[WSIS CS-Plenary] Conferencing software debate
Dr. Francis MUGUET
muguet at mdpi.org
Wed Apr 13 01:51:40 BST 2005
Liminary note : We are talking about conferencing software,
not about collaboration software which are another class
of software ( project management, etc...).
Conferencing software is part of collaborative tools.
( collaborative =/= collaboration ).
Dear Milton
>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.
You are misinterpreting my words.
I made my reservations known to the
members of the CSB, because I could not assist to this specific
CSB meeting because there was another meeting I was organizing or
some lobbying to be done. I regreet that I could not attend this
CSB meeting. Latter on, I worked to make a demo of another way
to make a video conferencing using GnomeMeeting and Cocinella.
Furthermore let me stress that most of the Civil Society has been
supportive of Free Software, and the CSB did not need me to
reach its own judgment. It is the first time ever, within all the
history of the WSIS that use of a proprietary software has
been advocated. Frankly, I am stunned.
> 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.
I do not think Civil Society people at the WSIS can get easily scared. !
You make me laugh ! You have a really poor appreciation of the political
maturity of the Civil Society.
We are not kids !.
>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 focused on preventing the worse to happen. This is correct, but
this does not forbid to offer a working
alternative solution. I have been advocating this contructive approach
within the PCT group.
>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.
Glad to hear.
>Below I make the following arguments:
>1. There is no acceptable open source substitute for the tool we are
>using
Very respectfully, I think this argument is not correct.
You are not an expert in this field and/or you are not relying
on an independent technical study.
They are other alternatives Free Software solutions that
can be evaluated. see
http://www.wsis-pct.org/virtual-conf-tools.html
I advocated the formation of a task force
within the PCT group to make such an evaluation.
You are free to join this task force.
>2. A preference for free software does not mean that one should
>actively prevent any uses of proprietary software when #1 is true
Correct in principle, but not always,
often the implementation of a Free Software
substitute is prevented by secrecy ( trade secrets ) or software patents.
In that case, it would be recommended not to use such software, because
by using it, one becomes the silent accomplice of a bad practise that
could spread.
>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;
The ITU and WSIS websites are using HTML XML which is a W3C Open Standard.
They are using PDF, an open proprietary format which is OK with me.
They are using DOC also which is a secret format, I regreet it.
OpenOffice is now able to read ( through time-consuming reverse
engineering ) most of the doc format.
>since you don't, your focus on preventing use of Derricks'
>conferencing platform is misplaced.
There a big difference between the ITU and the Civil Society.
I hope the Civil Society is not going to act like ITU. !
Furthermore I am not against the use of a proprietary software
provided it can interact with a free software
( eg GnomeMeeting interacting with NetMeeting )
>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,
correct, this is why my ad hoc proposal was complemented with Coccinella.
I agree this ad hoc solution is not complete with all the neat features
offered by Marratech or Elliminate.
But there are packaged free software solutions that do exist and
need to be evaluated.
>mark-up capabilities, discussion
>control, break-out rooms, etc.
Anyway if a FreeSoftware solution does allow a decent Web Conferencing,
it is fine. Do we need all the features and gimmicks ?
Are we businessmen ( women ) ?
> Commercial webconferencing applications
>can support as many people as licences available (i.e., we can have up
>to 40 people in simultaneous sessions
P2P web conferencing can break theoretically this barrier
( Hope jSummit can work )
>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.
It is a very kind offer, but not without string attached.
It means that only Syracuse University in their
center using their own server would control the virtual conferencing
system of the Civil Society.
For Marratech for example, the virtual auditorum license
"licence for life" is 10.625,00 Euros
and 4.400,00 Euros for a yearly license.
People must realize if the clients are "free" ( but not "free software" ),
the server is quite costly, and only rich institutions can
afford them.
>
>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.
This was not the final solution that I am proposing.
There are other that shall be examined too.
You are welcome to try and evaluate them yourself.
> Nominal
>inclusion of features for the disabled is meaningless
This, I would leave the disability caucus to determine.
>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.
