IMPORTANT: How to vote in the upcoming election for Steering Committee

[Steven Greenberg]

As the organization matures, the current Steering Group believes that it's time to get formal decision making bodies in place.  The first step in this process is for the membership to elect people to full terms of office in the Steering Group.

The process in brief: You become a voting member of DataPortability,org by saying that you want to be one.  That's it.  You just have to send an email to the address below.  Then, people declare that they're willing to serve on Steering.  Finally, the members vote and the people with the most votes are the new steering group.

There will be twelve seats on the new Steering Group.  If twelve or fewer people nominate themselves, they become the new group by default.  If more than twelve people offer to serve, an election will be held.

NOTE: We are resetting the membership rolls, so EVERYONE MUST REGISTER TO VOTE.  Registering to vote in this election requires nothing more than an email to the vote list declaring that you wish to be a member.  In order to post to the vote list, you must join the Google Group. (http://groups.google.com/group/dataportability-vote).




Step 1: Join the DP Vote group and send an email declaring your intention to vote to:

    dataportab...@googlegroups.com

This email must be posted no later than midnight GMT on Friday, July 18 2008.



Step 2: If you are willing to serve on the Steering Group, post a message to that same list saying so.

This email must also be posted no later than midnight GMT on Friday, July 18 2008.

I will maintain a list of people who have registered, and who have offered to serve on Steering at http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/7IYj

Step 3: Vote

Each member has one vote per open seat (12 total).  You may cast as many or as few of your votes as you like.  You may divide your votes any way that you see fit.  Give all 12 votes to one person, one vote each to 12 people, or any combination in between.

Cast your votes in ONE email to dataportab...@googlegroups.com.

Votes must be posted no later than midnight GMT on Friday, July 25 2008. 

Please let me know if you have any questions or this process isn't clear.

   

[Elias Bizannes]

Thank you Steve. Just to make it clear:

1) Sending an e-mail to the specified mailing list above will mean you
"opt in" to be a member. You will need to do this once a year. If you
don't do it, you are not considered a member of the DataPortability
Project (just an observer/subscriber). Being on THIS (DataPortability-
public) mailing list DOES NOT mean you are a member. By "opting in" to
the dataportability-vote mailing list, you henceforth become a member
of the PLENARY, which along with STEERING, are the two functional
groups of the DataPortability Project where decision making can be
made.

2) If an election is required (because more tha 12 people nominate
themselves by the deadline stated above), the PLENARY will vote. As a
voting member, you have up to 12 votes. You can allocate those votes
to any candidate however you wish ie, I decide to put one vote for 12
different candidates OR I decide to put one vote for six candidates
each but decide not to use my other six votes OR I decide to put 10
votes on one candidate and one vote each to another two people. (Steve
please correct me if I am wrong but that's my undterstanding which I
wanted to clarify with everyone).

Because Steve made the proposal we elect the steering group, he has
nominated himself to be responsible for the implementation. Although,
anyone can help him out (like how I plan to) because in the absense of
an official secretary we need to bootstrap it. Just to be clear,
because you help out with the election DOES NOT mean you cannot stand
for the election. Because everything is public and in the open, there
is no conflict of interest of those assiting as their actions can be
accounted for.




On Jul 10, 11:09 am, "Steven Greenberg"

> to serve on Steering athttp://wiki.dataportability.org/x/7IYj

[Joe Andrieu]

Could someone explain the liabilities for "becoming a member"?

Is there a corporation yet? Is it a membership corporation? In which state?
Are there bylaws explaining the rights & responsibilities of being a member?

I don't mean to pick on a sore spot, as I know this whole process is
designed to get to a point where there is a corporation, but it seems to me
that I'd feel much more comfortable with a corporate charter and bylaws
before I sign up for anything.

FWIW, I have formed 501(c)6 mutual benefit membership corporations and I've
been through the paces with the issues and complications therein (or with
forming any type of non-profit for that matter).

