[WSIS CS-Plenary] Collaboration software debate

[Taran Rampersad]

Milton Mueller wrote:

>I understand Taran Rampersad's frustration, but I don't understand why
>he put us in the same boat with the obstructionists. 
>
I expect, then, that you don't really understand my frustration. You
must understand that I have been on the outside, looking in over the
past few months as the real world has kept me rather busy. I'll probably
upset people on both 'sides', but I'm not really here to make friends.

The bottom line is that this is Civil Society, and we're *all* in the
same boat. If there are obstructionists, we can stand around pointing at
them but while we're doing that the boat isn't *moving* because our
hands aren't on the oars. I think - I hope - that there is a point to
all of this, and that people will work together to get this unruly boat
to it's destination. That's supposed to be the point, and I am fairly
certain that you will agree.

I understand the practicality needed and the ideological points. But
it's time to move forward, in my eyes. Perhaps someone will fund
teleconference software which is GPL'd, and that's really where I see a
lot of progress that can be made. That the majority of people involved
in the teleconference are either unwilling or unable to use software
that isn't as integrated as it could be should inspire someone to fund
the integration such that it is easier for them to use - especially if
it's in line with the spirit of Civil Society. That would be some form
of progress that would be tangible.

But I haven't heard that much from either side. And that is frustrating,
because we have an international group of intelligent people who are
giving reasons for why things aren't happening instead of making things
happen.

The teleconference is nice. And I'd love to hear that people are working
together in Civil Society to create something worthy of Civil Society
for the next phase, instead of all this rhetoric constantly splattered
in my email box by the 'obstructionists' and the 'obstructionists'. Both
sides have valid points, and time isn't on the side of either for the
conference on the 22nd. I don't even know that I will be able to run the
software for that, but that's not too significant - and apparently never
has been in Civil Society. While some are called obstructionists because
of enforcing an ideology, others are obstructionists by not allowing the
practical aspects of the ideology to change the way that they do things.

So what will be done to avoid this happening again? I think that is the
discussion worth having, and is one I would participate in if I have
enough time. After all, the only reason I got involved in all of this is
because of the fact that I wasn't hearing anything of note coming out of
Civil Society. A friend suggested that maybe now I know why this was
now, and I'd hate to think he was right.

-- 
Taran Rampersad
Presently in: Esteli, Nicaragua
cnd at knowprose.com

http://www.linuxgazette.com
http://www.a42.com
http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.easylum.net

"Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo