Archive:2005-06-15/Chatlog

(chatlog goons)

The overall theme of the discussion was "hello my name is hashc0de"; I guess you had to be there. Stephen Compall 00:51, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)

*** skyfaller (~skyfaller@Skyfaller.wikipedia) has set the topic for #freeculture: "http://freeculture.org | meeting here @ 10:30pm EDT |    discussing http://freeculture.org/wiki/index.php/SWOT_analysis" alright folks, read http://freeculture.org/wiki/index.php/SWOT_analysis if you haven't            already then we'll get started say something when you're done reading this is one reason why IRC is better than a conference call, hyperlinks :-) Indeed. and everyone here is guaranteed to be at a computer to read them *** blahme (rend@69.151.232.156) has joined channel #freeculture There, read. r0x0r  done and done ?def GnRHneuro  Nobody has defined GnRHneuro yet GnRHneuro: Identify yourself :-) skyfaller: Why? He's on tor. Isn't that the point of tor? :) done ?def skyfaller skyfaller is Nelson Pavlosky & has a blog at         http://nelson.freeculture.org & a junior at Swarthmore College & was         an intern at the EFF & living in Swarthmore, PA & was a victorious         plaintiff in the Diebold case *** gavinb (~gavinb@68.157.29.117) has joined channel #freeculture gavinb is Gavin Baker (http://www.gavinbaker.com), co-founder of         Florida Free Culture (http://uf.freeculture.org)  done done  matt price, college of william and mary - late to the game  and to jibot it seems ?def GnRHneuro is matt price, college of william and mary - late             to the game GnRHneuro is matt price, college of william and mary - late to the         game good evening, folks.  ?def rebekah rebekah is a sophomore at Bryn Mawr College, where she studies Latin,         computer science, philosophy, and creative writing. Other interests include: her internship at www.publicknowledge.org, the violin, autodidacts and the unschooling movement, emergent systems, Wes Anderson movies. *** BenDonahower (~chatzilla@pcp0011784379pcs.elztwn01.pa.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture BenDonahower is Ben Donahower and he used half of nickolas bs's meal plan at Franklin and Marshall College * paulproteus read, "he *was* half of nickolas bs' meal plan" ah, i guess i'm not late then  and it's really nicholas, but i don't know how to change my               little greeting thinger  not nickolas BenDonahower: /msg jibot ?help ?learn  is   is  Thanks, rebekah. :)  ?def   is  *** nicholasbs (~nicholas@pool-68-236-33-17.phil.east.verizon.net) has quit:    Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer) *** hashc0de (~hashc0de@ool-18bf15f9.dyn.optonline.net) has left channel     #freeculture *** hashc0de (~hashc0de@ool-18bf15f9.dyn.optonline.net) has joined channel     #freeculture *** blahme (rend@69.151.232.156) has left channel #freeculture anyone want to take minutes? (it's not that hard when you have a chat log!) *** nicholasbs (~nicholas@pool-68-236-33-17.phil.east.verizon.net) has joined    channel #freeculture  I will. w00t anyone want to get me a drink? gavinb: The IRC DCC protocol doesn't handle liquids. well, i figured there's no harm asking ?def hashc0de is Abhay Kumar, alumnus and coFounder of FC@NYU. He            is also hashc0de on AIM/YIM and administers            http://opensynapse.org/. hashc0de is Abhay Kumar, alumnus and coFounder of FC@NYU. He is also         hashc0de on AIM/YIM and administers http://opensynapse.org/. bleh Heya hashc0de. *** rebekah is Rebekah Baglini (~rebekah@brecon-dhcp120.brynmawr.edu) *** rebekah is on channel(s): #freeculture  *** rebekah is/was on server irc.freenode.net (http://freenode.net/) *** rebekah has been idle for 00:02.56, on since 20:35:03 2005/06/15 good eve-en-ing. shall we begin the beguine? *** hashc0de (~hashc0de@ool-18bf15f9.dyn.optonline.net) has quit: Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer) <Omnifrog> wow! this chan is active! "yes!" the people cried. "let this meeting commence!" Elizabeth says she is sorry, she can't make it gavinb: "A philanderer's tie. A murderer's shoe." *** Aramisian (~hashc0de@ool-18bf15f9.dyn.optonline.net) has joined channel #freeculture Omnifrog: A meeting of FC.o core people. :) <S11001001> I suppose, would skyfaller, being the author of Freeculture:SWOT            Analysis, care to say where he'd like to start? ok, so, now that everyone's read the page <_<  >_> we can get started <Aramisian> i would _love_ to see my wireless network stay consistent during             this meeting. <Omnifrog> paulproteus, should I leave? <Aramisian> stay and participate, omnifrog :-) Omnifrog: no, just shut up ;-) <Omnifrog> k Omnifrog: Nah, not necessary. Omnifrog: j/k *** Aramisian (~hashc0de@ool-18bf15f9.dyn.optonline.net) is now known as    hashc0de so anyway <Omnifrog> :) *** benli (~xycodex@69.84.116.48) has joined channel #freeculture I guess I actually have nothing intelligent to say... what do            people think of the SWOT analysis so far? It's pretty minimal at            the moment taking skyfaller's SWOT analysis as a starting point, does anyone have any reactions to it? thoughts on how that should lead us to set up our org structure? (what Gavin said) Just one comment regarding our demographical diversity. I don't think we should strive for diversity for the sake of           diversity. we should strive for diversity because it exists. Right. We should strive for it so our message is more plausible that way, right? well, we want to represent people -- and people are diverse And, besides, because if we're not diverse, then it just means we have bias in our recruiting. <S11001001> at a glance, it looks like the biggest problems are related to            recruiting members well, for the reasons that I explicated in the later parts of the analysis diversity is good we want the policies we put forward to work for everybody or rather, broad representation is good *** nomasteryoda|w (~nomastery@ip24-252-193-86.mc.at.cox.net) has joined channel #freeculture The lack of "Concise definition" is a real loss. well yes. diversity is good. but the fact of the matter is, forcing our board or our steering committee to fit certain quotas will do           more harm than good. hopefully with time we'll get a better "definition"... i don't think it's something we can create. <GnRHneuro> diversity is good, but perhaps now is the not the best time for that to be a focus. reaching a self-sustaining mass of any demographic might be a more important goal. i think we should first focus on the diversity of interests issue. hopefully once we start getting more non-computer geeks (as much as          I love you) on board, ethnic and gender diversity will follow I agree that self-sustainability is the ticket. rebekah: Right on. i agree that diversity of interests matters more than diversity of         demographics <GnRHneuro> agreed. We need a concise message. making geeks more diverse is a whole other battle :-) <BenDonahower> yea for sustainability we've already lost at least one woman to the movement because she          felt alienated   "Bumper sticker culture" means that I can explain FC.o in less               than fifteen minutes. as an artist  rebekah: Really?  