Perhaps this has already been laid out and I just missed the details (I'm
not on the steering committee list), but could someone restate where we are
in the process? My apologies if this feels a bit redundant, but now that
there's some sort of "membership" involved, the issue of what one is joining
and what that means becomes a bit more relevant. I am not too keen on
becoming a member of something that might be construed as a partnership, for
example, unless that partnership is explicitly restricted from doing
anything other than electing a board of directors for a soon-to-be created
corporation and then dissolving.

Cheers,

-j

--
Joe Andrieu
SwitchBook
http://www.switchbook.com
j...@switchbook.com
+1 (805) 705-8651

> > Cast your votes in ONE email to dataportability-
> vo...@googlegroups.com.

[Aaron Cheung]

Thanks for yet another membership reform, which is equivalent to saying
that the incumbent DataPortabilityActionSteering group, being also public
and in the open, is simply either fake, or unfit for some purpose.. anyway.

So, now, if an election is not required because no more than 12 people
nominate themselves to the new STEERING, what does or will this
PLENARY group do, or, what's the (annual) "benefit/s" of opting in
to become a member of this PLENARY group?

Regards,
/ac.

[Aaron Cheung]

echo
(and expecting some standard answers too if any.. hope there's sth new by now.. /ac.)

[Steve Repetti]

Aaron,

The incumbent group is neither fake or unfit. The evolutionary
opportunity of the Data Portability initiative does not erase the
contributions of the founding and contributing members. These are
critically important times --- DP is even more relevant today than
ever before, and now is the opportunity for conversation to spur
commitment, engagement, and recommendation, in a uniform voice. These
conversation have been ongoing for some time and there is every
expectation that those leading the charge before will continue to
influence and lead the charge thereafter. The success of this effort
can only be good for DP as a whole. This "formalization" lends
credence to our voice -- yet if this process somehow silences any
strategic voice that has thus far been vocal --- then that will be
another story. I for one am hopeful of the continuing efforts of those
that have carried the torch thus far...and will register my "vote"
always to support such effort.

-- Steve Repetti

> > accounted for.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Elias Bizannes]

Joe it's a good question and you are welcome to ask more.

In short, all membership means for now is the ability to vote on
decisions. In the future, policy may be made they may require
obligations of members, but I doubt it will have to do with anything
regarding rsponsibility of liabilities like a traditional partnership.
In my eyes, a code of conduct may be developed with regards to how you
interact with people on these forums perhaps, but I can't imagine this
getting any more serious that that.

With regards to the law, we have no status, so anything incurred will
fall on the individual who performed the action. Membership of this
group does not have the force of law, so there is no binding
commitment. All it represents is recognition that you are entitiled to
vote. Should this change in the future, you will have the ability to
rescind your membership.

Essentially, all it means is that you have the status to vote on
decisions. You may not want to be associated with the DataPortability
Project and therefore not opt into membership, for whatever reason
(like reputation) and that's fine. Like an unincorporated society
however, liability falls on individuals and potential the executive
committee (steering) but this will become clearer depending on what
legal entity we adopt (or if we need one).

I expect the by-laws to undergo a big change as several provisions are
redundant now and there needs to be a change in language (but which
can't happen without an proper vote by the Steering group as
recognised in those provision, and which technically don't exist yet),
ao we require a functional steering group to be appointed to do that
hence the election to kick start it all. The official by law as
ratified by Steering[1].

A high level summary of how things are with DataPortability the
organisation:

November 2007: A workgroup was formed, with invitations sent by the
original co-founders. Workgroup membership was invite only. This
public mailing list was to cater for the interest following
Scoblegate, as workgroup membership was closed.
January 2008: The workgroup was disolved and five action groups
replaced it's function: Steering, Evangelism, Policy, Technical,
Implementation. Membership to those groups was open to anyone, and
decision making was formalised as "rough consensus".
April 2008: The governance task force was formed to propose a new
governance and workflow structure for several factors such as setting
up a legal entity and further evolving the decision making framework
based on our experiences.
June 2008: All but four provisions of the Governance task force's
recomendations were adopted (refer to [2] and [3]. Following this
vote, the most important provision that was rejected, which was on the
seed members of the Steering group, was discussed.

