/index.php/Swarthmore_Charter [16:42] our old one is here: http://ffc.ibu02.com/documents/constitution/#2 [16:43] you mean http://wiki.freeculture.org/index.php/Mission_statement is UF's mission statement? [16:45] Trying to get rid of the redundancy and include the inter-group stuff: "FreeCulture.org is a student activist organization that both coordinates activities on college and university campuses worldwide and bring together other groups related to the Free Culture movement in order to achieve two fundamental goals:" [16:45] *brings [16:45] skyfaller: yes [16:46] mllerustad: That's a bit unwieldy [16:46] ditto skyfaller [16:46] I'm also not sure why Gavin's sentence was redundant [16:46] Yeah, true. [16:46] ewll [16:47] "FreeCulture.org is a student activist organization dedicated to advancing the cause of free culture"? [16:47] its just vague [16:47] look guys: the only document we *have* to produce is the bylaws, which has to contain anything necessary to running the inc. and nothing more [16:47] in that it refers to itself [16:47] or that its not clear [16:47] that it isn't referring to itself [16:47] ie [16:47] beyond that, we can make as much as we want, meaning whatever is going to be useful [16:47] the last free culture [16:47] its like saying [16:47] X.org is a student activist organization dedicated to advancing the cause of x.org [16:48] we need something more descriptive than just "free culture" [16:48] for our cause [16:48] because right now it at least looks redudnant [16:48] while I know it isn't [16:49] The two goals, I think, serve to spell it out. [16:49] They're just at the end. [16:49] OK, I guess we shouldn't mention "free culture" again in our mission statement [16:49] my point exactly Nelson [16:49] so, I'm not sure that the 3 points should be a preamble [16:49] perhaps we should have the two points [16:50] neither am i [16:50] and then say "we accomplish these goals by (1) (2) (3)" [16:50] i think (1) and (2) are more important then (3) [16:51] i think it would be useful to have a document outlining the principles of how FC.o should organize [16:51] I think all 3 are important, regardless of priority [16:52] by comparison, the mission statement lays out the foundation of what we care about -- we should have a strategy statement laying out the foundation of how to do it [16:52] i think strategy statement sounds weird, so i like organizational principles or organizing principles better [16:52] this isn't bureaucracy, this is information that people coming into the org need to learn, and people w/i the org need to have consensus on [16:53] this is the sort of stuff that should be on our web site, or in an activist packet [16:53] not saying we would want to drop everything and write the organizational principles first, but i think we should do it [16:54] the only points of strategy that are *essential* to our mission, IMO, is that we are students and we organize locally around our school communities [16:54] I still think that bringing together diverse groups is also essential [16:54] whether or not we work with orgs, or any other points of strategy, are important to note and establish, but i don't think they belong in the mission statement [16:54] "In order to achieve these goals, we focus on coordinating local student groups on college and university campuses. We also work to bring together other organizations related to the free culture movement (such as?)." [16:55] mllerustad: well, we wouldn't cite examples in our mission statement, that's def too specific [16:55] Yeah, I wasn't sure about that. [16:56] I think that a key part of our mission is building a real movement [16:56] which requires a broad, diverse base [16:57] if there were no other orgs, would we still exist? [16:57] to unite disparate interest groups, which all ultimately believe in the same underlying principles, into a coherent movement [16:57] i think that's well beyond the scope of what students should aim to accomplish [16:58] gavinb: Yes, if interest groups do not have to be actual organizations. And I disagree, I think we are uniquely situated to build a broad movement [16:58] i think we want to help build a movement by providing a grassroots base... i don't think we're supposed to unite the tribes [16:58] many colleges emphasize diversity, such as Swarthmore [16:59] and it is uniquely easy to interact with people from all walks of life in a college setting [16:59] except for people who don't go to college, but i digress [16:59] especially if located near a city where you can find whatever people you won't find on campus [17:00] i think working with other orgs is point of strategy, not of mission [17:00] i even think working with people from different backgrounds / with different interests is a point of strategy and not mission [17:00] *** sleebus [n=erik@adsl-210-137-231.sdf.bellsouth.net] has joined #freeculture [17:01] when people get involved, why are they getting involved? what do they think is the point? [17:01] it's because they're students who want to accomplish the 2 points in the mission statement [17:01] anything beyond the basics of that is a question of strategy [17:01] nobody says, [17:02] nobody says, "gee, i wish there were a group where i could unite artists and cs students and musicians and lawyers... i'll start a free culture club" [17:02] ... you know, this is the sort of discussion that might work better in person, and therefore perhaps should be tabled until Harvard... we should be sorting out how we're going to accomplish what we need to before then [17:02] that may be a good strategy, or an interesting benefit, but it's not the mission [17:02] this is sorting out what to accomplish [17:03] we have to decide whether or not the mission statement is done, and if not, what to do to make it done [17:03] OK, so, what do other people think? Does this point belong in the mission statement or not? [17:03] if it's leading us into other documents, we have to explore the scope of those and decide what to do about them [17:04] I think it's a good move to make it part of our mission to be diverse.... other groups seem to do it [17:04] hrm [17:05] I think the word diverse [17:05] can connote racial diversity [17:05] see PK's mission statement: This Washington, D.C. based group works with wide spectrum of stakeholdersÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¯Â¿Â½?libraries, educators, scientists, artists, musicians, journalists, consumers, software programmers, civic groups and enlightened businessesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¯Â¿Â½? [17:05] yes, ignore my wording, think about the principle [17:05] ok [17:05] yeah, I mean [17:05] at least with FC @ NYU [17:05] we've had interest [17:05] from very different groups from the get go [17:05] its not something we have to beat ourselves up to remember [17:06] I think it's good for outsiders to know that we are dedicated to being a broadly-based organization, that they're not hearing from a narrow interest group of computer programmers or something [17:07] it's also good to have in your mission something that comes relatively easily/naturally [17:07] but there's nothing that would lead people to believe that [17:07] i think PK etc. say things like to avoid the charge of being just college kids for stealing music or something [17:07] I think in general [17:07] people see copyright [17:07] and they think that applies to all types of culture [17:07] they want to fend off the claim of being anti-artist or anti-business [17:07] we've actually have had the problem of not having enough tech people [17:08] gavinb: sure, but isn't that something we should do as well? [17:08] so they say, ok, we want to define ourselves as a DC group that works with lots of people -- that's their fundamental self-definition, anything else is a question of strategy [17:08] our fundamental self-definition is students... anything else is a question of strategy [17:08] so, we're a student group with local chapters that works with a wide variety of people [17:09] I think that movement-building should be part of our mission, because I don't think other people are doing it [17:09] Yeah, but you say "student group." That's identity. [17:09] and it needs to be done [17:09] We'd never say "wide-variety-of-people group." [17:09] i disagree skyfaller [17:09] it needs to be done, other people aren't doing it, but that doesn't mean we should [17:09] we have enough on our plate as it is [17:09] gavinb: well, I think we should, and it's something that I think comes naturally to us [17:10] I think its complicated to assume [17:10] that people would assume [17:10] that we're only for [17:10] i don't think it comes naturally to us [17:10] such and such type of people [17:10] its a student movement [17:10] if you're interested in copyright and technology [17:10] lessig seems to hope iCommons will be the group that does movement-building [17:10] you should be interested in us [17:11] gavinb: Alright, we could just be the