That totally sucks. "Oops." <S11001001> rebekah: who? paulproteus: desirina from emory.   rebekah: I think you're oversimplifying, but the point stands she dropped out of national entirely, and that was the reason she           gave me at least.   yeah, that wasn't the whole story <S11001001> (sorry, I haven't been here in a while, and only joined national recently) but anyway i think lots of creators view us with distrust or more freedom@fc.o has received emails from people saying, "who are you to         mess with the way i make my living" woah  gavinb: Right.  There were a lot of old guys chanting slogans               about us paying for music at Grokster. gavinb: by lots you must mean the two or three who have heard of             us :-P (As Nelson can remember, too.) part of the solution to that is to clarify our thoughts about          everyone being a creator paulproteus: I think they were astroturf, but so were the             protesters on our side part of the solution is recruiting people who are a higher % of          creator skyfaller: I know.  It was pretty sad. ;( <S11001001> In our group, sort of a "lunchtime" chapter, our artist hangabout needed alot of convincing that we weren't trying to destroy art as            a living paulproteus: the people who really cared about the case were camping out in line with us, not protesting skyfaller: Of course. <Omnifrog> S11001001, i get that all the time i'm starting to think we should have targeted introductory material on fc.o. possibly a number of different tailored manifesto-y pieces <GnRHneuro> so we agreed that demography is important. do we know which demographies we fit into? building diversity in demographics probably needs to reach beyond "get artists involved," right? gavinb: Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head, about "everyone being a creator" rebekah: I believe CC does that, and I think it works well. rebekah: that's something i thought of a while back, and still think it's a good idea i'm daunted by the task of creating one-size-captivates-all intro material rebekah: Okay, I'll start on the geek side.</case in point> GnRHneuro: i don't know how much FC.o to change the demographics at a         local level <GnRHneuro> hmm? <GnRHneuro> how much we want to, locally? * how much FC.o can do to change the demographics i suppose FC.o could provide resources that give people ideas on         outreach, but that's about it... it has to fall to the campus groups <Omnifrog> think globally, act locally gavinb: well, are there certain org structures which will encourage broad representation and diversity? We would do well to specify exactly which groups we should target before doing all that much writing. But that sort of              writing could help us make that "short and sweet" intro. skyfaller's point is the important one for the moment talking about what to write is a good conversation, but we have to         talk about org structure at the moment gavinb: 'Kay. agreed. let's stick to the agenda and work on other stuff after i dont think we're big enough to talk about diversity yeah, we can talk about strategies later... put it on the SWOT analysis page So one of the big questions is, "Are campus groups part of              FreeCulture.org, Inc. or independent entities?" let's talk about that question in the light of diversity <GnRHneuro> gavinb and skyfaller: i think you're right, but within campus gropus there may exist independent artists, digital video jockeys, radio DJs, programmers, etc. all have different stakes in this, and might be recruited to that local group in a different way <GnRHneuro> *groups, rather if diversity is a weakness, can we improve it based on the way we         answer the question paulproteus cites? *** KevinMarks (~Snak@h-68-164-86-64.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net) has joined channel #freeculture well we aren't expecting chapters to be truly independant entities, paulproteus, otherwise there would be no point to a national organization. gavinb: well, one thing that might give us more diversity is if we            accepted local groups that lay slightly outside our ideology into the fold, e.g. IP-SJ but there are other downsides to that the downside is it muddies up whatever clarity of definition we have <Omnifrog> what in the world are you guys woried about diversity for, you're           in college, diversity ois a consequence of being there gavinb: right, which is why we decided against it in the past i think we need to go back to our mission i personally think that staying on point and strengthening groups is         more important than diversity the problem is that we haven't come together to articulate one <GnRHneuro> gavinb: i agree the question of independent or not is a question of legal status... of course the groups won't be totally independent, but the question is whether they're officially independent or not gavinb. i think the latter is part of the former. on your prior comment hashc0de: i think diversity might be needed to strengthen some groups, but not all but before we go into the org structure issues. are we done with the SWOT ? SWOT -> org structure well, when I was reading over 501(c)3 stuff, there were two factors that would make a local chapters legally entangled with the nat'l org that's the only point of doing SWOT at the moment and those were funding and control if we fund our local chapters and we exert control over their activities, then we are more likely to be held responsible for what they do *** nomasteryoda|w (~nomastery@ip24-252-193-86.mc.at.cox.net) has quit: "Leaving" well, it's a question of extent, right skyfaller? ok i can speak from experience at NYU, clubs at NYU cannot be           officially part of a any non NYU organization. we can have chapters of an organization though. it's a legal liability issue. giving $500 in startup funds to a group /= giving $2000 annually to a         group funding and control is separate tho it seemed to suggest that if we avoid funding and control, then we            basically don't have to worry So when would a lack of control hurt, either hurt the national org or the local chapter? does the law view them as the same? gavinb: this is true. However, the point stands that the more money we give to local groups, rather than letting them use local resources, the more liability we may have i think we want to fund, but not control (beyond a minor extent) yes, but isit still viewed as control/responsibility? <S11001001> paulproteus: it depends on whether FC.o wants to do            nationally-coordinated actions <S11001001> involving the chapters the purpose of the national organization is not to control the specific activities of the individual chapters but to be defining a           national project that all chapters would be a part of. hashc0de: right on <GnRHneuro> how much risk would we take on by assuming liability? example.. local chapter does not need permission from nat'l to run an event. <S11001001> okay, "here, here's some money, and oh by the way we're doing a            nationwide project