The following week, a discussion was held and resolved as follows -
people have until the next week to submit their proposals on how the
Steering group is seeded, and a special meeting would count and close
off all the votes, which would determine which proposal is adopted.
Option C was adopted [4].

So now, as stated above, we are putting in this process to elect the
steering group. Once elected, the DataPortability will hit a new
milestone - from closed workgroup to open community to now a
formalised organisation.

I hope that answers your question. In short, no risk by opting into
membership and only benefit - and if that is not the case, we may need
to draw on your expertise to correct that and align it with the
original intention.


[1]: http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/9IYj
[2] http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/ooUj
[3] http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pXftHOXRTLqRWSo6iesMZOg&hl=en
[4] http://groups.google.com/group/dataportabilityactionsteering/browse_thread/thread/6f1dd30aa2d82101?hl=en

On Jul 10, 12:47 pm, "Joe Andrieu" <j...@andrieu.net> wrote:
> Could someone explain the liabilities for "becoming a member"?
>
> Is there a corporation yet?  Is it a membership corporation? In which state?
> Are there bylaws explaining the rights & responsibilities of being a member?
>
> I don't mean to pick on a sore spot, as I know this whole process is
> designed to get to a point where there is a corporation, but it seems to me
> that I'd feel much more comfortable with a corporate charter and bylaws
> before I sign up for anything.
>
> FWIW, I have formed 501(c)6 mutual benefit membership corporations and I've
> been through the paces with the issues and complications therein (or with
> forming any type of non-profit for that matter).
>
> Perhaps this has already been laid out and I just missed the details (I'm
> not on the steering committee list), but could someone restate where we are
> in the process? My apologies if this feels a bit redundant, but now that
> there's some sort of "membership" involved, the issue of what one is joining
> and what that means becomes a bit more relevant.  I am not too keen on
> becoming a member of something that might be construed as a partnership, for
> example, unless that partnership is explicitly restricted from doing
> anything other than electing a board of directors for a soon-to-be created
> corporation and then dissolving.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -j
>
> --
> Joe Andrieu

> SwitchBookhttp://www.switchbook.com

> > clear.- Hide quoted text -

[Steve Repetti]

Dang! Elias HAS to be one of the HARDEST WORKING people in this
initiative!!!!!

> [4]http://groups.google.com/group/dataportabilityactionsteering/browse_t...

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Step...@whatcelebswear.com]

Don't give up Elias! Fight for what you believe in.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Repetti <st...@steverepetti.com>

Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:45:15
To: DataPortability.General<dataportabi...@googlegroups.com>

[Steve Repetti]

Elias HAS been fighting for what he believes...to ALL of our benefit!
And if he gets tired, as we all do from time to time, those around him
will carry the fight -- and anxiously await his return and leadership.
But I suspect there is an element of invigeration to all of this for
him -- dp IS is important and it IS being heard. And that
conversation does not occur without Elias (and other critical
members)!

[Step...@whatcelebswear.com]

Viva la resistance!

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Repetti <st...@steverepetti.com>

Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 21:03:13

[Elias Bizannes]

Aaron: your vote and dissent against one of the key provisions several
weeks ago - that being how Steering gets seeded - is the reason why
this is happening. As this key provision wasn't voted in, people were
asked to propose alternative solutions, and the one with the most
support would become the method on how we seed the steering group. You
resigned from the steering group as the process was underway to
suggest these alternative solutions.

There is nothing new about this and is simply building on the now
adopted governance model which has everything but identification of
the initial members to execute its powers as defined by those by-laws.

