Difference between revisions of "Archive:2005-06-15/Chatlog"

From FreeCulture.org
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1,225: Line 1,225:
  <benli> so we have a broadly encompassing philosphy of free/participatory
  <benli> so we have a broadly encompassing philosphy of free/participatory
<S11001001> IRC team director strikes again!

Revision as of 04:49, 16 June 2005

(chatlog goons)

*** 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"
<skyfaller> alright folks, read
            http://freeculture.org/wiki/index.php/SWOT_analysis if you haven't
<skyfaller> then we'll get started
<skyfaller> say something when you're done reading
<skyfaller> this is one reason why IRC is better than a conference call,
            hyperlinks :-)
<paulproteus> Indeed.
<skyfaller> and everyone here is guaranteed to be at a computer to read them
*** blahme (rend@ has joined channel #freeculture
<paulproteus> There, read.
<skyfaller> r0x0r
<GnRHneuro>  done and done
<skyfaller> ?def GnRHneuro 
<jibot> Nobody has defined GnRHneuro yet
<skyfaller> GnRHneuro: Identify yourself :-)
<paulproteus> skyfaller: Why?  He's on tor.  Isn't that the point of tor? :)
<nicholasbs> done
<skyfaller> ?def skyfaller 
<jibot> 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@ has joined channel #freeculture
<jibot> gavinb is Gavin Baker (http://www.gavinbaker.com), co-founder of
        Florida Free Culture (http://uf.freeculture.org)
<S11001001> done
<rebekah> done
<GnRHneuro> matt price, college of william and mary - late to the game
<GnRHneuro> and to jibot it seems
<skyfaller> ?def GnRHneuro is matt price, college of william and mary - late
            to the game
<jibot> GnRHneuro is matt price, college of william and mary - late to the
<hashc0de> good evening, folks.
<S11001001> ?def rebekah
<jibot> 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
<jibot> 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"
<gavinb> ah, i guess i'm not late then
<BenDonahower> and it's really nicholas, but i don't know how to change my
               little greeting thinger
<BenDonahower> not nickolas
<paulproteus> BenDonahower: /msg jibot ?help
<rebekah> ?learn <x> is <y> 
<jibot> <x> is <y>
<paulproteus> Thanks, rebekah. :)
<S11001001> ?def <x>
<jibot> <x> is <y>
*** 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
*** hashc0de (~hashc0de@ool-18bf15f9.dyn.optonline.net) has joined channel
*** blahme (rend@ has left channel #freeculture
<gavinb> anyone want to take minutes? (it's not that hard when you have a chat
*** nicholasbs (~nicholas@pool-68-236-33-17.phil.east.verizon.net) has joined
    channel #freeculture
<S11001001> I will.
<gavinb> w00t
<gavinb> anyone want to get me a drink?
<paulproteus> gavinb: The IRC DCC protocol doesn't handle liquids.
<gavinb> well, i figured there's no harm asking
<hashc0de> ?def hashc0de is Abhay Kumar, alumnus and coFounder of FC@NYU. He
           is also hashc0de on AIM/YIM and administers
<jibot> hashc0de is Abhay Kumar, alumnus and coFounder of FC@NYU. He is also
        hashc0de on AIM/YIM and administers http://opensynapse.org/.
<hashc0de> bleh
<paulproteus> 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
<hashc0de> good eve-en-ing.
<gavinb> 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!
<gavinb> "yes!" the people cried. "let this meeting commence!"
<skyfaller> Elizabeth says she is sorry, she can't make it
<paulproteus> gavinb: "A philanderer's tie.  A murderer's shoe."
*** Aramisian (~hashc0de@ool-18bf15f9.dyn.optonline.net) has joined channel
<paulproteus> 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?
<skyfaller> ok, so, now that everyone's read the page <_<  >_>
<skyfaller> 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 :-)
<skyfaller> Omnifrog: no, just shut up ;-)
<Omnifrog> k
<paulproteus> Omnifrog: Nah, not necessary.
<skyfaller> Omnifrog: j/k
*** Aramisian (~hashc0de@ool-18bf15f9.dyn.optonline.net) is now known as
<skyfaller> so anyway
<Omnifrog> :)
*** benli (~xycodex@ has joined channel #freeculture
<skyfaller> 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
<gavinb> 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?
<skyfaller> (what Gavin said)
<hashc0de> Just one comment regarding our demographical diversity.
<hashc0de> I don't think we should strive for diversity for the sake of
<hashc0de> we should strive for diversity because it exists.
<paulproteus> Right.  We should strive for it so our message is more plausible
              that way, right?