campus EFF... I dunno, I'd kind of like to have something in our mission that would prevent that from happening, but I'm not that worried that it would, because we seem to naturally work with lots of different people [17:12] and when it doesn't come naturally, I think it's something worth putting effort into, I really enjoyed the Free Culture Phase II conference for instance [17:12] the mission statement should be as brief as possible [17:12] whether or not we want to do an "expanded" mission statement like PK's, we need the two-sentance version first [17:12] I think that building a movement is crucial to our success as an organization [17:13] it's not going to work if there's LUGs and pro-filesharing and media access and computing societies if there isn't a movement [17:13] i don't know that i'd be averse to saying something about movement-building in an expanded mission statement, but skyfaller, can you really say that if you had one sentence to describe us, you'd include something about movement-building? [17:15] I dunno, I think it's pretty important... this is a mission statement, not a one-sentence description. [17:15] think: you don't know anything about us, you come to our web site for the first time -- what one sentence summary do you want to see to find out what this group is (from our POV, what our mission is)? [17:15] when we check to see whether our current projects are on mission, this is the document we're looking at [17:15] what you're talking about is an about page, that's a separate issue [17:15] this is a document that tells us what we should be doing [17:15] and should allow us to identify when we've gone off course [17:16] *** e-star [n=jolt@pound-17001.law.harvard.edu] has joined #freeculture [17:16] and I think there should be something in there that tells us we've gone off course if we become CC's street team [17:16]  hello [17:16]  i snuck into my journal office [17:16] e-star: w00t! [17:16] Yay! [17:16] heh [17:17]  ok so my deepest apologies [17:17]  so were we discussing the policy paper? [17:17] Mission statement thus far. [17:18] skyfaller: i think the short-version mission statement is the same as a one-sentence summary of FC.o [17:18] Trying to decide whether the whole bringing-together-different-groups thing should be in it or not. [17:19] I say that the purpose of the mission statement is to tell us what we're supposed to be doing as organization, and to help us identify when we've gone off course. [17:19] e.g. what is the mission of the ACLU? to defend civil liberties. if you were going to describe the ACLU you in one sentence, what would you say? "they're a lobby group to defend civil liberties." [17:20] If you read the mission statement as it currently stands, there's nothing to prevent us from just working with EFF and being the campus EFF, it would probably advance our agenda in many ways [17:20]  shall we look at various organizations' mission statements? [17:20]  like right now? [17:20] I kind of need to leave soon [17:20] can we table this and move on to something that requires less debate? [17:22] i don't think so [17:22] i think the first thing we need to do before harvard is decide what we want to accomplish there [17:22] which means we have to decide what we're working on [17:22] therefore we have to decide whether the mission statement is done or not [17:23] e-star: that's what we were doing, and I pasted in this line from PK's mission statement: This Washington, D.C. based group works with wide spectrum of stakeholdersÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¯Â¿Â½?libraries, educators, scientists, artists, musicians, journalists, consumers, software programmers, civic groups and enlightened businessesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¯Â¿Â½? [17:23] but PK's mission statement is several paragraphs long [17:23] as a precedent for including the goal of being diverse in your mission statement [17:23] gavinb: well, why can't ours be two sentences long and include my point? [17:23] because those are going to be too long-ass sentences [17:24] *two [17:24] OK, I propose we start with the current mission statement: [17:24] The mission of FreeCulture.org is: [17:24]   1. to ensure that intellectual property policy serves the public interest, and [17:24]   2. to encourage cultural participation, especially in fields of new technology. [17:24]  ok [17:24] and then we add another sentence: [17:24]  first, do we want to call it intellectual property? [17:25] consensus seems to be yes [17:25]  (i can already hear stallman...) [17:25]  i say no [17:25] e-star: that was the subject of Gavin's "intellectual monopoly" e-mail [17:25]  which email? [17:25] unless we want to be more specific [17:25] and I'm not sure we reached a concensus [17:25]  when was the email sent? [17:25] it was to Core [17:25] Like this morning. [17:25] we should either say "intellectual property" or "copyright, patent, and trademark" [17:26] anyway, maybe we haven't decided... we can decide later [17:26]  yeah i think the latter [17:26] I like the latter too [17:26] gavinb: I prefer something that can include EULAs and other unforeseen IP rights [17:26] "copyright, patent, and trademark" [17:26] <e-star> oh i just got gavin's email [17:26] <e-star> eulas aren't IP rights in their own [17:27] ok, I guess I'm just not certain that we've covered all of IP with those 3 categories [17:27] Yeah, but they do depend on an IP policy that allows them... [17:28] I'm not sure the alternative would cover that. [17:28] *anyway*, we can decide later [17:28] <e-star> the only others are really rights of publicity and trade secret [17:28] <e-star> and well rights of publicity are a state-based thing [17:29] the goal right now is not necessarily to finalize everything but to find out what we have to finalize [17:29] e-star: actually there are some sui generis such as ship design, but i digress [17:29] <e-star> what about saying something about the control over ideas [17:29] Well, then, clearly nothing is finalized. [17:29] <e-star> ship design fits into copyright [17:29] OK, how about this: "FreeCulture.org is a student organization founded to (1) and (2)" [17:29] and then a second sentence [17:29] <e-star> as in ship hull design, from my copyright casebook [17:31] "By organizing in our local communities, and working with a broad spectrum of interest groups, we will build a strong and vibrant free culture movement" [17:31] something like that [17:31] I just pulled that out of my ass, but would that be a sufficiently short mission statement? [17:31] still don't like using the words [17:31] free culture [17:31] in our own mission statemetn [17:31] It's not just our words. [17:31] <e-star> seems circular [17:31] Refering to a "free culture movement" is different than FreeCulture.org. [17:32] right to us it is [17:32] but no tto the random dude [17:32] Especially since there we'd already outlined the principles involved. [17:32] yeah, this is different from what we had earlier [17:32] reading our mission statement [17:32] That's what (1) and (2) are fore. [17:32] *for. [17:32] earlier we were saying "FreeCulture.org is dedicated to free culture." Now we're saying "This is what we're about, and we are using these tactics to build a stronger FC movement" [17:32] ok [17:33] Anyway, I think Nelson's revision is fine. It's short, and it'd be nice to get *something* done. [17:34] what about, instead of saying "strong and vibrant free culture movement," saying something like "strong and vibrant movement to defend our values," possibly linking to our statement of values ? [17:34] seems like it avoids the question of repeating ourselves while still referencing a larger movement, and dovetails nicely into said other statement [17:35] ok [17:35] Fair enough. [17:35] <e-star> yeah, i just think people are going to be like well what IS free culture [17:35] <e-star> or, if we have a short statement of values, we could throw that into the mission [17:35] in that case, i don't think we'd have an expanded mission statement -- you'd have the 2 sentence version then segue into the statement of values [17:36] e-star: we just defined "free culture"... that's the point of the mission statement [17:36] i think maybe you've gotten lost in the revisions [17:36] I'm OK with any mission statement that incorporates all 5 points [17:36] what i'm proposing is this: [17:37] although I'd like the 5th point to imply that we're helping to build a movement [17:37] which the current proposition appears to do [17:37] FreeCulture.org is a student organization founded to ensure that intellectual property policy serves the public interest, and to encourage cultural participation, especially in fields of new technology. By organizing in our local communities, and working with a broad spectrum of interest groups, we will build a strong and vibrant movement to defend our values. [17:38] gavinb: I like it. Any further editing on my part is mere quibbles. [17:38] we can hash out the exactly