As for the benefits, it's the ability to vote and influence decisions.
Nothing less, nothing more. It's to separate those on this mailing
list who want to influence the DataPortability Project and those who
are purely watching or interested in the organisation but have no
interest in the responsibility of making decisions or to be construed
as a card-carrying DataPortability member.


Steve and Stephanie: kind words, thanks :)

[Aaron Cheung]

> In my eyes, a code of conduct may be developed with regards to how you
> interact with people on these forums perhaps, but I can't imagine this
> getting any more serious that that.

There're 2 sides to a coin; you ask people to join PLENARY as members,
and people ask you fair questions. And you're quick to put code of conduct
into perspective.

I could only see that what's now wanted here is to have people form into a
plenary group, for the sole purpose to give power and legitimacy to a new
steering group.

But most of these are pretty meaningless, because, general members, you
had them already (only now deprecated Workgroup)(plus Microsoft? Google?
MySpace? LinkedIn? Digg? etc etc as corporate members?), steering members,
you had them already (the incumbent Steering, of cos likely to be dumped again),
only that things are not to some people's liking, that the current reform is deem
necessary.

Eight months plus, and the founders/co-founders can't even answer the simple
question of whether you're working towards a Non-profit Organization, to date,
and to me, the apparently obvious answer to that is it's dependent on whether
you can somehow grab a group of people to your liking and whom you trust, and
if not, no game, and gloriously in the name of democratic principles -- only that it's
fake, and full of historical misrepresentations based on principles of deception.

And I'd conjecture you'll deem this not contructive participation. I believe most
people here are pretty interested in dp, but as regards to how, it's all subject to
debate, much like google and facebook and microsoft believe differently as to
how to dp. But you just take debates as ppl challenging you and become cynical
(per your own wording in your other threads).

And, please, being simple doesn't mean it's not constructive. If, per Eistein (as per
some cofounder used to like quoting Eistein), E=mcc is all you need, what you're
trying to do is a call to LetsMuckWith(a,b,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z)
and calling that necessary and next steps.

Delete this or ban me if this offends you -- by your code of conduct standards, /ac.

[Aaron Cheung]

Thanks, my comments in my earlier email. Am delighted that I've something
to do with it :-) That's great too. Regards, /ac.

[Chris Saad]

Aaron your continued refusal to accept the facts as they are presented and ask the same questions over and over to cast some sort of conspiratorial tone over the proceedings is growing tiresome.

I will be the bad guy and call it out once and for all.

Each of your questions and comments have been dealt with ad-nauseum in written and verbal (and recorded) conversations.

I invite you now to cease with the negative tone and participate in the process that has been laid out. If you don't like the way the group operates then I encourage you to join another or start your own.

I don't enjoy being put in the position to reply to this but I am happy to bite the bullet. So I have.

I'm not going to reply again on the subject so please don't try to start a flame war with me.

Chris

--
Chris Saad

FaradayMedia - For Audiences of One
Particls - Are You Paying Attention?
Engagd - The Open Attention Platform
Media 2.0 Workgroup - Social, Democratic, Distributed
APML - Your Attention Profile
DataPortability - Connect, Control, Share, Remix

[Brett McDowell]

Maybe I missed something, but when does the vote for Steering Group start?

[Joe Andrieu]

Elias,

Thanks for the detailed response. From my perspective, it looks like a lot
of people are working hard to figure out how to do the right thing. That's
good. And as far as I can tell, the direction the consensus is moving in
bodes well for achieving worthy goals. So, /in theory/, I'm a huge supporter
of the project.

Of course, any project ultimately has to answer some tough questions when it
gets down to execution, and sometimes that's where it can be a huge
challenge to keep the momentum and energy as you work through the details.

Unfortunately, two main issues would prevent me from joining, given the
details as you described. I'm not a lawyer, but I have been through this
soup before and I am developed a fine sense of lurking problems. Enough to
keep me wary until the formal details are confirmed.