<gavinb> well, we want to represent people -- and people are diverse
<paulproteus> 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
<skyfaller> well, for the reasons that I explicated in the later parts of the
<skyfaller> diversity is good
<gavinb> we want the policies we put forward to work for everybody
<skyfaller> or rather, broad representation is good
*** nomasteryoda|w (~nomastery@ip24-252-193-86.mc.at.cox.net) has joined
    channel #freeculture
<paulproteus> The lack of "Concise definition" is a real loss.
<hashc0de> 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.
<gavinb> 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.
<rebekah> 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 
<paulproteus> I agree that self-sustainability is the ticket.
<paulproteus> rebekah: Right on.
<gavinb> i agree that diversity of interests matters more than diversity of
<GnRHneuro> agreed.
<paulproteus> We need a concise message.
<skyfaller> making geeks more diverse is a whole other battle :-)
<BenDonahower> yea for sustainability
<rebekah> we've already lost at least one woman to the movement because she
          felt alienated  
<paulproteus> "Bumper sticker culture" means that I can explain FC.o in less
              than fifteen minutes.
<rebekah> as an artist 
<paulproteus> rebekah: Really?  That totally sucks.
<paulproteus> "Oops."
<S11001001> rebekah: who?
<rebekah> paulproteus: desirina from emory.  
<skyfaller> rebekah: I think you're oversimplifying, but the point stands
<rebekah> she dropped out of national entirely, and that was the reason she
          gave me at least.  
<skyfaller> yeah, that wasn't the whole story
<S11001001> (sorry, I haven't been here in a while, and only joined national
<skyfaller> but anyway
<gavinb> i think lots of creators view us with distrust or more
<gavinb> freedom@fc.o has received emails from people saying, "who are you to
         mess with the way i make my living"
<rebekah> woah 
<paulproteus> gavinb: Right.  There were a lot of old guys chanting slogans
              about us paying for music at Grokster.
<skyfaller> gavinb: by lots you must mean the two or three who have heard of
            us :-P
<paulproteus> (As Nelson can remember, too.)
<gavinb> part of the solution to that is to clarify our thoughts about
         everyone being a creator
<skyfaller> paulproteus: I think they were astroturf, but so were the
            protesters on our side
<gavinb> part of the solution is recruiting people who are a higher % of
<paulproteus> 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
<skyfaller> paulproteus: the people who really cared about the case were
            camping out in line with us, not protesting
<paulproteus> skyfaller: Of course.
<Omnifrog> S11001001, i get that all the time
<rebekah> 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?
<skyfaller> gavinb: Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head, about
            "everyone being a creator"
<paulproteus> rebekah: I believe CC does that, and I think it works well.
<gavinb> rebekah: that's something i thought of a while back, and still think
         it's a good idea
<rebekah> i'm daunted by the task of creating one-size-captivates-all intro
<paulproteus> rebekah: <case in point>Okay, I'll start on the geek side.</case
              in point>
<gavinb> 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?
<gavinb> * how much FC.o can do to change the demographics
<gavinb> 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
<skyfaller> gavinb: well, are there certain org structures which will
            encourage broad representation and diversity?
<paulproteus> 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.
<gavinb> skyfaller's point is the important one for the moment
<gavinb> talking about what to write is a good conversation, but we have to
         talk about org structure at the moment
<paulproteus> gavinb: 'Kay.
<hashc0de> agreed. let's stick to the agenda and work on other stuff after
<benli> i dont think we're big enough to talk about diversity
<skyfaller> yeah, we can talk about strategies later... put it on the SWOT
            analysis page
<paulproteus> So one of the big questions is, "Are campus groups part of
              FreeCulture.org, Inc. or independent entities?"
<gavinb> 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
<gavinb> 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
<hashc0de> well we aren't expecting chapters to be truly independant entities,
           paulproteus, otherwise there would be no point to a national
<skyfaller> 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
<skyfaller> but there are other downsides to that
<gavinb> 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
<skyfaller> gavinb: right, which is why we decided against it in the past
<benli> i think we need to go back to our mission
<gavinb> i personally think that staying on point and strengthening groups is
         more important than diversity
<benli> the problem is that we haven't come together to articulate one
<GnRHneuro> gavinb:  i agree
<gavinb> 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
<hashc0de> gavinb. i think the latter is part of the former.
<hashc0de> on your prior comment
<gavinb> hashc0de: i think diversity might be needed to strengthen some
         groups, but not all
<hashc0de> but before we go into the org structure issues. are we done with
           the SWOT ?