language, but that basic format [17:38] hrm [17:38] I think we should be a bit more specific [17:38] <e-star> okay, just be prepared to get emails from RMS [17:38] <e-star> angry emails [17:38] <e-star> hahaha [17:38] than local communities [17:38] say [17:38] Lol... [17:38] universities [17:38] that would be the exact mission statement, the two-sentence summary, the statement of purpose, everything -- no "short" and "long" versions, just that [17:38] or something like that [17:39] mecredis: i agree it might be good to say like "the communities around our college and university campuses" [17:39] <e-star> or on our campuses and in our local communities [17:39] but can we agree on this format and finalize the details later, possibly at harvard? [17:39] <e-star> but that's a little wordy [17:39] <e-star> ok [17:39] I like that elizabeth [17:40] all in favor of adopting this outline and agreeing to adopt a final version at harvard, and move on from this subject for the moment? [17:40] yeah [17:40] go [17:40] Indeed. [17:41] <e-star> yup [17:41] ok -- was everyone in favor of actually linking the mission statement to the statement of values? [17:41] I think that's a good idea. [17:41] people can edit it on the wiki, I think, so long as we stick to this format, and discuss their edits on the talk page [17:41] ok [17:42] gavinb: so long as it doesn't make the mission statement incomplete without the link [17:42] <e-star> so wait, how many of these statements are we going to have? [17:42] e-star: as many as we need [17:42] everyone complains about the lack of information and resources [17:42] i think people complain more about ineffective use of time [17:42] every document we write is something we can put on the web site and in the activist packet, information we can give to people when they join [17:43] <e-star> right i mean we don't want to have like 10 different statements [17:43] mecredis: i think the most effective use of our time at the moment is to establish some foundational documents [17:43] <e-star> to the point where it will just get confusing [17:43] right now we have nothing [17:43] look at any organization's web site and see how much information they have [17:43] now look at ours and see how little we have [17:44] I think our about page is doing well [17:44] i don't think we need to worry about going too far right now [17:44] <e-star> okay [17:44] Next thing! [17:45] ok, so do we want to also try to finish the statement of values at harvard? or save that for later? [17:45] <e-star> finish it [17:45] <e-star> it's bad to say "our values" and then not say what those values are [17:45] i think it's so far from done, we won't be able to have it done by harvard [17:46] i think it's ok to not specify the values for a little while, until the document is done [17:46] ... can we not link to an incomplete document? [17:47] <e-star> find but wee have to link to SOMETHING [17:47] <e-star> wait, we won't be able to have our values done by harvard? [17:48] that's the question: i don't think we can finish it by harvard [17:48] what exactly [17:48] entails finishing our values? [17:48] or is entailed by, for that matter [17:48] i've been listening, and i understand the importance of having a good codification of values for this organization... but aren't values best established and hardened through lots of productive experience? [17:48] i think it would be ok to link to a page that says "we're finalizing the document" [17:48] <e-star> gavinb: you mean by the end or before we get there? [17:48] e-star: by the end [17:49] we need to have rough drafts of everything when we get there [17:49] otherwise they won't get done [17:49] unless we don't want to finish the legislative stuff by the end of harvard [17:49] <e-star> well that's a pretty dire prediction [17:49] it's good to edit by committee, bad to write by committee [17:49] mecredis: I think we were talking about writing a couple sentences' explanation for each. [17:49] i think we have to choose between finishing the value statement and finishing the legislative stuff [17:49] <e-star> wait, how long is the value statement? [17:49] well, we'll have 4 days there, but we need rough drafts written [17:49] e-star: Right now, a list of eight ideals. [17:50] and yeah, getting back to fred's question: we have to finalize the "list" of values that's currently there.... and i think having a paragraph explanation / description of each would be good [17:50] <e-star> frankly, don't we need our value statement to guide us through things like policy paper, legislative docs [17:50] i think the mission statement  outline of value statement is enough for legislative stuff... i don't think we need the fleshed-out version to be 100% done [17:50] <e-star> skyfaller: i agree about the writing by committee thing [17:50] <e-star> it's next to impossible [17:51] gavinb: agreed, legislative stuff takes priority [17:51] but honestly, I'm not sure other organizations have something like this list of values [17:51] Gavin only referenced the Green Party [17:51] perhaps a different format would be preferable [17:51] <e-star> well we either need to include something in our mission statement about basic, fundamental values [17:52] <e-star> it could be just a few bullet points [17:52] <e-star> or have a statement of values [17:52] yeah [17:52] the simpler the better [17:52] <e-star> if we are going to include "our values" [17:52] people odn't want more information [17:52] they want better information [17:52] i think the only way to explain bullet points is with some text [17:53] otherwise what do we mean by "freedom"? what do we mean by "sustainability"? [17:53] <e-star> does someone have the link to the current list? [17:53] http://wiki.freeculture.org/index.php/Values [17:54] <e-star> oh wow yeah these are pretty vague [17:54] <e-star> "freedom and justice" [17:54] <e-star> i mean these are somewhat beyond the scope of our organization [17:54] yeah -- not only do we need to finish the list, we *will* need explanatory text [17:54] <e-star> but maybe because they're values it doesn't really matters [17:54] ELIMINATE WORLD HUNGER [17:55] I'm thinking that this list is going to be relatively useless... our time should be put into things like "copyright terms should be limited" [17:55] sorry wrong window [17:55] <e-star> right [17:55] Heh... I thought it relevant to Elizabeth's point... [17:55] <e-star> skyfaller: i agree [17:55] I know [17:55] that was a sarcastic "wrong window" [17:55] i agree a list would be useless... i don't think we should have a list [17:55] Oh, alright. [17:55] haha, sorry its kind of weird convention [17:55] of sarcasm [17:56] anyway [17:56] <e-star> gavinb: well if we had "limit copyright terms" then that wouldn't be so useless [17:56] <e-star> but is that really a value? [17:56] too much time on IRC [17:56] http://gp.org/tenkey.shtml [17:56] It's more under "legislative principles"... [17:56] <e-star> ok i have a proposal [17:56] <e-star> what if each of us take on a document [17:56] read that and tell me it's not valuable to someone involved in the green party [17:56] <e-star> and try to draft it as best we can (although some will be longer than others, so maybe we could split some of them)( [17:57] <e-star> and then we have the others edit it [17:57] e-star: I think that's a good idea [17:57] e-star: Me too. [17:57] e-star: we have to figure out what documents we're doing, first, and what their parameters are [17:57] gavinb: also a good point [17:57] <e-star> gavinb: but arguably their values should be a lot broader than ours should, or at least the related context [17:57] <e-star> fine, well let's do that now then [17:57] e-star: i agree, a party should cover more ground than a lobby group [17:58] <e-star> because sitting around and arguing about them is not going to help us write them [17:58] <e-star> are we a LOBBY GROUP? [17:58] same difference... "new social movement" [17:58] gavinb: Actually, we're a movement to change culture from the grassroots... that's arguably as broad as a political party. [17:58] <e-star> no i don't think it's same difference [17:58] well we can keep arguing about an off-hand comment or we can work [17:59] those of us who have been here for 3 hours probably would prefer to work [17:59] especially those of us who haven't had breakfast yet :-/ [17:59] OK, why don't we split up the documents that need to get written, as Elizabeth suggested? [17:59] I think thats a good idea [17:59] Gavin seems to be volunteering for the statement of values ;-) [17:59] because they're way too undefined [18:00] i've been trying to draft all 4 of these things but we haven't established any parameters [18:00] right, we do need to spec them out [18:00] OK, let's figure out what each document is supposed to do [18:00] one sentence mission statement for each document ;-) [18:00] mission statement - should tell us what we're supposed to be doing and let us know when we're off-track [18:01] if nobody wants to talk about the