including all the chapters, please use the             money to participate in that" <S11001001> that doesn't seem separate ...i wish we had hbot around i think we need to be careful of any money as well. skyfaller: Does it count as "control" if we recruit on the national website to get donors to donate funds to the subgroups rather than to us? true gavinb. that would be useful. I think that FreeCulture.org should only have "on and off" power, in other words we either accept local groups into the fold or            don't accept them, and we avoid any other control <BenDonahower> when someone mentioned about giving chapters $$, if we were to               tie funds to certain projecfts that the national organization thought good... then we would both allow independence of local groups and encourage them to coordinate with the national organization I think we should avoid spending money on the local chapters as            much as possible, and focus instead on providing national resources skyfaller: the decision of what's "on" and what's "off" constitutes control... it sets certain guidelines to avoid getting recognition yanked skyfaller: i couldnt disagree more <BenDonahower> not much free flow to local chapters but more 'grants' for projects <S11001001> BenDonahower: I was saying that is as much control as the nat'l            gov't paying highway funds to the states in return for setting the drinking limit >=21 is <GnRHneuro> skyfaller, why do you think that? another thing at nyu is that nyu clubs are not allowed to accept capital from other non NYU organizations. i think it woudl be           unfair for a fc.o, inc to give money to .. (for example) fc@ufl and not fc@nyu because nyu can't accept it. <GnRHneuro> if our goal is membership, we should our money where the members are: locally. if our goal is recognition, then maybe national funding is a better idea. so what are your goal or goals from funds? but the thing is. we can accept swag gavinb: Well, but "on and off" is the idea of a common carrier... you can kick a person offline, but you don't attempt to            control their surfing activities, so you're not liable for what they do fc.o.inc should be the source for gear.. literature, etc. hashc0de: I agree *** valmont (~chrisholl@daryll.net) has joined channel #freeculture we should NOT be handing out cash hashc0de: startup funding is non-existant at many schools same. you can't get money until you've been around for several months or         more I think we should avoid spending lots of money locally, because it            would disappear fast swag is helpful then, but it's not that good gavinb: startup funding may be acceptable, but we have to be            careful but who needs the startup funding if you have a stack of fliers from the nat'l because the fliers from the national wont have your meeting time on         it. they won't reflect your local situation <GnRHneuro> and shipping fliers is not free; shipping files is ;-) our $2500 grant would barely cover one event giving funds is actually more flexible than giving stuff and self-determination for groups should be a priority skyfaller, what kind of event costs $2000? it may be more flexible but we are then separating certain local            groups from another others* gavinb: That's true, self-determination is key. paulproteus: erm, maybe only the grandiose ones we plan at             Swarthmore :-) paulproteus: anything with a big-name speaker, large advertising expenses, etc. gavinb: Okay. :) <GnRHneuro> eg lessig talk @ your school GnRHneuro: and then only if he takes a serious discount paulproteus: speakers fees.. location rental <S11001001> okay have we segued into usage of funds? hashc0de: if some groups can't accept money, then they don't get         money... i don't see what's "unfair" about that. you have to abide by          the rules of your school. it seems easy to get around, e.g. FC.o makes a grant to an individual          not the group gavinb: then what are we providing that's equivalent to those            schools that are s.o.l. swag, resources, whatever we can well we have to give one or the other. not both. if a school's rules prevent us from helping a group, that seems like          their problem, no ours why should the rules at nyu prevent FC.o from helping groups at other          schools? it's a point for alienation of certain grops. groups* i'm sure nyu isn't the only school that's anal about liability gavinb: I think that if a lot of money is flowing from the top down, it can make our local groups look like astroturf instead of            grassroots skyfaller: i don't think it should be a lot <GnRHneuro> gavinb: i agree but i see no problem whatsoever in having startup funds for groups that can't get it, and "emergency" funds for groups that need help putting on an event, etc. i agree as long as we're mainly teaching them to fish, not giving the fish schs have their own funding for groups which to me implies a structure where the groups are independent, not legally part of FC.o gavinb: handouts are a bad idea, christian allusions aside. right, that's what I've been saying... some startup funds may be            good, but we have to be careful, and we can't fund a Lessig talk at their school unless it's benefiting several chapters at once gavinb: Right, teach (mostly) not give fish. As for speakers fees and location rentals, that's the kind of thing that our SAC would be willing to pay for; I imagine the same is true for others' club funding organizations. yes, minimal handouts ok <BenDonahower> what if were to use some money for free culture tour part II <BenDonahower> with maybe a speaker this time *** valmont (~chrisholl@valmont.bronze.supporter.pdpc) has quit: Remote closed the connection so what consititutes "independence" *** nicholasbs (~nicholas@pool-68-236-33-17.phil.east.verizon.net) has quit: Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer) <BenDonahower> or something... and then we are benefitting the local chapters if they take us up on it We could organize it so we're funding the tour rather than the groups' receiving of the tour. and what constitutes "control" <BenDonahower> right so if everyone agrees that FC.o should either be giving only a little $ or none, that seems to strongly imply that groups legally aren't         part of FC.o cash isn't the only way a liability link is formed. (Um, should we have a lawyer in this chat to better qualify how              independent we have to be for a certain decrease in liability?) *** valmont (~chrisholl@daryll.net) has joined channel #freeculture well, i think there has to be a clear link to have liability paulproteus: good point. Unfortunately, our law students are not present. the official use of a name in itself constitutes a liability link. <S11001001> hashc0de: funding and control, right? if being legally part of something means receiveing cold, hard cash, then yea, groups should be "independent" hashc0de: official association cosntitutes liability? <BenDonahower> that's my understanding gav gavinb: yes. wtf well this is what we need to do. we need to solidly define what constitutes a chapter so when we list chapters on the