<gavinb> SWOT -> org structure
<skyfaller> 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
<gavinb> that's the only point of doing SWOT at the moment
<skyfaller> and those were funding and control
<skyfaller> 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:
<gavinb> well, it's a question of extent, right skyfaller?
<hashc0de> 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.
<gavinb> giving $500 in startup funds to a group /= giving $2000 annually to a
<benli> funding and control is separate tho
<skyfaller> it seemed to suggest that if we avoid funding and control, then we
            basically don't have to worry
<paulproteus> So when would a lack of control hurt, either hurt the national
              org or the local chapter?
<benli> does the law view them as the same?
<skyfaller> 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
<gavinb> i think we want to fund, but not control (beyond a minor extent)
<benli> 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
<hashc0de> 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.
<skyfaller> hashc0de: right on
<GnRHneuro> how much risk would we take on by assuming liability?
<hashc0de> 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
<gavinb> ...i wish we had hbot around
<hashc0de> i think we need to be careful of any money as well.
<paulproteus> 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?
<hashc0de> true gavinb. that would be useful.
<skyfaller> 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
<skyfaller> I think we should avoid spending money on the local chapters as
            much as possible, and focus instead on providing national
<gavinb> skyfaller: the decision of what's "on" and what's "off" constitutes
         control... it sets certain guidelines to avoid getting recognition
<gavinb> skyfaller: i couldnt disagree more
<BenDonahower> not much free flow to local chapters but more 'grants' for
<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?
<hashc0de> 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
<hashc0de> but the thing is. we can accept swag
<skyfaller> 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
<hashc0de> fc.o.inc should be the source for gear.. literature, etc.
<skyfaller> hashc0de: I agree
*** valmont (~chrisholl@daryll.net) has joined channel #freeculture
<hashc0de> we should NOT be handing out cash
<gavinb> hashc0de: startup funding is non-existant at many schools
<hashc0de> same.
<gavinb> you can't get money until you've been around for several months or
<skyfaller> I think we should avoid spending lots of money locally, because it
            would disappear fast
<gavinb> swag is helpful then, but it's not that good
<skyfaller> gavinb: startup funding may be acceptable, but we have to be
<hashc0de> but who needs the startup funding if you have a stack of fliers
           from the nat'l
<gavinb> because the fliers from the national wont have your meeting time on
<gavinb> they won't reflect your local situation
<GnRHneuro> and shipping fliers is not free;  shipping files is ;-)
<skyfaller> our $2500 grant would barely cover one event
<gavinb> giving funds is actually more flexible than giving stuff
<gavinb> and self-determination for groups should be a priority
<paulproteus> skyfaller, what kind of event costs $2000?
<hashc0de> it may be more flexible but we are then separating certain local
           groups from another
<hashc0de> others*
<paulproteus> gavinb: That's true, self-determination is key.
<skyfaller> paulproteus: erm, maybe only the grandiose ones we plan at
            Swarthmore :-)
<gavinb> paulproteus: anything with a big-name speaker, large advertising
         expenses, etc.
<paulproteus> gavinb: Okay. :)
<GnRHneuro> eg lessig talk @ your school
<skyfaller> GnRHneuro: and then only if he takes a serious discount
<hashc0de> paulproteus: speakers fees.. location rental
<S11001001> okay have we segued into usage of funds?
<gavinb> 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.
<gavinb> it seems easy to get around, e.g. FC.o makes a grant to an individual
         not the group
<hashc0de> gavinb: then what are we providing that's equivalent to those
           schools that are s.o.l.
<gavinb> swag, resources, whatever we can
<hashc0de> well we have to give one or the other.
<hashc0de> not both.
<gavinb> if a school's rules prevent us from helping a group, that seems like
         their problem, no ours
<gavinb> why should the rules at nyu prevent FC.o from helping groups at other
<hashc0de> it's a point for alienation of certain grops.
<hashc0de> groups*
<hashc0de> i'm sure nyu isn't the only school that's anal about liability
<skyfaller> 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
<gavinb> skyfaller: i don't think it should be a lot
<GnRHneuro> gavinb:  i agree
<gavinb> 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.
<benli> i agree
<gavinb> as long as we're mainly teaching them to fish, not giving the fish
<benli> schs have their own funding for groups
<gavinb> which to me implies a structure where the groups are independent, not
         legally part of FC.o
<hashc0de> gavinb: handouts are a bad idea, christian allusions aside.
<skyfaller> 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
<paulproteus> 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.
<benli> yes, minimal handouts
<benli> 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
<benli> 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
<paulproteus> We could organize it so we're funding the tour rather than the
              groups' receiving of the tour.
<benli> and what constitutes "control"
<BenDonahower> right
<gavinb> 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
<hashc0de> cash isn't the only way a liability link is formed.
<paulproteus> (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
<gavinb> well, i think there has to be a clear link to have liability
<skyfaller> paulproteus: good point.  Unfortunately, our law students are not
<hashc0de> the official use of a name in itself constitutes a liability link.
<S11001001> hashc0de: funding and control, right?
<benli> if being legally part of something means receiveing cold, hard cash,
        then yea, groups should be "independent"
<gavinb> hashc0de: official association cosntitutes liability?
<BenDonahower> that's my understanding gav
<hashc0de> gavinb: yes.
<gavinb> wtf
<hashc0de> well this is what we need to do. we need to solidly define what
           constitutes a chapter
<benli> so when we list chapters on the site, what does that mean?
<gavinb> 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
<skyfaller> gavinb: no, I don't think that simply sharing a name gives us
<hashc0de> 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
<hashc0de> here's a liability situation:
<gavinb> wtf, i'm hearing several different liability theories
<skyfaller> 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
<gavinb> at least some of us have to be wrong
<gavinb> if it's funding, how come Ford Foundation doesn't get nailed any time
         a grantee breaks the law?
<hashc0de> FreeCulture.org, Inc. and FreeCulture@UFL presents Concert XYZ
<skyfaller> 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
<hashc0de> 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.
<gavinb> 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
<gavinb> the FC.o name, it seems, should only appear on a list of official
         associations & on the shirts a group gives out.
<paulproteus> gavinb: Agreed.  Local chapters should not name FC.o in
<skyfaller> BenDonahower: but these are locally created organizations, we
            didn't reach down and create them, then it's totally different
<gavinb> GnRHneuro: i think we're really talking about org structure questions
<hashc0de> well if FC chapters are CHAPTERS of FC.o
<gavinb> i don't think they should be chapters
<hashc0de> then there's a link.
<skyfaller> hashc0de: right, which is why Gavin doesn't like calling them
<gavinb> it seems like everyone is saying they should be independent groups
<gavinb> 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.
<hashc0de> that makes no sense to make them independant entities is what i'm
           trying to say.
<S11001001> orgs :D
<gavinb> exactly what those resources are, we haven't quite decided
<hashc0de> it's as if we're just giving handouts willy-nilly
<skyfaller> gavinb: Yes, I think our only role should be deciding which ones
            we want to associate ourselves with
<skyfaller> association is not the same as control
<skyfaller> and you're not liable for what your friends do just because you
            associate with them
<hashc0de> and if they aren't chapters, they have no oblicgation to us either.
<gavinb> no guilt by association!
<gavinb> their obligation is if they don't follow our rules, they get
<hashc0de> obligation*
<skyfaller> although the cops might bring you in for hanging out with
            suspicious characters, it's not against the law to have unsavory
<gavinb> they're no longer listed on our Web site and no longer eligible to
         access our resources
<skyfaller> gavinb: right on
<hashc0de> i think that's too loose of a definiation, that's all.
<gavinb> why?
<paulproteus> 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.
<hashc0de> what's the point of local orgs then?
<paulproteus> hashc0de: To promote us.
<hashc0de> let's all just decentralize
<paulproteus> Not to represent us.
<benli> 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
<benli> the people from these "chapters" are going to be on the board of
        directors in some way or another
<gavinb> i think we clearly avoid liability if the groups are fully
         independent structures
<hashc0de> i have some understanding of liability, albeit limited. i'm not a
           law student/lawyer
<skyfaller> gavinb: right on
<hashc0de> if we fund their activities, we do become liable.
<gavinb> 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
<gavinb> 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.
<skyfaller> hashc0de: right, and more funding makes us more liable
<gavinb> it depends on exactly WHAT and HOW we fund
<gavinb> 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
<skyfaller> 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!
<skyfaller> but you're right that pure numbers aren't the only factor
<S11001001> I agree with BenDonahower, because I'm looping on my existing
<BenDonahower> Since we are just talking about a numberof hypotheticals that
               may or may not be possible
<gavinb> BenDonahower: i disagree -- we just need to avoid law questions that
         we can't answer
<skyfaller> alright, so maybe we should table the org structure questions
            until we have a lawyer
<paulproteus> skyfaller: Sadly, I agree with BenDonahower.  ("Sadly" because
              it means we've made no progress.)
<skyfaller> and call it a night
<gavinb> wtf??
<gavinb> then we haven't accomplsihed anything
<gavinb> we're never going to get this done if we can't stick this out
<hashc0de> what about the other end of the org.. the top end
<BenDonahower> Who feels confident about liability and its legal implications?
<hashc0de> can we talk about this?
<GnRHneuro> can i made a suggestion
<BenDonahower> If someone does, speak
<skyfaller> 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
*** valmont (~chrisholl@valmont.bronze.supporter.pdpc) has quit: Remote closed
    the connection
<gavinb> BenBonahower: i feel confident about the statement i made earlier
<paulproteus> GnRHneuro: Please, suggest.
<hashc0de> 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?
<gavinb> if groups are independent, it seems entirely possible to avoid
         most/all liability
<paulproteus> Can we also agree that chapters are for promoting us, not
              representing us?
<skyfaller> 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
<paulproteus> "us" == "National FC.o organization"
<gavinb> paulproteus: i'm not sure that's the right question, let alone the
         right answer
<S11001001> And vice versa, perhaps?
<skyfaller> 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
<skyfaller> BenDonahower: providing resources
<skyfaller> e.g. the activist packet
<gavinb> helping groups collaborate
<benli> coordinating efforts
<skyfaller> gavinb: right on
* paulproteus withdraws that statement for now until it's germane to return to
<skyfaller> providing information
<gavinb> passing on experience
<benli> 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
<gavinb> Omnifrog is right... i was taking this as an assumption
<benli> concur, but that shldnt happen often
<skyfaller> BenDonahower: I think what we're saying is the national org should
            be minimalist, it should be a collection of local chapters
<benli> 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
<skyfaller> gavinb: legal disclaimers only go so far
<BenDonahower> we are the info station
<BenDonahower> ok
<benli> but ultimately the national ord IS going to be made out of people from
        the "chapters"
<gavinb> BenDonahower: some of us think money or other physical resources, too
<gavinb> benli: possibly
<skyfaller> BenDonahower: also, recruiting efforts
<paulproteus> skyfaller: To recruit chapters, or to recruit students *to*
<benli> the thing is, do we want representation from all chapters in the
        national org? 
<gavinb> 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?
<benli> if so, representaton in what way?
<hashc0de> 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.
<skyfaller> BenDonahower: No.
<skyfaller> 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
<benli> but if we want these "chapters" to be "independent"
<skyfaller> 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
<paulproteus> 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
<jibot> 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
<gavinb> 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
<benli> we still need  some way to recognize and recruit into the national org
<Omnifrog> there are no two ways around it 
<hashc0de> 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
<hashc0de> if we can define the national org first, we can then determine the
           relation between the nat'l and local
<gavinb> 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
<skyfaller> Omnifrog: we've tabled the liability issue, since nobody in here
            is qualified to comment... other considerations are now on the
<Omnifrog> o
<gavinb> 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
<hashc0de> gavinb: we're assuming that. let's stop assume and define
<skyfaller> BenDonahower: no, I think that the national org is assembled from
            the local chapters
<hashc0de> 2nd assume should be 'the assumptions'
<skyfaller> the local chapters came before the nat'l org, and should be able
            to survive the demise of the nat'l org
<gavinb> amen skyfaller
<gavinb> let's get one thing straight: FC.o exists primarily to help campus
<skyfaller> we want this to be as grassroots as possible
<paulproteus> I feel like we should ask some specific questions.
<benli> so how do we pick the board/national org from the local chapters
<gavinb> it's the campus presence that makes us unique, and makes FC.o worth
<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
<gavinb> benli: i think that relies on certain assumptions
<benli> IOW, who shld have a say in how to use the money?
<paulproteus> 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.)
<paulproteus> benli: Then they have an election for who wants which national
<gavinb> the board of directors is ultimately responsible for everything FC.o
         does... no way around that
<gavinb> but i think we're getting ahead of ourselves
<gavinb> that FC.o exists to serve the campus groups does not neccesarily
         dictate that FC.o is assembled from the campus groups
<paulproteus> 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.
<gavinb> 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
<Omnifrog> Maybe FC.o should be separate and small, serving as a a guiding
           body and let the chapters function independantly but in unison
<skyfaller> gavinb: right, but I think a working definition of an FC campus
            group is that they have a representative in the nat'l org
<gavinb> skyfaller: i don't know that's a very lasting definition
<benli> ok
<gavinb> at least, it may be against our interests to go that way
<benli> national org meaning?
<hashc0de> skyfaller: that's asking again to have defined chapters with
           national representatives, etc.