statement of values anymore, then just leave it to me to draft something, and if everyone sees the draft and still think it's be useless, we'll abandon it -- until then we won't talk about it [18:01] the mission statement is done, we just have to edit the specific language of it -- everyone agreed on the outline [18:01] <e-star> wait hold on let's compile a list of the documents [18:01] gavinb: well, let's get a one sentence mission for this statement of values [18:01] <e-star> yeah i don't think someone should be assigned the mission statement [18:01] what is this document supposed to accomplish? why is it important? [18:01] nobody wants to talk about values so let's skip that [18:01] e-star: There's four: the mission statement, the values, the legislative principles, and the policy paper. [18:02] the things that people besides me want to talk about are legislative principles and the policy paper [18:02] gavinb: no, let's not skip it, if we can spec it out you can go off and write it [18:02] hrm [18:02] The statement of values just strikes me as a list of fluffy things we like... [18:02] I really [18:02] really want to add something to our mission [18:03] if you look at the Greens' example i think you can imagine how it could be useful [18:03] that is just coming to clear to me [18:03] I think a big problem [18:03] within free culture .org right now [18:03] if we want to spec out the values let's do it... if not let's skip it [18:03] is not enough accountability for actions [18:03] if someone comes up with an idea [18:03] it seems like they're not really held accountable for that idea [18:03] <e-star> gavinb: i agree that the green's thing is useful [18:03] gavinb: I can imagine, but can you give me a sentence as to why it's important? So that we can tell what it is accomplishing that other documents are not accomplishing. [18:04] mecredis: accountability sounds like something that belongs in the by-laws, not the mission statement... you're confusing me [18:05] ok [18:05] fine maybe that is off topic [18:06] Actually... if we split up the documents, I'd be willing to work on the values. [18:06] gavinb: I guess it seems like the statement of values actually provides information similar to my formulation for our mission statement, it should tell us if we've gone off course and going against our values [18:06] skyfaller: it's supposed to go a bit further in helping us decide whether a particular action is "within our mission" [18:07] it also gives us a venue to define our values to the outside world [18:07] I think they could also be a way to explain free culture to others... [18:07] Yeah. [18:07] actually, would non-violence be one of our values? I'm not sure it's something we're directly working towards, but we've said in the past that our organization should be dedicated to non-violent methods [18:08] skyfaller: there's a difference, again, between our *mission* and our *methods* [18:08] Do we *have* violent methods? [18:08] mllerustad: yeah, beating the crap out of RIAA lawyers ;-) [18:08] i think non-violence would clearly go in a document about our organizing principles [18:08] a document i clearly think should exist, but is lower-priority than the other 4 [18:08] gavinb: OK, then that's a document that needs to be spec'd out and added to the list [18:08] if we have 4-5 people we can theoretically write 4-5 documents [18:09] *** e-star [n=jolt@pound-17001.law.harvard.edu] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] [18:09] Especially since the mission statement's mostly done. [18:09] yes, we're not assigning the mission statement to anyone [18:09] skyfaller: i don't mind spec'ing it out, i think i just did it, but i don't want to try to work on it until the legislative stuff is done [18:09] i think you guys are underestimating the daunting task of these legislative documents [18:09] ... what is the purpose of the organizing principles? [18:10] to establish the principles we will use in organizing: that is, the outline our fundamental methods and strategies for building and operating our organization [18:11] *** e-star [n=jolt@pound-17001.law.harvard.edu] has joined #freeculture [18:11] OK, sounds good [18:11] consider it spec'd ;-) [18:11] <e-star> wait, sorry, gaim crashed [18:11] this is where we can address questions that come up like, "should we work with businesses?" [18:11] <e-star> what just happened? [18:11] OK, what is the purpose of the legislative principles and the policy paper? [18:11] you just got disconneted [18:11] :) [18:11] <e-star> no [18:11] oh [18:11] sorry [18:11] <e-star> it crashed [18:11] didn't read that [18:11] heh [18:11] e-star: we spec'd out the organizing principles [18:11] <e-star> wait, is that another doc? [18:12] Yes, which doesn't exist yet, because it's lower priority. [18:12] to establish the principles we will use in organizing: that is, the outline our fundamental methods and strategies for building and operating our organization [18:12] <e-star> ok [18:12] and other questions that don't come up, but should be established before they come up, like "is it ok to use violence?" "is it ok to discriminate against members based on religious beliefs?" or stuff like that. which may seem obvious, but then it shouldn't be hard to write it down :) [18:12] e-star: it's spec'd out, but we won't work on it 'til the other docs are done [18:13] guys, if any funder ever saw the "parliamentary procedure" we use, we'd never get a dime :) [18:13] gavinb: I think it's most important to produce rough drafts of every document we want to work on [18:13] skyfaller: i think we can get by without a draft of the organizing principles until our legislative docs are done [18:14] gavinb: maybe, but it's going to be hard to write stuff by committee, as I said... and if one person is assigned the legislative principles and the other the policy paper, then what do the other 2-3 do? [18:15] <e-star> hey guys, what about activism, is that going to be incorporated in the org principles? [18:15] e-star: maybe, that's up to whoever it's assigned to [18:15] point is to produce papers that we can edit by committee [18:15] The policy paper should probably have two people on it, I'd think... [18:15] Just because of its length. [18:15] i agree [18:16] gavinb: OK, so two people on the policy paper, two people on the legislative principles? [18:16] we really need to spec out the legislative principles and policy paper, and formulate an attack strategy [18:16] <e-star> i'll do policy [18:16] what happens when they disagree? how do they work together? [18:16] <e-star> we can split part of it up i guess [18:16] let's spec out first and handle everything else later [18:16] <e-star> like, one person do half, the other do half, then edit by committee [18:17] OK, so, one sentence mission statements for the legislative principles and the policy paper [18:17] <e-star> i think the policy paper should be broader than the legislative principles [18:17] <e-star> personally [18:18] e-star: grawr, it's semantics [18:18] the legislative principles are the principles we want legislators to use when considering legislation and drafting laws [18:18] <e-star> no, it's not semantics [18:18] legislative principles = broad principles people should keep in mind. Policy paper = specific policy suggestions/demands [18:18] well, wait [18:18] <e-star> but i think there are things that are beyond the scope of the legislature [18:19] does anyone have any questions or comments about the way we just described the legislative principles? [18:19] <e-star> that need to be incorporated [18:19] <e-star> that's my comment [18:19] e-star: then let's spec out another paper [18:19] these are papers that are destined for our legislators [18:19] e-star? is it about the legislative principles? [18:19] and they don't care about stuff that's beyond the scope of the legislature [18:19] <e-star> ok then maybe i want to work on the other paper [18:20] <e-star> well i want to work on stuff that is beyond the scope of the legislature [18:20] i think everyone is very confused right now -- can we stop for a moment and try to sort of what the hell we're talking about? [18:20] e-star: and isn't the statement of values? [18:20] gah [18:20] guys [18:20] its been over 3 hours [18:20] of IRC [18:20] I have to go get dinner [18:20] i'll be back in an hour or so [18:20] gavinb: Elizabeth wants to talk about stuff that is beyond the scope of the legislature [18:20] *** mecredis is now known as mec|dinner [18:20] <e-star> well basically, i don't think policy needs to be solely geared toward legislators [18:21] e-star: Yes, but these two papers are. [18:21] See ya, Fred. [18:21] e-star: we haven't even discussed whether or not this would be considered in the policy paper, because you never let us [18:21] you just assumed it wouldn't be [18:21] can we please. stop. for a minute. [18:21] <e-star> no, i was working off of nelson's definition [18:21] Wel... [18:21] pretend hbot is working and only one person at a time can