site, what does that mean? so if the College Democrats have a fundraiser where they sell hookers, the Democratic Party incurs liability???? <BenDonahower> that's an asset gav <BenDonahower> just kidding - but no <BenDonahower> because those are individuals who would take part in that action gavinb: no, I don't think that simply sharing a name gives us            liability wrong, gavinb. the DNC isn't on the name of the event. <BenDonahower> now if a CD chapter took part in some plot to overthrow the goernment the national organization would have some trouble here's a liability situation: wtf, i'm hearing several different liability theories BenDonahower: but if we don't fund or control their actions, I            think you'll have a much harder time holding us liable <BenDonahower> haha at least some of us have to be wrong if it's funding, how come Ford Foundation doesn't get nailed any time a grantee breaks the law? FreeCulture.org, Inc. and FreeCulture@UFL presents Concert XYZ I think I'm right because I've been reading up on 501(c)3 applications etc., but none of us are law students, so we're all talking out of our asses that makes both FC.o and FC@UFL and UFL liable <S11001001> I pretty much just agree with everything skyfaller has been saying. So I'll keep taking minutes now. hashc0de: why would FC.o name need to be on any event? <BenDonahower> is a parent liable for their child's actions whether they fund or control their actions? yes, perhaps i'm just taking that a               step to far when i apply that to FC.o <GnRHneuro> i think we should move on the FC.o name, it seems, should only appear on a list of official associations & on the shirts a group gives out. gavinb: Agreed. Local chapters should not name FC.o in              particular. BenDonahower: but these are locally created organizations, we            didn't reach down and create them, then it's totally different GnRHneuro: i think we're really talking about org structure questions well if FC chapters are CHAPTERS of FC.o i don't think they should be chapters then there's a link. hashc0de: right, which is why Gavin doesn't like calling them chapters it seems like everyone is saying they should be independent groups to whom FC.o gives resources <BenDonahower> if they are started locally, i suppose we are only liable for them if they 'affiliate' or somehow formally attach themselves to the national org. that makes no sense to make them independant entities is what i'm           trying to say. <S11001001> orgs :D exactly what those resources are, we haven't quite decided it's as if we're just giving handouts willy-nilly gavinb: Yes, I think our only role should be deciding which ones we want to associate ourselves with association is not the same as control and you're not liable for what your friends do just because you associate with them and if they aren't chapters, they have no oblicgation to us either. no guilt by association! their obligation is if they don't follow our rules, they get de-listed obligation* although the cops might bring you in for hanging out with suspicious characters, it's not against the law to have unsavory friends they're no longer listed on our Web site and no longer eligible to         access our resources gavinb: right on i think that's too loose of a definiation, that's all. why? Yargh, the question at hand is, "What kind of resource access              gives us what kinds of liability?" <S11001001> quote: control: either accept a chapter into FC.o, or deny it. Breaking the rules means we no longer associate with a chapter. what's the point of local orgs then? hashc0de: To promote us. let's all just decentralize Not to represent us. heres a thought <GnRHneuro> if we're talking liability and don't know the relevant laws well, maybe we should just table it until we do have a clear sense of            that the people from these "chapters" are going to be on the board of        directors in some way or another i think we clearly avoid liability if the groups are fully independent structures i have some understanding of liability, albeit limited. i'm not a           law student/lawyer gavinb: right on if we fund their activities, we do become liable. now, it may be possible to avoid liability without having independent groups... but i think it's clear that if they're nor us, we're not liable hashc0de: i'm sure it's not as easy an equation as that <S11001001> hashc0de: The national org is good for visibility of the movement in general, helping "chapters" get started, and providing a clear giving path for interested donors. hashc0de: right, and more funding makes us more liable it depends on exactly WHAT and HOW we fund what we know, and how we react to their wrongdoing <BenDonahower> "movement" = needs people and something to move it... without some connection with local groups I think that inhibits our ability to expand FC gavinb: well, if we fund 10% of their activities as opposed to, say 50%, then we're going to be held less liable under normal circumstances, I would think <BenDonahower> But, my thought is perhaps we should table this discussion for when we have a lawyer around! but you're right that pure numbers aren't the only factor <S11001001> I agree with BenDonahower, because I'm looping on my existing minutes <BenDonahower> Since we are just talking about a numberof hypotheticals that may or may not be possible BenDonahower: i disagree -- we just need to avoid law questions that we can't answer alright, so maybe we should table the org structure questions until we have a lawyer skyfaller: Sadly, I agree with BenDonahower. ("Sadly" because              it means we've made no progress.) and call it a night wtf?? then we haven't accomplsihed anything we're never going to get this done if we can't stick this out what about the other end of the org.. the top end <BenDonahower> Who feels confident about liability and its legal implications? can we talk about this? <GnRHneuro> can i made a suggestion <BenDonahower> If someone does, speak gavinb: well, I'm with you, but if we can't answer these questions until we have a lawyer, then we're just going to go in uninformed circles *** valmont (~chrisholl@valmont.bronze.supporter.pdpc) has quit: Remote closed the connection BenBonahower: i feel confident about the statement i made earlier GnRHneuro: Please, suggest. make the suggestion GnRHneuro <S11001001> Could we try and make decisions without considering liability, and then worry about it later, when we have more info? if groups are independent, it seems entirely possible to avoid most/all liability Can we also agree that chapters are for promoting us, not representing us? well, regardless of liability, I think that local groups should be            independent, and largely funded through local sources, although we             may provide some startup capital "us" == "National FC.o organization" paulproteus: i'm not sure that's the right question, let alone the right answer <S11001001> And vice versa, perhaps? gavinb: agreed... that question/answer seems to have some hidden assumptions that need to be teased out <BenDonahower> well if all the work is being done locally and they are doing all