<benli> i've taken this to mean  the board, but i sense you mean differently
<hashc0de> hello my name is hashc0de
<hashc0de> hello my name is hashc0de
<hashc0de> hello my name is hashc0de
<hashc0de> hello my name is hashc0de
<hashc0de> hello my name is hashc0de
<hashc0de> hello my name is hashc0de
<hashc0de> hello my name is hashc0de
<hashc0de> hello my name is hashc0de
<hashc0de> hello my name is hashc0de
<hashc0de> hello my name is hashc0de
<hashc0de> hello my name is hashc0de
<hashc0de> oops
<paulproteus> This is not for Board positions, but rather the officer
              positions that do most of the work.
<skyfaller> hashc0de: well, I wouldn't want a chapter running around that
            didn't interact with us on the nat'l level
<gavinb> 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
<hashc0de> ack
<skyfaller> hashc0de: what have you done?
<hashc0de> ignore that
<skyfaller> :-)
<hashc0de> sorry folks .. trying to write a blog post
<hashc0de> heh
<hashc0de> anyway you have a preview :-)
<hashc0de> i spazzed, skyfaller
<gavinb> hashc0de -- there's already a Webteam mailing list
<gavinb> why another?
<hashc0de> there won't be a new list
<hashc0de> but that's not relevent to our discussion here
<skyfaller> gavinb: he said he's cleaning out the old one of lurkers
<hashc0de> relevant*
<S11001001> good thing hashc0de isn't IRC team director
<skyfaller> hashc0de: you're going to get kicked for flooding ;-)
<hashc0de> 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
<skyfaller> BenDonahower: right on
<skyfaller> it's all about information sharing
<gavinb> i disagree with BenDonahower
<gavinb> nat'l org could simply provide tools for them to share among
<S11001001> that's my definition of coreteam, a leader from each chapter
<gavinb> 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
<gavinb> 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
<paulproteus> S11001001: Let me private-message you what gavinb just said.
<hashc0de> there we go
<skyfaller> there we go... paste in what you said, Gavin
<hashc0de> repeat what you just said gavin
<gavinb> 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
<gavinb> 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
<skyfaller> I think we wasted more time talking about the netsplit after he
            came back :-)
<hashc0de> 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
<hashc0de> 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
<paulproteus> Would Barbie in a Blender have worked in the "indy charity" view
              of FC.o?
<skyfaller> hashc0de: you're a flooder, despite mIRC ;-)
<paulproteus> 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
<hashc0de> skyfaller: trying :-)
<gavinb> 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.
<gavinb> as an indy charity, FC.o's only involvement with local groups is
         determining to whom to give access to their resources
<gavinb> apparently this wasn't clear in what was said earlier
<gavinb> in the indy charity model, Barbie in a Blender doesn't happen -- at
         least, not with FC.o's name on it
<gavinb> it happens with FC Swat's name on it, or Rebekah's name on it, or
         someone else's
<hashc0de> but we do provide webspace..
<hashc0de> or the domain. etc.
<gavinb> 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
<hashc0de> sounds perfect..
<skyfaller> 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?
<benli> wouldn't be good web PR for fc.o though
<BenDonahower> that's where skyfaller's reps. come in handy
<gavinb> benli -- but there's no reason for FC.o to need PR in this model
<skyfaller> BenDonahower: right on, someone has to carry the info back to
            their local group
<gavinb> the indy charity model is like the ultimate minimalistic structure --
         we can build on it from there, if we choose
<gavinb> we should just be aware that there are other paths we can take
<skyfaller> gavinb: right, I think it's a good base, but I think we do need a
            bit more than that
<paulproteus> "Now we're getting somewhere."
<paulproteus> skyfaller, what's a goal you want to achieve that this doesn't?
              National campaigns?
<skyfaller> I think that what you've outlined should be the core mission of
            the org
<hashc0de> so instead of chapters we have 'local groups'
<BenDonahower> why is PR not important?
<benli> it more compelling for xyz student to do something if he knows that
        there is actually a national org supporting something in colleges
<skyfaller> if you have to start cutting resources, you cut everything but the
            minimalistic structure that gavinb just outlined
<gavinb> 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
<skyfaller> gavinb: I think that we need PR to spread our message, otherwise
            nobody will hear of the indy charity or the student movement
<benli> but anyway yea i guess that's one end of the spectrum
<S11001001> gavinb: So how does this group choose who gets access?
<gavinb> there are lots of orgs that don't do press because they don't seek
<BenDonahower> national press = local involvement
<hashc0de> so question. what would i wear on my shirt? freeculture.org or
<gavinb> 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
<gavinb> in the indy charity model, i don't think there's any reason for a
         FreeCulture.org shirt
<skyfaller> hashc0de: I would say clearly freeculture.org
<Omnifrog> good lord(of your choice). Who gets access? Everyone...shit
<hashc0de> 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?