talk [18:22] i'm going to talk for a minute... then i will resign the floor and others can respond [18:22] just hold your comments 'til then... i think this will save time overall. [18:23] my spec for the legislative principles are the broad principles we want taken into consideration by legislators when considering laws. does anyone have any questions about *just that*? [18:23] ok. [18:23] No, that works. My understanding was that these two papers are targeted at legislators [18:24] I like the spec. [18:24] <e-star> yes that sound sgood [18:25] the policy paper, by contrast, is supposed to list out specific policy positions. so in the legislative principles we might say, "the terms of (c) and patents should be limited and reasonable"; in the policy paper we say "(c) should last 40 years" (just an example). any questions about that? [18:25] No, once again assuming this paper is intended for legislators. [18:25] <e-star> yes [18:25] we can discuss legislative vs. non-legislative policy in a second [18:25] <e-star> why not incorporate it into one document? [18:26] e-star: i think, when delivered, it should be together [18:26] e-star: Because people can agree with our principles without agreeing with our tactics. [18:26] <e-star> chances are better that legislators will read one rather than two documents [18:26] e-star: assume each one is a page long [18:26] <e-star> OH [18:26] <e-star> that's it? [18:26] but in terms of drafting it, i think it makes sense to write them separately [18:26] A single page? [18:26] <e-star> (i thought these were going to be long documents) [18:26] skyfaller: the policy paper will probably be longer than a page... no more than 5. [18:26] well, maybe not, but we should strive for brevity [18:26] the legislative principles should be about a page tops. [18:27] look at the pages for these docs on the wiki and see their outlines [18:27] the comparisons for the legislative principles are IPac's statement of principles and the Adelphi Charter [18:27] gavinb: well, we might want to prioritize some things, and just drop stuff that isn't of immediate importance... Elizabeth is right that legislators may not want to read that much. [18:27] which are both good docs, btw, and we should stick as close to them as possible [18:27] *** e-star [n=jolt@pound-17001.law.harvard.edu] has quit ["Download Gaim: http://gaim.sourceforge.net/"] [18:27] son of a cock-knocker [18:28] heh, Gaim still sucks... that used to happen to me all the time [18:28] I don't know why its IRC support blows so much [18:28] *** e-star [n=jolt@pound-17001.law.harvard.edu] has joined #freeculture [18:28] ok [18:28] you missed nothing, e-star [18:28] e-star, you didn't miss anything [18:28] <e-star> sorry, sorry, gaim [18:28] <e-star> argh [18:28] let's go back to these specs... and again, please pretend i have the floor so we can get this worked out [18:29] <e-star> well it seems to me that the legislative and policy papers need to closely mirror one another [18:29] <e-star> such that the people working on these really need to work together [18:29] in my proposal, the legislative principles should be no more than 1 page. the comparison here is to IPac's statement of principles and the Adelphi Charter, which are both short, less than ~ 10 points [18:30] the policy paper, on the other hand, since it will have specific proposals, would be longer, maybe up to 5 pages [18:31] especially if we're going to include "instructions" on how to implement the policies (e.g. point out the specific statute to change, rather than just saying "ban software patents") [18:31] we can debate whether or not we want to do that, but if we did, it would certainly be longer than the legislative principles [18:31] <e-star> guys, i hate to say it, but i'm worried that we will not be able to agree on policy [18:32] we can similarly debate whether either or both of these documents should simply state our position, or provide reasons / background material [18:32] <e-star> like, say, the term of copyright [18:32] e-star: that's why we're writing a policy paper -- precisely because we don't naturally agree [18:32] e-star: Then we have to state our demands in a general enough fashion that we all can agree [18:32] now, respectfully, please be quiet for a minute [18:32] does everyone understand the specs i just laid out for the legislative principles and policy paper? [18:33] <e-star> can i talk? [18:33] are you going to make a comment about whether or not you understand those documents? [18:33] Mmmm.... sniping.... [18:34] <e-star> my fear is that if in the legislative specs paper we say "limit copyright terms" and then we can't agree on a term to limit it to (and this may very well be arbitrary, etc) then it will just turn into "limiting copyright terms" [18:34] e-star: a valid point. [18:34] are we done talking about what i just said about specs, and can move on? [18:35] i'll take that as yes [18:35] <e-star> ok [18:35] now there are several questions unresolved by the specs i just laid out [18:36] the first of which is scope. i've been assuming we all agreed we're talking about federal policy for both documents. [18:36] for the policy paper, that's clearly what it should be -- we're not going to write policy papers for each state or below [18:37] gavinb: I assumed that these are destined for the same audience, i.e. federal legislators [18:37] <e-star> agreed [18:37] avoiding legislative vs. non-legislative policy for a second, does anyone think the policy paper should target anything other than the u.s. federal gov't? [18:38] No. [18:38] <e-star> what about intl policy? [18:38] (again, sorry to be bossy about this, but we have to buckle down so we can be done) [18:38] * soufron is on a knowledge rampage on wp [18:39] there's no such thing as int'l policy... it's just agreements b/w states [18:39] so if we're concerned about e.g. WIPO, we talk to the U.S. federal gov't [18:39] <e-star> my point was should address issues of int'l policy? [18:40] <e-star> and i do think there is such a thing [18:40] e-star: Only if it's something our federal legislators can affect. [18:40] otherwise, it belongs in a different document [18:40] <e-star> okay, perhaps it belongs elsewhere [18:40] i don't see any reason not to tell the federal gov't what we want them to do in foreign affairs vs. domestic... it's all federal policy [18:41] <e-star> guys, can i ask a question? [18:41] if we're laying out a roadmap for WIPO for all countries to endorse, that's a different doc... if we're telling the U.S. what we want them to do in WIPO, it should be in the policy paper [18:41] e-star, you have the floor :) [18:41] <e-star> all of this legislative policy is fine and great, but what about issues that directly relate to people on campuses, such as activiist policies? [18:41] <e-star> er activist packets [18:41] ok, i'm taking back the floor to respond :) [18:42] <e-star> as in, should that be one of the docs? [18:42] <e-star> or should that not be the responsibility of the board? [18:42] i agree the activist packet is something we need and should want to finish [18:42] it's clearly our responsibility [18:42] <e-star> ok then shall we add that to the list? [18:43] but because it's so far from done, i don't think it's as high priority as the 4 docs we've been talking about [18:43] The activist packet'll be a collection of things, n'est-ce pas? [18:43] And some of the stuff we have planned will be relevant to it, I think--ie organizing principles. [18:43] <e-star> i think it should be higher priority [18:43] in my mind, there are 7 documents that FC.o needs: the mission statement, the statement of values, the legislative principles, the policy paper, the organizational principles, the bylaws, and the activist packet [18:44] all of these documents (besides maybe the bylaws) should reasonably be included in the activist packet [18:44] so it makes sense to do them first, then hammer out the rest of the activist packet [18:44] <e-star> chapters need information they can refer to and utilize [18:44] <e-star> i'm not sure if they should be included in the packet [18:44] <e-star> i think we could send them off w/ the packet [18:44] <e-star> but i think the packet should be distinct [18:44] and again, as i said, since there's so much to do on the activist packet, there's no way we could finish it by harvard... so we should finish what we can first [18:45] Are there other things to be written for the packet, besides those documents? Yes. [18:45] <e-star> well i think we should have kind of activisit document written [18:45] <e-star> asap [18:46] nobody is disputing the need for the activist packet, but we're saying, let's accomplish something rather than nothing [18:46] <e-star> i just don't think this legislative stuff is so important, there are orgs out there who deal w/ this stuff all day [18:46] <e-star> we are not them [18:46] e-star: about that [18:46] i'm going to take back the floor again, for a minute [18:46] something i've talked about with other people but apparently not you [18:47] in reality, i don't think the "audience" of the policy paper is legislators... it's ourselves [18:47] <e-star> okay, well then we should take note of that [18:47] <e-star> because i think the audience that we are writing for will inevitably have an effect on what it is that we're writing [18:47] e-star: well, no, it should still be drafted as though targeted at legislators [18:48] <e-star> basically i'm saying let's not try to compete w/ the other policy orgs out there [18:48] as part of that audience, i wholeheartedly agree [18:48] because that's one way in which we intend to use it [18:48] skyfaller: it needs to have all our audiences in mind [18:48] well, here's one small part [18:48] but I think Gavin is saying that in the process we will figure out things about our own positions [18:48] e-star: don't assume that just because we haven't gotten to something yet, that nobody's thought about it [18:48] <e-star> i'm not [18:49] but like skyfaller says, a major point -- maybe *the* main point -- of the policy paper is to develop policy positions [18:50] if we had developped policy positions, it would just be a matter of writing them down, and we're done -- easy [18:50] but we don't, which is why we need to plan this document so precisely [18:50] Elizabeth's response is going to be that we need to develop policy positions in areas not related to the legislature, and I agree, I just think those should be separate documents. [18:50] <e-star> ok so for example what would we want to include? [18:50] as a member of the audience, i'd like to assert the importance of activity in the process of deciding what you are [18:51] the question of legislative vs. non-legislative policy is still a good one and still one we will address [18:51] <e-star> for example, promoting the use of creative commons licenses is not something that people are going to legislate [18:51] exactly [18:51] and it goes in a different paper, which we can spec out, now or later [18:52] sticking to legislative stuff is one way to reduce the scope of this paper [18:52] but let's come back to the question of scope of these documents [18:52] which might otherwise cover everything under the sun [18:52] so the scope of the policy paper is the U.S. federal government, 2006-2007 -- we'll make a new one for the next election cycle [18:52] sleebus: We're on winter break, activity resumes next semester ;-) [18:53] skyfaller, today is the first day i've taken off since i got home for christmas [18:53] should the scope of the legislative policies also be the U.S. federal government? or should it be applicable to every country? should it be applicable to sub-national entities? and should it have a built-in "expiration date"? [18:53] *** skyfaller [n=skyfalle@wikipedia/Skyfaller] has quit [Remote closed the connection] [18:53] ah scheisse [18:54] *** skyfaller [n=skyfalle@ool-44c5b432.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #freeculture [18:54] ok, on we go [18:54] <e-star> gavinb: sprichts du deutsch? [18:54] nein, yo hablo francais [18:55] <e-star> haha [18:55] response to the question of scope for the legislative principles? [18:55] <e-star> i honestly think we're focusing a little too much on legislative stuff and not enough on our chapters and the actions we want them to take [18:55] <e-star> i think there should be one legislative document [18:56] <e-star> specifically aimed at the legislature [18:56] e-star: I think it's important to separate it out into two documents [18:57] <e-star> i guess i am just skeptical about the impact we will really have on legislators versus the impact we can have through chapters [18:57] e-star: aren't we free to focus on our chapters? [18:57] <e-star> of course they're not mutually exclusive [18:57] e-star: again, the point is not the impact on legislators [18:57] ?def sleebus [18:57] oh, jibot is dead [18:58] sleebus is erik garrison, harvard senior [18:58] but how are we supposed to do projects without policy positions? [18:58] <e-star> and member of our chapter [18:58] <e-star> well we seem to have done some so far [18:58] and we've gotten by without a mission statement -- that doesn't mean we should continue that way [18:58] gavinb, easy. you get an idea, you feel it out, you ask the community if they're interested, you make it simple to participate, you get a few well-meaning types together, and you go [18:58] <e-star> i'm not saying we shouldn't [18:58] it's really like doing anything [18:59] i don't need to think about gravity to walk [18:59] <e-star> look, guys, why don't we assign responsibilities? [18:59] Guys, seriously, we can't get funding or anything if we don't have documents that say who the hell we are. [18:59] but if i need to explain to someone else what i've been up to... it might help [18:59] this shouldn't even be up for debate [18:59] look at a group like NORML [18:59] you don't need much funding to do a lot of stuff [18:59] utilize the funding which is latent in the mass media [18:59] they want to be a catch-all group for people interested in marijuana reform [19:00] do something weird enough and people will cover you [19:00] but that doesn't mean they don't have policies [19:00] sleebus, with all due respect, you're distracting a bit from our ability to stay focused [19:00] can we cut this back to just a board meeting? It's hard enough arguing with 3 people at once [19:00] gavinb, distractions are important [19:00] sleebus: we've been here for 4 hours [19:00] gavinb, trolls are everywhere, and having a mission statement or a policy guideline won't do shit to deal with us [19:01] gavinb, i've been lurking in this chat for weeks trying to start up a conversation [19:01] <e-star> ok everyone hold on [19:01] that's why i stay out of the IRC chan until necessary [19:01] gavinb, because i want to do something [19:01] <e-star> does everyone agree that we should each take a doc to work on?? [19:01] e-star: Yes, we're trying to spec out the documents so we can assign them [19:01] but we keep getting distracted [19:02] <e-star> ok, well at least we agree on something [19:02] well, distracted, and also the spec is hard [19:02] <e-star> perhaps we should leave most of it to the person who is documenting, then comment on what we think needs to be added/subtracted [19:02] well, are we done with the specs for the legislative principles and the policy paper? (maybe should be renamed to "legislative policy" [19:02] <e-star> yes, nelson, that's a good idea [19:02] e-star: No, we need to agree on the specs as a group [19:02] <e-star> we could also have a "cultural policy" or something [19:03] i don't think we're done at all [19:03] gavinb: why not? what's wrong with your last proposal? [19:03] we need to set the parameters for people to work within [19:03] because there's still several questions, and people still don't see the point [19:03] \me works within whatever parameters he likes [19:03] er... /me [19:03] lol [19:04] there is a very strong purpose in having a policy paper, that goes beyond actually trying to talk to legislators [19:04] <e-star> well i guess this is a greater question of what our role is as an organization [19:04] <e-star> but then gavin, should it just be confined to legislative policy? [19:04] look at a group like NORML... they have policy positions, even if their focus is more on growing a movement than on direct lobbying, and even if its members may even prefer slightly different policies [19:05] <e-star> what if we have a policy paper that has legislative policy and "cultural" (or whatever you want to call it) policy [19:05] gavinb, did NORML begin with perfect policy provisions, or did it build them through time? [19:05] sleebus: we've been in existence for more than a year now and we have NO policy positions [19:06] in the same way, EFF has a policy about filesharing -- even if lobbying around that isn't their #1 focus, and even if all their members maybe favor different approaches [19:06] e-star: The only problem with putting the legislative stuff and the cultural stuff is that the cultural stuff really isn't relevant if we're giving these to legislators. [19:06] I agree we should have it, but I'd put it in a separate paper. [19:06] skyfaller, i feel that there exists a policy latent in all of this [19:06] but the fact that they have positions means they have some ground to stand on [19:06] <e-star> fine, that's fine, we can put it into a separate paper [19:06] they're not just saying, "this is broken," they're saying, "here's how to fix it" [19:06] sleebus: "Latent" isn't good enough. [19:07] <e-star> but i think we shouldn't try to be EFF or PK or whoever [19:07] sleebus: Yes, but our goal here is to write down specific positions. [19:07] skyfaller, which brought me here.... if what you're trying to do is delineate territory, then you should look at other likeminded organizations and try not to step on their feet [19:07] <e-star> exactly [19:07] having solutions gives you credibility [19:07] sleebus: We were asked to do this by Public Knowledge. [19:07] In fact, they were offering to help us get funding once we completed these tasks. [19:07] at the same time, having policy positions gives your members something to unite around [19:07] <e-star> basically, we shouldnt just reiterate what all of those other orgs are saying [19:08] * sleebus is reading [19:08] everyone in FC.o agrees that copyright is broken. but there's precious little consensus on how to fix it [19:08] *** jibot [n=jibot@host253-98.pool8257.interbusiness.it] has joined #freeculture [19:08] we may have botched it because we waiting too lang, but we're not waiting any longer, it's getting done by Jan 7. [19:08] *long [19:08] I gtg go eat... I'll be back later. [19:08] mllerustad: ok, ttfn [19:08] now, making a policy paper isn't instantly going to create consensus, but it should help build some [19:09] <e-star> honestly, if we all knew how to fix copyright...we probably wouldn't be here right now [19:09] gavinb, well, take that precious little consensus, provide a space for discussion, and let the constant distractions help you come to an understanding of what you can be and possibl should be [19:09] and then, from there we can tinker with the policy to try to create broader conesnsus [19:09] but we have to start somewhere [19:09] sleebus, for example, i love to talk about this stuff... and i've been lurking here waiting to talk about it [19:09] er... not to myself [19:09] <e-star> okay, so my question is, what are some examples of things we want to include in these documents [19:10] * sleebus is off topic [19:10] *** jibot [n=jibot@host253-98.pool8257.interbusiness.it] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] [19:10] e-star, it's not going to be perfect in the first draft, and probably will never be perfect [19:10] but we have to have something... we have to have a policy to debate [19:10] *** jibot [n=jibot@host253-98.pool8257.interbusiness.it] has joined #freeculture [19:10] *** jibot [n=jibot@host253-98.pool8257.interbusiness.it] has quit [Remote closed the connection] [19:11] imagine if Orrin Hatch called you tomorrow and said, "FreeCulture.org, tell me what to do" [19:11] <e-star> right, ok, so i'm asking what we'd want to put in these papers [19:11] so public knowledge wants a mission statement. it's tantamount to defining your territory. but it's not necessarily going to have any deep bearing on the future activity of the organization. [19:11] sleebus: Honestly, can you just.... not talk so much during the board meeting? Otherwise next time we may have to move this into a private AIM chat instead of in the open IRC channel. I like openness, but not at the expense of getting things done. [19:11] what could we tell him? [19:11] skyfaller, well, perhaps you can harness the insanity of the public world to improve the quality of your work [19:11] <e-star> i'm asking you guys! [19:11] <e-star> sleebus, perhaps you can help [19:11] i'm here [19:12] <e-star> what should be in our policy paper? [19:12] if we can't tell him something, then how can we criticize him? [19:12] <e-star> no one else seems to want to respond [19:12] so now hopefully we see the purpose of having a policy paper [19:12] <e-star> I'M ASKING WHAT ARE EXAMPLES OF THINGS WE WILL INCLUDE IN THESE PAPERS [19:12] * sleebus is reading and thinking [19:12] e-star: other people don't just want to drop what they're doing whenever you ask a question [19:12] e-star: It doesn't matter, once we've decided what the paper will be about, we'll assign it to someone [19:13] <e-star> i think it does matter [19:13] have you looked at the draft of the policy paper? [19:13] and they will figure out what goes into the paper [19:13] because there are examples in the draft [19:13] RTFM ;-) [19:13] <e-star> well then why don't we just assign it to someone and move on? [19:13] e-star: because we haven't finished spec-ing it out [19:14] because people keep interrupting [19:14] and going off-topic [19:14] so we never answered my question about the legislative principles [19:14] <e-star> well i guess i thought examples would help us spec it out [19:14] should the scope of the legislative policies also be the U.S. federal government? or should it be applicable to every country? should it be applicable to sub-national entities? and should it have a built-in "expiration date", like the policy paper? [19:14] <e-star> i'm looking at the draft [19:15] me too [19:15] gavinb: Seems to me we should target it specifically at the US federal legislature [19:15] <e-star> let's remember it is only 5 pages [19:15] <e-star> that's fine w/ me [19:16] e-star: which is why we should keep the focus as small as possible [19:16] k [19:16] <e-star> ok so what else do we need to spec out before we asign it? [19:16] <e-star> assign [19:16] the legislative principles would be < 1 pg [19:16] OK, let's write down the current spec on the wiki page for each document [19:17] the policy paper would be up to 5 pg [19:17] hang on a second [19:18] <e-star> double or single spaced? [19:18] if the legislative principles are only for the U.S. federal gov't, then is there a value in having some document that lays out broader policy principles? for sub-national entities or other gov'ts? and if so, should we write it? [19:19] gavinb: I say no, at the moment. [19:19] the Adelphi Charter says it calls on the "int'l community" to adopt its principles [19:20] what exactly would be the difference between principles for the U.S. and for other countries? [19:20] how's this? This document provides general principles that legislators should keep in mind when making laws. Like the 2006-2007_Policy_Paper, this document is targeted at US federal legislators, although it may be useful in other contexts. This document should be no longer than a page. [19:21] gavinb: OK, you make a good point [19:21] obviously specific policy positions would be different, but what would be different about the principles? [19:21] the principles should be broad enough that they cover all legislators everywhere [19:21] although our principles may play better in some countries than others [19:21] which might call for some tinkering [19:22] for instance, we may wish to mention the 1st amendment or other constitutional rights in ours [19:22] and leave that language out in, say, Peru [19:22] <e-star> plus, copyright laws are obviously not uniform [19:22] <e-star> guys we are getting ahead of ourselves here [19:22] <e-star> we need to focus on getting certain things done first [19:23] OK, can we just keep it to my draft of the spec then? I'm saving it on the wiki page. [19:23] i don't see how we're getting ahead of ourselves [19:23] is the legislative principles for the U.S. or int'l in scope? [19:24] <e-star> i mean about writing for peru, etc [19:24] or, how about this: [19:24] let's write it for the U.S. [19:24] <e-star> it's for the US but it should be construed as to apply for other countries as well [19:24] <e-star> if possible [19:24] <e-star> (since laws differ) [19:24] and we can return to it later and see what would need to be changed to internationalize it [19:24] yes, we should write about what we know [19:25] OK, we're agreed. [19:25] Spec is done, let's move on to the policy paper [19:25] getting input from our international chapters and others [19:25] <e-star> so can i write a cultural policy paper? [19:25] well, hang on [19:25] e-star, what exactly do you mean by this "cultural policy paper"? [19:25] <e-star> ok sorry, yes i agree that we should get input from int'l chapters [19:26] <e-star> things that would not fit neatly into legislative policy, encouraging the creation/use of free software, creative commons licenses, remix culture, etc [19:26] e-star: Can we get a specific audience for that? [19:26] Who would have the power to make the changes that we desire? [19:26] <e-star> it's for our chapters and for the word at large, possibly media [19:26] <e-star> what do you mean? anyone who reads it could use a cc license, make a remix, etc etc [19:27] ... well, that depends on what you include in it. [19:27] If it's targeted at the average citizen, then I agree [19:27] <e-star> it's targeted at the average person who'd be interested in fc.o [19:27] it doesn't seem like a "policy paper" is the right place to talk about those issues [19:28] <e-star> which is arguably not the average citizen [19:28] <e-star> using more cc licenses is not policy? [19:28] But there are non-legislative things that are not in the power of the average citizen.... such as the copyright office or patent office [19:28] <e-star> right, i'm not talking about the copyright office [19:28] ok, I gg eat dinner [19:28] Back. [19:28] Ha... [19:28] oy vey [19:28] <e-star> i don't see how that is not policy [19:28] <e-star> i mean fine, call it something else [19:29] OK, fine, I'll eat here [19:29] most people don't think of personal choices as policy [19:29] <e-star> encouraging greater use of cc licenses is broader than personal choices though [19:29] and most people -- even most people interested in a subject -- aren't used to reading a document that prescribes to them what personal choices they should make [19:29] Is a paper the right forum for that sort of thing? That kind of encouraging cultural change seems more appropriate to a handout or a pamphlet. [19:30] see e.g. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/lists.htm#do [19:30] "What you can do for open access" [19:30] "If you want to join FreeCulture.org you should (1) stop smoking crack (2) uninstall Windows (3) boycott the RIAA..." [19:30] for various audiences: universities, researchers, journals... [19:31] <e-star> you guys are totally misconstruing what i am saying [19:31] everyone agrees that what FC.o cares about goes well beyond just legislative change [19:31] <e-star> i am not saying YOU MUST USE CC licenses, it is important to talk about the use of cc licenses as a policy matter [19:32] but i'm not sure that the best way to encourage social or cultural change is by writing some universal "policy" document. people don't consider what they do with photos of their vacation as some sort of "policy"! [19:32] e-star: I think that cultural stuff is better when targeted [19:33] i think what would be much more valuable -- fred expressed this recently -- would be to develop event ideas for chapters to help encourage these "cultural policies" [19:33] activities they could do to encourage people to use CC licenses, etc. [19:33] <e-star> well that would go in the activist packet [19:33] gavinb: Well, that does raise the valid point of where it is written that we like CC.... [19:33] which is exactly the sort of stuff that should be (and will be) in the activist packet [19:34] <e-star> but we still need to state why it is important to use them, and that is policy [19:34] <e-star> WHY is it a good idea to use free software, etc. [19:36] ugh... i've been here for too long, and i still don't understand 100% what we're talking about [19:36] this wasn't even remotely on the agenda [19:36] why don't we call it quits for the day [19:36] <e-star> basically i'm saying if we encourage people to use CC licenses and to use free software, we need to have some rationale behind it [19:36] *** poningru_sleep is now known as poningru [19:36] we made a lot of progress [19:36] *** skyfaller changed the topic to: FreeCulture.org Board of Directors meeting currently in session | sorry we didn't mention this before | please try not to interrupt [19:37] <e-star> does this make sense? [19:37] Wouldn't our values have something to do with that? [19:37] well, can we spec out the last few papers and assign them? [19:37] it makes sense, but i'm not sure that it has to be engraved in some document of internal policy [19:37] the only remaining paper that we want to finish at harvard is the policy paper [19:38] and there's still a lot of questions about that [19:38] i want to get the fuck out of here [19:38] <e-star> ok, then let's talk about it later [19:38] somebody post the chatlog to the minutes page and let's talk about it thursday [19:38] <e-star> i'm just a bit frustrated because i really don't think change is going to be effected by the govt [19:39] i'm sorry you feel that way [19:39] you know.... [19:39] <e-star> thus, i think it is far more important (as does erik) to work in a grassroots type of manner, i.e. encourage the use of cc licenses, development/use of free software, etc etc [19:39] but if we never try, it will never happen [19:39] <e-star> well as a law student, i think i've had further reason to believe so [19:39] elizabeth is right [19:39] <e-star> i think our strenght is in our students and our chapters [19:39] one of the perverse effects of the mass media [19:39] i think everyone agrees that building a grassroots movement is more important than lobbying for change right now [19:40] is that even smart college students have begun to believe that change only begins with an address to the center [19:40] <e-star> i'm not saying we should totally abandon legislative and governmental issues, i'm just saying that shouldn't be our number one priority [19:40] i.e. by addressing the legislature [19:40] <e-star> yes, the media [19:40] <e-star> the media is huge [19:40] <e-star> far more important than the govt to us [19:40] sleebus: I'm with you, I'm a libertarian, and that's how I voted last election. [19:40] but that doesn't mean that we don't need policy positions [19:40] skyfaller, i vote the lesser of two evils [19:41] CC is an alternative to shitty copyright, not an excuse not to try to fix copyright [19:41] <e-star> well perhaps i'm saying that these positions shouldnt focus solely on the federal govt [19:41] sleebus: The point is I don't really expect much from the government, but you still have to know what you want. [19:41] <e-star> that is true [19:41] <e-star> er..gavin [19:41] skyfaller, i don't vote to evoke change in the federal government. evoking change in the fed is damn near impossible, and it's certainly impossible if you don't have a lot of money or a lot of people behind you [19:41] Mes ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©toiles... [19:41] <e-star> ouais? [19:41] skyfaller, i vote to keep shit from flying out of control [19:41] ok, we went off topic again [19:42] this is a decentralized effort [19:42] point is, these papers are getting written. [19:42] the government is not going to help [19:42] By Jan 7. [19:42] it's could hurt [19:42] And the government isn't going to write them for us. [19:42] policy positions are not the most important thing in the universe, but it is important [19:42] s/it's/it [19:42] and it is timely, since there's an election in Nov. [19:42] we may not have a ton of influence in that election, but we will have none if we don't do anything, and we can't do anything until we have policy positions [19:43] gavinb, the election won't change anything. a few sob's will leave, a few sob's will come. they will pay attention to money and extremes of public interest [19:43] Mmm... the taste of apathy. [19:43] no, not apathy [19:43] intelligent direction of effort [19:43] the problem with decentralized problems [19:43] is that we seem to gravitate toward centralized solutions [19:43] sleebus: Our lack of positions caused PK to term us "a bunch of kids who sit around and IM each other." We need to know what we want before we can ask for it [19:43] sleebus, i don't see how sitting in this channel bothering us is a very fucking intelligent direction of effort [19:44] i'm part of your world [19:44] <e-star> but nelson [19:44] you barely know me [19:44] No kidding. [19:44] how on earth do you help me work on your projects? [19:44] <e-star> i guess i'm saying that i think policy should be greater than the legislature [19:44] you're not exactly encouraging me to know you [19:44] creative commons is a decentralized solution to a decentralized problem [19:44] e-star, we all agree! [19:44] <e-star> and by solely focusing on it, it will be somewhat futile [19:44] re/// a centralized problem [19:44] OK folks, next time we either kick people who talk out of the IRC channel, or meet somewhere private [19:44] none of us are saying we should solely focus on legislative policy! [19:44] skyfaller, and you fly in the face of everything which you are working for [19:45] <e-star> ok, fine. [19:45] <e-star> so why are we only writing about legislative policy? [19:45] but we have all agreed that by Harvard we want to have these 4 docs [19:45] ok... gavinb, i fall back [19:45] because theres's an election in Nov! [19:45] Because that's the side of this movement we don't already have. [19:45] and if we want to have any influence, we have to develop the legislative policy now [19:45] We've made grassroots efforts. That's most of what we've got. [19:45] besides which, it's way overdue [19:45] We're making up for the lack. [19:45] I can't believe we're arguing about this [19:46] have you made a forum online to discuss these issues and encouraged lots of people to join in? [19:46] discuss@freeculture.org [19:46] #freeculture @ freenode? [19:46] <e-star> ok fine, so who wants to write the policy paper? [19:46] not to mention the dozens of such forums that already exist [19:46] *** mec|dinner is now known as mecredis [19:46] we haven't spec'd out the policy paper [19:46] and we're not going to get it done tonight [19:47] i move to adjourn the hell out of here [19:47] * mecredis looks around [19:47] <e-star> i think someone should just write it [19:47] <e-star> perhaps after we have the legislative principles though [19:47] anyone care to give me a one sentence update? [19:47] <e-star> since it looks like it will have to be mapped anyway [19:48] Arguments, offtopic-ness, etc. [19:48] look... i'm leaving. if others want to stay... have fun. but i don't think much else is going to get accomplished tonight. [19:48] ok [19:48] Alright. [19:48] <e-star> im sorry guys we're spending too much time on legislative policy IMHO