the funding themselves what is the purpose of the national org? BenDonahower: providing resources e.g. the activist packet helping groups collaborate coordinating efforts gavinb: right on * paulproteus withdraws that statement for now until it's germane to return to  it providing information passing on experience eg. sharing materials /info what works-what doesn't <Omnifrog> seems to me if you are gonna fund anyone, they should sign legal docs that protect FC.o Omnifrog is right... i was taking this as an assumption concur, but that shldnt happen often BenDonahower: I think what we're saying is the national org should be minimalist, it should be a collection of local chapters handouts i mean <BenDonahower> so national is a clearing house for the groups (that we are not               affiliated with) locally for info and to share info across chapters gavinb: legal disclaimers only go so far <BenDonahower> we are the info station <BenDonahower> ok but ultimately the national ord IS going to be made out of people from the "chapters" BenDonahower: some of us think money or other physical resources, too benli: possibly BenDonahower: also, recruiting efforts skyfaller: To recruit chapters, or to recruit students *to* chapters? the thing is, do we want representation from all chapters in the national org? benli: that's a long question that i think we should hold off on <BenDonahower> then what about national efforts like barbie in a blender, save the ipod, etc. --- were they out side the realm of what national should do? if so, representaton in what way? Well if we have official chapters, that has to be the case, benli. If we don't have official chapters, then it's irrelevant <S11001001> On my org structure page, I proposed that the core team be made of            chapter leaders. Perhaps that should wait though. BenDonahower: No. BenDonahower: Given sufficient resources, I think those are things we definitely should do. <Omnifrog> chapters should be independant unless they are willing to abide by           standards form a legal standpoint <BenDonahower> I guess I'm thinking about it the other way around... if we               define national and then define local as what national is                not... seems a little easier and it also improves their indepence... because then they are sorta what they want to be but if we want these "chapters" to be "independent" BenDonahower: I think that they're de-prioritized until we have more resources to help local chapters and we've sorted out our org structure more It's interesting - all the other organizations I've seen that have campus chapters have separate external lives from their student activities. We want to "encourage students to organize              chapters", basically, and that's all. *** nicholasbs (~nicholas@pool-68-236-33-17.phil.east.verizon.net) has joined channel #freeculture nicholasbs is a student at F&M <GnRHneuro> I'm new here and certainly not in charge, but I think we lose time & perspective arguing in circles. If we know we can't come out of            a dicussion with a final answer to a question, why don't we just table it until we can? If we're trying to come to consensus on a            mission statement, why don't we come into chats like this having already banged out our own (for example) polished mission statement and then compare notes to reach a conse hashc0de: i disagree... this can be a wink wink nudge nudge situation, like MoveOn.org's numerous "organizations" <Omnifrog> if they are independants, they do not represent the FC.o we still need some way to recognize and recruit into the national org <Omnifrog> there are no two ways around it so we are talking about this from a bottom-up standpoint, the way we should be since it is our 'way.' I really do think we should be           discussing the top of the structure though. Board / Steering / Core etc. What entities do we want to keep and what defines them. <Omnifrog> they are either legally responsible or they are not, you can't           protect your selves in court otherwise if we can define the national org first, we can then determine the relation between the nat'l and local Omnifrog: group X should never say they "represent" FC.o ... but an         individual from group X may represent FC.o. for instance, attending a          conference, a person might be there to "represent" FC.o. but a campus group's actions should never be "representing" FC.o Omnifrog: we've tabled the liability issue, since nobody in here is qualified to comment... other considerations are now on the table <Omnifrog> o hashc0de: i think the natl / local relationship will dictate the nat'l structure <BenDonahower> but we are discussing entities that we've decided are independent of us... doesn't make sense to me to do that - sorta like a CEO making a job description for an employee at               another company... we should be define national, which would inadvertently make local easier to understand gavinb: we're assuming that. let's stop assume and define something. BenDonahower: no, I think that the national org is assembled from the local chapters 2nd assume should be 'the assumptions' the local chapters came before the nat'l org, and should be able to survive the demise of the nat'l org amen skyfaller let's get one thing straight: FC.o exists primarily to help campus groups we want this to be as grassroots as possible I feel like we should ask some specific questions. so how do we pick the board/national org from the local chapters it's the campus presence that makes us unique, and makes FC.o worth anything <BenDonahower> right, so just define natl minimalistically... but i think its impossible to define local groups becasuse they are going to be               so diverse... we can define ourselves though benli: i think that relies on certain assumptions IOW, who shld have a say in how to use the money? benli: In the past, I've been involved with Student Pugwash. They have a national conference yearly in DC, and student chapters come to that conference. (Paid for by local chapters.) benli: Then they have an election for who wants which national positions. the board of directors is ultimately responsible for everything FC.o         does... no way around that but i think we're getting ahead of ourselves that FC.o exists to serve the campus groups does not neccesarily dictate that FC.o is assembled from the campus groups So one idea for picking how local chapter members take national positions is that we have a conference, which local groups and other people can attend, and we do elections at it. in fact, if FC.o has to be "operated" by people who are already a.)         students and b.) running a student group, that seriously limits its capabilities <Omnifrog> Maybe FC.o should be separate and small, serving as a a guiding body and let the chapters function independantly but in unison gavinb: right, but I think a working definition of an FC campus group is that they have a representative in the nat'l org skyfaller: i don't know that's a very lasting definition ok at least, it may be against our interests to go that way national org meaning? skyfaller: that's asking again to have defined