<skyfaller> 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!
<hashc0de> lmao skyfaller. as do i :-)
<gavinb> if FC.o does more than this barebones, then maybe FC.o does something
         worth promoting, in which case you have shirts
<gavinb> since you all know i want shirts, you know i don't think we should be
         this barebones either ;)
<skyfaller> 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
<skyfaller> but I think that the duties of that indie charity should be our
            core mission
<gavinb> a quick word about access
<gavinb> 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
<skyfaller> gavinb: right on
<gavinb> but some resources CAN't be totally open -- like, if we're going to
         give out merchandise
<gavinb> we can't just give money away to anyone who asks, unless we have an
         infinite endowment
<gavinb> which we won't
<skyfaller> gavinb: hm... did you see the "Google will eat itself" website?
<gavinb> 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".
<benli> ok
<benli> give resources... to do what exactly?
<skyfaller> 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!
<skyfaller> BenDonahower: goodnight!  thanks for coming!
<gavinb> benli -- that's a question for the decision-makers, not a question of
<GnRHneuro> goodnight ben
<gavinb> thanks BenDonahower
*** BenDonahower (~chatzilla@pcp0011784379pcs.elztwn01.pa.comcast.net) has
    quit: "Chatzilla 0.9.67 [Firefox 1.0.4/20050511]"
<benli> and limit it to college students?
<skyfaller> benli: no, any students
<benli> but we are talking about the heart and soul of the org
<benli> why are we here? whats the purpose?
<Omnifrog> im not in college, am I excluded?
<gavinb> if most members in the future are grad students, or high schoolers, i
         dont see why that focus can't shift
<skyfaller> 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
<gavinb> 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
<benli> yes precisely that qn, are we for students only? if so, why that
        arbitrary restriction since its already so "barebones"?
<gavinb> because there's plenty out there for non-students
<gavinb> nobody else has a focus on students
<Omnifrog> hay, thats not fair
<skyfaller> benli: we're specializing in an demographic which is uniquely
            suited to free culture
<gavinb> 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?
<gavinb> 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
<gavinb> faculty / staff / admins are never at the heart of campus-based
<benli> 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
<benli> in this hypothetical "barebones" model
<skyfaller> Omnifrog: it's about youth and local community
<Omnifrog> do you have to be 25 yrs old or younger?
<gavinb> benli, the indy charity model (and all others) assume we're only
         working with students and youth
<skyfaller> 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.  
<hashc0de> but of course alums aren't going to be kicked out the door when
           they're done..
<hashc0de> ;-)
<S11001001> hashc0de: er....
<skyfaller> but we are assuming some youth, at least younger than 35 (come on,
            you have to have graduated by then)
<gavinb> GnRHneuro: ok, i may have been wrong
<skyfaller> GnRHneuro: faculty can be involved, but the purpose of this org is
            to get youth involved
<gavinb> 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
<skyfaller> 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
<hashc0de> 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
<skyfaller> gavinb: no, the faculty can be involved, they just don't have
            "ownership" or control in the org
<skyfaller> it's by the students for the students
<gavinb> skyfaller -- i'm talking about a FC.o-type group
<paulproteus> skyfaller: and "of the students"
<gavinb> FC.o should serve student groups
<skyfaller> 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
<gavinb> and we shouldn't anticipate serving faculty groups any time soon
<GnRHneuro> we should put FC.o logos on FUBU t-shirts ;-)
<gavinb> 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"
<gavinb> the focus of the nat'l org should be on student groups
<skyfaller> 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 :( )
<hashc0de> not just should, gavinb, _is_
<skyfaller> hmph... am I not an admin in here anymore?
<gavinb> eat your words, skyfaller
<GnRHneuro> <Omnifrog awkwardly remains in the room>
<gavinb> you are powerless here
<skyfaller> lol!
<Omnifrog> i may not have expressed what i ment correctly
*** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) has changed mode for #freeculture to +o
<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
<skyfaller> mwahahaha....
<gavinb> oh man... that's spiteful
<skyfaller> ok, I'm done now
<S11001001> hi Omnifrog :)
<Omnifrog> sorry
<gavinb> he was even gonna apologize ;)
<GnRHneuro> thank you for tonight's power trip
<skyfaller> Omnifrog: sorry, I just had to do that ;-)
<S11001001> rofl
<Omnifrog> it ok
<gavinb> see, this stuff never happens on conference calls
<benli> haha
<S11001001> I'll leave that out of the minutes
<gavinb> revisionist!
*** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) has changed mode for #freeculture to -o
<paulproteus> gavinb: He's just like Elizabeth. ;)
<hashc0de> good plan, S11001001
<gavinb> so much for transparency :)
<Omnifrog> i was just trying to say that being a student is not the
           point. being a citizen is
<gavinb> Omnifrog: not all of us are u.s. citizens... though i suppose we're
         all citizens of something
<Omnifrog> a member of society
<paulproteus> 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
<skyfaller> 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
<skyfaller> and your tone reminded me of that and irritated me, and that's why
            I kicked you
<hashc0de> (10 minutes later)
<gavinb> with all due respect... FreeCulture.org /= free culture
         movement. FreeCulture.org = students. that's our focus and our
<gavinb> but yeah, let's leave this thread
<gavinb> i move that this chat be abandoned by 1230 est (that's 15 min from
<skyfaller> gavinb: agreed
<hashc0de> 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
<benli> <>
<S11001001> (by which (I (mean (Lisp))))
<hashc0de> grr @ Lisp
<hashc0de> :-)
<S11001001> uh oh
<gavinb> np Omnifrog
<skyfaller> ok, enough geekery
<gavinb> so moving on
<gavinb> i think we had some resolution about the different org models
<Omnifrog> lets all go join  the forum at fair use day and have some tea
<gavinb> the indy charity model is like barebones involvement, vs. the "FC.o
         is totally embroiled in local activities" model
<gavinb> 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
<hashc0de> well there's also the chapter models.. which is somewhere in
           between, gavinb
<Omnifrog> just join it 
<skyfaller> Omnifrog: you're off-topic
<Omnifrog> fine
<benli> 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
<hashc0de> agreed, benli
<gavinb> i think the mission is support building campus groups
<gavinb> and help represent their interests
<benli> what interest
<gavinb> i.e. help handle national/int'l politics for them
<skyfaller> gavinb: sounds good to me
<benli> to do...?
<benli> educate students about ip?
<gavinb> to support cultural participation
<benli> promote less copyright?
<benli> advocate a discussion?
<skyfaller> gavinb: right on
<paulproteus> "Well, it's more nuanced than just education or promoting just
              less copyright..."
<benli> or just foster debate and get pple talking
<hashc0de> to advocate participatory culture.
<gavinb> 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
<gavinb> in terms of subject area, it could be anything from IP to technology
         to media reform to access to information to what have you
<gavinb> we should define our principles, and let those define our issues
<paulproteus> "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
<gavinb> not the other way around
<paulproteus> (for example)
<skyfaller> GnRHneuro: sorry, I control the /topic, mwahahaaha....
<benli> so there is an implicit position/philosophy here
<gavinb> paulproteus: you just reminded me of when we tried to write a mission
         statement, and for that i hate you. ;)
<GnRHneuro> dah!
<skyfaller> paulproteus: what are you quoting?
<paulproteus> skyfaller: Myself.
<skyfaller> oh, well, yourself sounded pretty good
<S11001001> is it myself or yourself?
<gavinb> 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
<hashc0de> good it wasn't his wrist or we wouldn't have minutes tonight.
<gavinb> it's a question, i guess, of what "free culture" means
<paulproteus> 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"
<gavinb> i think "free culture" means, at heart, the freedom to participate
* GnRHneuro slaps skyfaller around a bit with a large trout
<paulproteus> (I hit enter a bit early there, sorry.)
<S11001001> (btw you can review, as I've saved several times, at
<S11001001> )
<Omnifrog> freedom to participate
<skyfaller> Omnifrog: sorry, we revoked your freedom to participate ;-)
<Omnifrog> o
* paulproteus nearly chokes
<gavinb> 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
<gavinb> i think it's more about participation than access... access matters
         mainly if it inhibits or promotes participation
<gavinb> 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?
<gavinb> ...that's what i said
<S11001001> paulproteus: consumers....
<gavinb> but the point is participation, not access.... like
         self-determination is the point, not decentralization... it's means
         -> end
<paulproteus> S11001001: I pressed enter early.  Should I rewrite that thing
              to sound better?
<skyfaller> gavinb: spot on
<S11001001> no just finish it so I can finish the quote
<gavinb> we're not the Student Technology Consumer Union
<paulproteus> Oh.  No, just drop the word "a".
<gavinb> or the Information Wants to be Free Club
<S11001001> the main idea is to catch all the points we want to catch
<S11001001> okay
<benli> so we have a broadly encompassing philosphy of free/participatory