[WSIS CS-Plenary] Collaboration software debate

[Milton Mueller]

>>> muguet at mdpi.org 4/6/2005 9:54:39 PM >>>
>You hate me because I prevented the implementation of the
>non inclusive solution of your fellow colleague Derek from Syracuse 
>University like you. I appreciate and I share the enthusiasm of Derek

>concerning the use of Virtual Conferencing tools but not at any cost,

>in all the sense of this word.  

Francis: I don't hate you. I just think you are promoting your cause in
a way that is divisive and counterproductive. Thanks for admitting that
you "prevented implementation" of proposed virtual meetings by CSB. It
is unfortunate that you chose to do this behind the scenes, without an
open debate. But I can understand it, because it is unlikely that you
could persuade people in an open, rational discussion of the merits. So
you raised a fuss and basically scared people. The actual outcome of
your actions is not to promote free software, but simply to prevent
meetings from happening. It is unfortunate that you are so focused on
"preventing," rather than building. 

I am pursuing this debate because I think it raises a fundamental
ethical and strategic issue, which I am willing to discuss openly and
calmly. 

Below I make the following arguments:
1. There is no acceptable open source substitute for the tool we are
using
2. A preference for free software does not mean that one should
actively prevent any uses of proprietary software when #1 is true
3. If you believe in total purity of software use, then to be
consistent you should work hard to prevent use of the ITU and WSIS
websites; since you don't, your focus on preventing use of Derricks'
conferencing platform is misplaced.

1.
I said: >> Cogburn uses it because it is the best available tool and
there are no open source substitutes.
>
You said: >I do not agree with this technical analysis. In fact, I
presented at PrepCom2 another
>solution based on GnomeMeeting

Gnome meeting does not have the "same" functionality. It supports
mostly person to person audio and video conversations (there are
numerous applications that do this already).  It doesn't have
presentation slides, white boards, mark-up capabilities, discussion
control, break-out rooms, etc.  Commercial webconferencing applications
can support as many people as  licences available (i.e., we can have up
to 40 people in simultaneous sessions in our virtual conference center;
and could have more with more resources). The client is free to download
and use; Derrick's Center has covered all the costs. 

Gnome meeting does not appear to work on Mac (which accounts for about
10% of the people in CS). Derrick's solution works with Windows, Mac and
Linux. So who is excluding people, you or us? Finally, the soution you
propose is extremely complicated to download and install. Nominal
inclusion of features for the disabled is meaningless if people have to
spend two hours and have expert support simply to install the stuff.
Simple question: have you tried your own "solution" with a meeting of
20+ people? 

The simple fact is that the best available solution for online virtual
collaboration right now is the tool Derrick is using. If there were a
free software tool we could use that did the same things, with as much
cross-platform capability, we would love to use it, and we would use it.


2. 
If indeed Derrick's chosen solution is the best for the job, then why
not use it until Gnome meeting or other FS solutions get more real? To
you, apparently, it is a kind of moral choice, which is why I accuse you
of having a religion about this. But remember that Derrick is not a
vendor promoting a solution for his own profit, he is just trying to
make virtual collaboration possible. By attacking him you do not change
the software industry. To prevent use of viable alternatives at any cost
seems to be irrational to me.

3. 
As indicated in my first message on this topic, I also question the
selective nature of your objections. You seem to have no sense of what
is strategically important, and you seem to have an entirely negative
focus on stopping people within this community from doing things (or
denouncing little academic journals). The real problems lie elsewhere.
So, I am challenging you: either be consistent and demand that no one on
this list link to or use the ITU, WGIG and WSIS websites (because they
rely on proprietary MS and Adobe software) or ease up on Derrick. 

--MM