chapters with national representatives, etc. i've taken this to mean the board, but i sense you mean differently hello my name is hashc0de hello my name is hashc0de hello my name is hashc0de hello my name is hashc0de hello my name is hashc0de hello my name is hashc0de hello my name is hashc0de hello my name is hashc0de hello my name is hashc0de hello my name is hashc0de hello my name is hashc0de oops This is not for Board positions, but rather the officer positions that do most of the work. hashc0de: well, I wouldn't want a chapter running around that didn't interact with us on the nat'l level to have a seat on the board isn't the only way to have representation in FC.o <BenDonahower> i think skyfaller has a point though... if national is to be a               clearing house of information we need someone to inform from each chapter ack hashc0de: what have you done? ignore that :-) sorry folks .. trying to write a blog post heh anyway you have a preview :-) i spazzed, skyfaller hashc0de -- there's already a Webteam mailing list why another? there won't be a new list but that's not relevent to our discussion here gavinb: he said he's cleaning out the old one of lurkers relevant* <S11001001> good thing hashc0de isn't IRC team director hashc0de: you're going to get kicked for flooding ;-) hah not possible thanks to floodguard on mirc <BenDonahower> skyfallers def, however, is decent though because if natl is a               clearing house of information we need someone from each chapter                to inform and to hav ethem inform each other BenDonahower: right on it's all about information sharing i disagree with BenDonahower nat'l org could simply provide tools for them to share among          themselves <S11001001> that's my definition of coreteam, a leader from each chapter that is, nat'l org provides the tools for them to discuss, but isn't          part of the conversation <S11001001> so who decides who "them" is, gavinb? *** I got netsplit here for a few minutes im done anyway... and someone can always send him the log          later... but no matter now <BenDonahower> can you give an example of what natl would do as an independent charity? S11001001: Let me private-message you what gavinb just said. there we go there we go... paste in what you said, Gavin repeat what you just said gavin it's possible -- perhaps preferable -- for FC.o to act entirely as an         independent charity... that provides information and/or other resources to campus groups. that doesn't neccesarily require local groups to be represented -- do the homeless send a representative to         goodwill? nor does it neccesarily dictate that FC.o should run "national projects" or be involved in politics at all i'm not saying all or any of that is what i think would be good, but they're legitimate options, and we need to consider them, not just assume I think we wasted more time talking about the netsplit after he            came back :-) it's possible -- perhaps preferable -- for FC.o to act entirely as            an independent charity... that provides information and/or other            resources to campus groups. that doesn't neccesarily require local            groups to be represented -- do the homeless send a representative            to goodwill? nor does it neccesarily dictate that FC.o should run            "national projects" or be involved in politics at all that's what gavin just said <BenDonahower> what would be an example of what natl would do as an                ind. charity? <S11001001> whoah flood <BenDonahower> because theoretically, it sounds ok, but functionally i'm not                sure i know what that means Would Barbie in a Blender have worked in the "indy charity" view               of FC.o? hashc0de: you're a flooder, despite mIRC ;-) Isn't that how it did happen, really? Didn't it not involve any local chapters? <BenDonahower> paulproteus: i dont think so... which is why i'm wondering what it would do skyfaller: trying :-) BenDonahower: examples. FC.o provides resources -- e.g. activist         packet, merchandise, money, research, help with internship          placement. maybe travel funds. tools, like web space, mailing lists,          conference call, etc. as an indy charity, FC.o's only involvement with local groups is          determining to whom to give access to their resources apparently this wasn't clear in what was said earlier in the indy charity model, Barbie in a Blender doesn't happen -- at          least, not with FC.o's name on it it happens with FC Swat's name on it, or Rebekah's name on it, or          someone else's but we do provide webspace.. or the domain. etc. someone has an idea, comes to FC.o, asks for them to provide Web          space, and FC.o agrees... and that's the extent of FC.o's involvement sounds perfect.. gavinb: well, I think there's a lot to be said for that, but I             think we want to have FC.o branded nat'l campaigns when necessary <BenDonahower> so how do these groups get connected with this information? wouldn't be good web PR for fc.o though <BenDonahower> that's where skyfaller's reps. come in handy benli -- but there's no reason for FC.o to need PR in this model BenDonahower: right on, someone has to carry the info back to            their local group the indy charity model is like the ultimate minimalistic structure -- we can build on it from there, if we choose we should just be aware that there are other paths we can take gavinb: right, I think it's a good base, but I think we do need a            bit more than that "Now we're getting somewhere." skyfaller, what's a goal you want to achieve that this doesn't?              National campaigns? I think that what you've outlined should be the core mission of            the org so instead of chapters we have 'local groups' <BenDonahower> why is PR not important? it more compelling for xyz student to do something if he knows that there is actually a national org supporting something in colleges if you have to start cutting resources, you cut everything but the minimalistic structure that gavinb just outlined if FC.o is just an indy charity, what need do they have for PR? they only need a few people to work and little money <BenDonahower> press is always important - whether or not natl is a choking morass or hardly anything... because it encourages people to               get involved gavinb: I think that we need PR to spread our message, otherwise nobody will hear of the indy charity or the student movement but anyway yea i guess that's one end of the spectrum <S11001001> gavinb: So how does this group choose who gets access? there are lots of orgs that don't do press because they don't seek involvement <BenDonahower> national press = local involvement so question. what would i wear on my shirt? freeculture.org or           freeculture? they could have very strict or very lenient guidelines on how to         grant or revoke access... that's part of the leaders' decisions, not part of the structure *** valmont (~chrisholl@daryll.net) has joined channel #freeculture in the indy charity model, i don't think there's any reason for a         FreeCulture.org shirt hashc0de: I would