Good to hear. Then evaluate and try Jsummit, Arsenal <http://arsenalproject.org/> and Rendez-Vous <http://rendezvous.sourceforge.net/>
>
>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?
This is good point. I am simply afraid that people would get used
to it, like people becomes used to Windows.
Please note that I am not a religious zealot and I did participate
to one of the web conference, but it was for "evaluation purposes".
> 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.
This is not my own personnal objections, there is a vast community
of people supporting Free Software. My only worry is not to betray
them.
>You seem to have no sense of what
>is strategically important,
This is the main point of the discussion :
what is the most important : let the WSIS Civil Society
have video conferencing with all
kind of gadgets
or let the Civil Society set an example by choosing the right
kind of software paradigm that the Civil Society is advocating
for sustainable development.
I prefer Free Software conferencing with less
features.
I leave for this for your conscience :
gadgets for the richs against sustainable developement
>or ease up on Derrick.
I hope that Derrick is going to decide where his conscience lies.
-----------------
Dear Dr. McIver
>
> Dr. Muguet,
>
> I was aware of the criticism from various places of Dr. Cogburn's
> offer, which
> I think was unfortunate; however, now that you admit it, I
> think this action was unconscionable and demonstrates a fundamental lack
> of understanding of the priorities around activism AND of software
> development issues.
>
>
> 0. I don't think anyone here is against the idea of using solutions that
> are universally inclusive.
OK, good
>
> 1. The class of software of which we speak is complex and costly to
> implement
> relative to almost all but the open source kernels that *some* WSIS
> activists use.
> Thus, it is not surprising that equivalent free or shareware
> versions are not yet available.
> Even if this were not the case,
> your actions were inexcusable given (3) and (4) below.
>
If a Free Software solution is available then there is should be no excuse
to use an non-interoperable proprietary ones.
Let me explain to you further. I investigated in details if it was
possible to
write software that could be interoperable with Maratech.
It is not possible, because the voice stream is covered by a software patent
belonging to another company.
> 2. Given (1), our more immediate priority was/is that of creating
> spaces where effective
> work can be done.
First, I wonder if there has been some debate during PrepComs and on the
WSIS list to decide
whether web conferencing gadgetry was required to do effective work.
Some people are saying that the web conferencing tools are unecessary
gadgets, and
cannot be used in developing countries.
Despite this concern, since I believe in progress, I would recommend
that web conferencing
should be used, but not without utmost precautions, and certainly not in
a way that would prevent
anyone except the wealthy ones to have their own web conferencing server.
>
> 3. The solution offered by Dr. Cogburn **did**, as I recall, include
> free access to
> the client software.
The client is "free" but it not "free software" ( GPL like license )
>
> 4. Further, the client software had ports to Linux, Mac, and Windows
> and the server
> hosting costs were to be borne by Syracuse and Dr. Cogburn without
> any explicit product endorsements.
> What more could any serious activist ask for given (1)?
>
This is another serious matter.
I would expect a serious activist not to react like a man in the street,
and therefore
some technical expertise can be required from a serious activist to
implement the
politically correct solution.
I would say that this comes with the badge.
If you are a *serious activist* working at a World Summit of the
Information Society,
then you should strive to have a minimal technical knowledge of how this
Information Society works.
I am not casting a shadow of outrage at those who are not familiar with
computers, but simply ask them to make their best efforts to overcome the
digital divide that exists inside the Civil Society.
It this little effort too much to ask ?
It would be unwise to take this lack of knowledge as
an argument to propose proprietary solutions and therefore to increase
further our inner Digital Divide.
The Digital Divide is among us, and we must choose the right tools
to bridge it.
Best regards
Francis
--
------------------------------------------------------
Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D
MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals
Associate Publisher
http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net
muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net
ENSTA Paris, France
KNIS lab. Director
"Knowledge Networks & Information Society" (KNIS)
muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet
World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS)
Civil Society Working Groups
Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair
Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair
Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web
UNMSP project : http://www.unmsp.org
WTIS initiative: http://www.wtis.org
------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Plenary
mailing list