First, I find it unsettling that the leadership so far has yet to make a
commitment to forming a non-profit. I have heard that point from Chris Saad
and now from you. I'd be very hesitant to support the establishment of any
potentially for-profit entity built upon the moral authority of the
dataportability community. That's clearly a personal choice of mine. Others
may not be concerned, but I would hope that this might emerge as a platform
issue for those running for the board so that we could get a sense of
whether or not the community as a whole is concerned with the matter.

Second, I believe the potential legal and financial liability is higher than
your comments suggest. I recommend you discuss this with competent counsel.
In the US (your jurisdiction may vary), acting as a partnership creates a
partnership, with full liability for each member for the actions of other
members when they act on behalf of the partnership. You don't need a formal
agreement. If Bob & Dave start signing paper work as The BD Project, both
Bob and Dave are legally liable for any debts incurred by the BD Project,
even if only one of them signs the loan documents.

Of course, whether or not one is a partner is open to legal
challenge/interpretation. However, one factor is whether or not the alleged
partner actually executed any authority over the actions of the partnership,
did they participate in the partnership? Even in a formal partnership, with
a written partnership agreement, a limited partner can be found by the court
to be an unlimited partner because they had an active role in the
organization. With an informal partnership, it is even easier to establish
mutual liability if there is a clear paper trail of decision making
involvement.

In short, having "the status to vote on decisions" could be construed to
establish liability for the actions of the group and any members acting on
behalf of the group.

For me, this is a major issue and I encourage you to consider it seriously.

However, I think a decent work-around is to form a partnership whose sole
role is to form the corporation and dissolve, and explicitly restricted from
any other activities.

Alternatively, go ahead and form the corporation/LLC/whatever (anyone could
do that, technically), and create a charter and bylaws that describe how the
first full board will be chosen. That corporation/LLC can be formed by a
handful of trusted community members, hashed out, and enacted. /Then/,
people could join whatever legal structure is created with a full
understanding of the rights and obligations of membership. It just takes
someone to lead, make some decisions, and create the organization.

In short, I don't believe that the statement "Like an unincorporated society

however, liability falls on individuals and potential the executive

committee (steering)" is factually accurate in the US. And that alone is
sufficient to preclude my joining the plenary.

Of course, if you could resolve these issues, I'd love to contribute.

Regards,

-j

--
Joe Andrieu
SwitchBook

http://www.switchbook.com
j...@switchbook.com
+1 (805) 705-8651

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dataportabi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:dataportability-
> pub...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Elias Bizannes
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 8:33 PM
> To: DataPortability.General
> Subject: [DataPortability-Public] Re: IMPORTANT: How to vote in the
> upcoming election for Steering Committee
>
>

[Steven Greenberg]

Good catch, thanks!

Voting opens as soon as the nominations close: Midnight GMT, on Friday, July 18 2008.

[Aaron Cheung]

Chris, then it was "personal insults".. later "code of conduct".. now even "tone" counts.. interesting mandates; anyway, me tired with it too. It's not about whether anyone refuses or accepts anything, now or continually. It's give and take, and with some questions and debates in between. If silence is what's preferred here, you had it already, in fact for a long time. No, no flame wars -- we've code of conducts here, if you remember. Back to plenary, what is it and what does it do? Regards, /ac.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Chris Saad

To: dataportabi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 1:42 PM

Subject: [DataPortability-Public] Re: IMPORTANT: How to vote in the upcoming election for Steering Committee

[Elias Bizannes]

Joe,

Your concerns are understood. Dave Rubin who is the Microsoft
representative might be able to give us some perspective.

If it's any consolation, I am a chartered accountant trained at
PricewaterhouseCoopers, with my qualification recognised in the USA.
The common law of the UK, the US and Australia is quite similar hence
why I have the recognition in your country. So I am qualified to give
advise on these matters, but a lawyer from the US would give
additional comfort and I'll make sure Dave gets this message.