say clearly freeculture.org <Omnifrog> good lord(of your choice). Who gets access? Everyone...shit exactly what gavinb said, skyfaller <BenDonahower> yea, if its everyone then we aren't helping FC <BenDonahower> which is the point <BenDonahower> we are just helping whoever thinks the information is remotely useful for some purpose <Omnifrog> why would you restrict access? gavinb: Then I don't think much of the indy charity model, I want an FC.o t-shirt :-) <BenDonahower> -- who of course is in no way associated with FC.o <BenDonahower> ha! lmao skyfaller. as do i :-) if FC.o does more than this barebones, then maybe FC.o does something worth promoting, in which case you have shirts since you all know i want shirts, you know i don't think we should be         this barebones either ;) gavinb: yes, I think that FC.o should do significantly more than             the indy charity model *** valmont (~chrisholl@valmont.bronze.supporter.pdpc) has quit: Client Quit but I think that the duties of that indie charity should be our             core mission a quick word about access some resources should be totally open, because there's no reason not          to -- for instance, text. put the activist packet on the Web site          under CC, anyone can use it gavinb: right on but some resources CAN't be totally open -- like, if we're going to          give out merchandise we can't just give money away to anyone who asks, unless we have an          infinite endowment which we won't gavinb: hm... did you see the "Google will eat itself" website?             :-) so hopefully now things are clearer... maybe we should have been saying "FC.o is independent from campus groups," not "groups are         independent from FC.o". ok give resources... to do what exactly? http://www.gwei.org/gwei/ ;-) <BenDonahower> well, i gotta go to sleep --- gotta get up early... final                thought: i agree with skyfaller but i also think we should                provide local groups with grant money for deserving projects <BenDonahower> good night! BenDonahower: goodnight!  thanks for coming! benli -- that's a question for the decision-makers, not a question of          structure <GnRHneuro> goodnight ben thanks BenDonahower *** BenDonahower (~chatzilla@pcp0011784379pcs.elztwn01.pa.comcast.net) has     quit: "Chatzilla 0.9.67 [Firefox 1.0.4/20050511]" and limit it to college students? benli: no, any students but we are talking about the heart and soul of the org why are we here? whats the purpose? <Omnifrog> im not in college, am I excluded? if most members in the future are grad students, or high schoolers, i          dont see why that focus can't shift Omnifrog: I think we are specifically for students... if you're            not attending any sort of school, I'm afraid this organization is             not for you but FC.o is for students... that's what makes us unique and what makes us valuable <Omnifrog> what if I erol as a non-traditional student? <S11001001> bye bye Omnifrog :o yes precisely that qn, are we for students only? if so, why that arbitrary restriction since its already so "barebones"? because there's plenty out there for non-students nobody else has a focus on students <Omnifrog> hay, thats not fair benli: we're specializing in an demographic which is uniquely suited to free culture nobody else has a focus on building local presences -- certainly not building local presences on campuses *** valmont (~chrisholl@daryll.net) has joined channel #freeculture <GnRHneuro> why do you have to be a student to build a campus presence? when i was in DC, i saw how many other groups there are, working in         the same areas as us. we can't hope to duplicate their experiences or         resources, and we shouldn't try. we're the only ones doing what we're         doing -- and we should stick with it. <Omnifrog> what if I am one of those people that see school as a lifetime endevor? faculty / staff / admins are never at the heart of campus-based activism yes, my point is, if you can make a decision about that now, you can make a decision about what you want to give out "endowments" for in this hypothetical "barebones" model Omnifrog: it's about youth and local community <Omnifrog> do you have to be 25 yrs old or younger? benli, the indy charity model (and all others) assume we're only working with students and youth Omnifrog: no, we've defined it loosely as a student of any kind <GnRHneuro> i disagree. faculty especially are often at the heart of campus activisim - at least at my school - and the others can be            invaluable resources. but of course alums aren't going to be kicked out the door when they're done.. ;-) <S11001001> hashc0de: er.... but we are assuming some youth, at least younger than 35 (come on, you have to have graduated by then) GnRHneuro: ok, i may have been wrong GnRHneuro: faculty can be involved, but the purpose of this org is            to get youth involved but if the faculty want to be involved, they have to build their own          damn group <Omnifrog> seems like the rules about who you are need to be defined so the adults are only there to help the youth, it's not their org <S11001001> hashc0de: in the written models of both myself and gavinb, alumni             are moved into advisory roles, then eventually "phased out" of the             org well if local groups are student run groups at universities.. then            there is no problem. <GnRHneuro> i understand the need for a focus on getting youth involved, but             explicitly excluding interested parties - especially those on             campus - seems unfair and perhaps counterproductive gavinb: no, the faculty can be involved, they just don't have "ownership" or control in the org it's by the students for the students skyfaller -- i'm talking about a FC.o-type group skyfaller: and "of the students" FC.o should serve student groups gavinb: oh, the nat'l org should be mostly students, and students should control it, but people like Amanda have been invaluable in            the past and we shouldn't anticipate serving faculty groups any time soon <GnRHneuro> we should put FC.o logos on FUBU t-shirts ;-) skyfaller: not saying who should make up the nat'l org <Omnifrog> "by the students for the students"? that sounds like a group of           teens defending their right to drive cars on the "cruise" the focus of the nat'l org should be on student groups Omnifrog: and that condescending tone just got you kicked <S11001001> Omnifrog: hell yeah we have a right to drive cars on the "cruise" <S11001001> (I don't even know what that means : not just should, gavinb, _is_ hmph... am I not an admin in here anymore? eat your words, skyfaller <GnRHneuro> <Omnifrog awkwardly remains in the room> you are powerless here lol! <Omnifrog> i may not have expressed what i ment correctly *** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) has changed mode for #freeculture to +o skyfaller <GnRHneuro> uh oh! *** skyfaller (~skyfaller@Skyfaller.wikipedia) has kicked Omnifrog off channel #freeculture: skyfaller *** Omnifrog (~Omnifrog@pcp564958pcs.rthfrd01.tn.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture <S11001001> dum da dum mwahahaha.... oh man... that's spiteful ok, I'm done now <S11001001> hi Omnifrog :) <Omnifrog> sorry he was even gonna apologize ;) <GnRHneuro> thank you for tonight's power trip Omnifrog: sorry, I just had to do that ;-) <S11001001> rofl <Omnifrog> it ok see, this stuff never happens on conference calls haha <S11001001> I'll leave that out of the minutes revisionist! *** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) has changed mode for #freeculture to -o    skyfaller gavinb: He's just like Elizabeth. ;) good plan, S11001001 so much for transparency :) <Omnifrog> i was just trying to say that being a student is not the           point. being a citizen is Omnifrog: not all of us are u.s. citizens... though i suppose we're          all citizens of something <Omnifrog> a member of society Omnifrog: To the global Free Culture movement, absolutely.               Desire to see more active participation in our culture is               something that all members of all societies can understand and               work toward. <Omnifrog> i didnt say US Omnifrog: it's OK, my point was that people belittle students and             think of them as pointless troublemakers, passive consumers of the             world around them, rather than active productive participants and your tone reminded me of that and irritated me, and that's why             I kicked you (10 minutes later) with all due respect... FreeCulture.org /= free culture movement. FreeCulture.org = students. that's our focus and our passion. but yeah, let's leave this thread i move that this chat be abandoned by 1230 est (that's 15 min from         now) gavinb: agreed so what is this /= business .. != anyone? :-) <S11001001> yes please, let's not let my minutes be any more inaccurate than            they already are <S11001001> hashc0de: real programming language-ese for != <Omnifrog> sorry i created a fuss <> <S11001001> (by which (I (mean (Lisp)))) grr @ Lisp :-) <S11001001> uh oh np Omnifrog ok, enough geekery so moving on i think we had some resolution about the different org models available <Omnifrog> lets all go join the forum at fair use day and have some tea the indy charity model is like barebones involvement, vs. the "FC.o         is totally embroiled in local activities" model those are starting points, not the end of the conversation -- but i         think we have to start to lean one way or the other <Omnifrog> common, you dont have to post anything well there's also the chapter models.. which is somewhere in           between, gavinb <Omnifrog> just join it Omnifrog: you're off-topic <Omnifrog> fine i think to be able to choose which one, we need to articulate a clear mission, and see wich model would support the mission (among other        factors) agreed, benli i think the mission is support building campus groups and help represent their interests what interest i.e. help handle national/int'l politics for them gavinb: sounds good to me to do...? educate students about ip? to support cultural participation promote less copyright? advocate a discussion? gavinb: right on "Well, it's more nuanced than just education or promoting just              less copyright..." or just foster debate and get pple talking to advocate participatory culture. which includes knowing about law (and reacting to bad         law)... includes connecting students with each other and with other groups / businesses / etc. ... includes helping them fight against laws that erect barriers to participation ... etc. * skyfaller continues to agree w/ Gavin in terms of subject area, it could be anything from IP to technology to media reform to access to information to what have you we should define our principles, and let those define our issues "We believe that cultural products today are dominated by fewer              and fewer voices broadcasting to greater and greater numbers of               people.  We further believe that greater diversity of voices               would improve the appeal of our culture.  We believe that to               achieve this greater participation in our culture, digital tools               such as weblogs must join with legal tools like copyright reform               and liberal licenses." *** GnRHneuro (GnRHneuron@594a667acc9ede44.session.tor) has set the topic for #freeculture: "Well it's about time to get going now" *** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) has set the topic for #freeculture: "http://freeculture.org | meeting here @ 10:30pm EDT | discussing    http://freeculture.org/wiki/index.php/SWOT_analysis" not the other way around (for example) GnRHneuro: sorry, I control the /topic, mwahahaaha.... so there is an implicit position/philosophy here paulproteus: you just reminded me of when we tried to write a mission statement, and for that i hate you. ;) <GnRHneuro> dah! paulproteus: what are you quoting? skyfaller: Myself. oh, well, yourself sounded pretty good <S11001001> is it myself or yourself? we want to avoid too much definition of what issues block or promote         "cultural participation / participatory culture" -- we probably even          want to avoid too much definition of "culture" * skyfaller kicks S11001001, in the ankle good it wasn't his wrist or we wouldn't have minutes tonight. it's a question, i guess, of what "free culture" means Oh, right, students.  "FreeCulture.org exists to empower               students to organize local chapters and take the discussion to               their campuses, bringing the result of a better-informed               populace and a more actively-involved consumers" i think "free culture" means, at heart, the freedom to participate * GnRHneuro slaps skyfaller around a bit with a large trout (I hit enter a bit early there, sorry.) <S11001001> (btw you can review, as I've saved several times, at            http://freeculture.org/wiki/index.php/2005-06-15 <S11001001> ) <Omnifrog> freedom to participate Omnifrog: sorry, we revoked your freedom to participate ;-) <Omnifrog> o * paulproteus nearly chokes you can always fork. * GnRHneuro slaps paulproteus around a bit with a large trout <Omnifrog> freedom to access <GnRHneuro> buzzword to buzzword! <S11001001> paulproteus: consumers.... <Omnifrog> revoking my freedom is mean i think it's more about participation than access... access matters         mainly if it inhibits or promotes participation we're not the "everything for free" club -- and shouldn't be, and          won't last long if we are <Omnifrog> if you have no access, how can you participate? ...that's what i said <S11001001> paulproteus: consumers.... but the point is participation, not access.... like          self-determination is the point, not decentralization... it's means          -> end S11001001: I pressed enter early.  Should I rewrite that thing               to sound better? gavinb: spot on <S11001001> no just finish it so I can finish the quote we're not the Student Technology Consumer Union Oh. No, just drop the word "a". or the Information Wants to be Free Club <S11001001> the main idea is to catch all the points we want to catch <S11001001> okay so we have a broadly encompassing philosphy of free/participatory culture