To answer your questions:

>First, I find it unsettling that the leadership so far has yet to make a
>commitment to forming a non-profit. I have heard that point from Chris Saad
>and now from you. I'd be very hesitant to support the establishment of any
>potentially for-profit entity built upon the moral authority of the
>dataportability community. That's clearly a personal choice of mine. Others
>may not be concerned, but I would hope that this might emerge as a platform

i>ssue for those running for the board so that we could get a sense

of
>whether or not the community as a whole is concerned with the matter.

Aaron is making a an issue out of nothing, and this has been answered
before, but for your sake I will restate everything

The co-founders of DataPortability never - and I emphasise it - ever
entertained the notion of creating a for-profit entity with respects
to DataPortability. The only reason a legal entity is being created is
so that it can protect our intellectuall assets and our financial
assets and the other benefits as I will state below. Personally, I've
always been against the idea because it creates more overhead for the
community, but having said that though, I am open to exploring the
opportunity if it has merit.

Brady halted the investigations of the legal entity when it became
apparent we needed a solid governance framework regardless of which
option we went under. So this apparent indecision is because you can't
have a chicken without an egg.

The community is of utmost importance, and the co-founders have had
several opportunities to overrule what the community wants. But as the
governance model is testement to, it's a commitment to building a
genuine organisation that empowers those who decide to involve
themselves.

Personally, I stand to gain from DataPortability. I gain solid
relationships with people that I might never have met, I get real-life
experience doing something unique, and I get a sense of intellectual
stimulation. That is what keeps me going. I have a job, and it pays
well enough - and if DataPortability was to be a for-profit venture,
to be honest with you, what a waste of my time!

So if you want to know my preference: we don't need a legal entity,
although your second point increases the importance of having one. And
if we needed one, perhaps a not-for-profit. Maybe. But I am still yet
to see solid reasons why we really need to. Intellectual capital is
more valuable for us, not funding - as money buys your furniture, not
change.


2)

>In short, having "the status to vote on decisions" could be construed to
>establish liability for the actions of the group and any members acting on
>behalf of the group.

I think you're right. In the absense of a limited liability company
being formed, any member of the organisation is liable. Scary yes. But
realistically, I don't think it's a risk to prevent opting in.

Where there may be issues are
- the DataPortability Project is sued
- when a purchasing agreement has been made, and the organisation does
not have the capital to meet the requirements

We've already been threatened twice, with cease and desist letters
from two major organisations. It was addressed to Chris Saad as he was
at the time the official contact for the organisation, and if he did
not act, he would have been directly liable and potentially all of us
in the community.

We've also been commited to expenses, which have been paid for by
individuals on behalf of the project. It was done on their own
account, and despite a decision being contrued as being a decision on
behalf of everyone, instead the law would have treated them
personally. It's only if that individual faced court, and argued the
community should be forced ot pay for it, for this to be an issue. And
I doubt these people would

Realitically, we are never going to take a loan. The only expenses we
might have if we hire employees on behalf of the community (I think a
bigger problem is finding the cash than having to worry about unfair
dismissal claims!); and if we incur expenses like printing stickers.

So I think you raise some valid concerns. If anything, it reinforces
the need to move to a legal entity, but what do we do in the meantime?
There is a risk, but this simply places greater importance on who gets
elected as a member of the steering group - as they ultimately, will
be the shield for the community and liabilities will be addressed to
them. The steering group also will make decisions on behalf of the
project, and we just have to hope that do so in a way that doesn't
ruin us. Of course, there are plenty of protective provisions like
the fact the plenary can over rule the steering committee and a member
can resign and not longer be a member. But hopefully you can
understand, the risk is scarier when looked at alone; in the context
of things, it's minimal.

If this is a reason you don't opt-in, then I'm sorry this didn't come
up earlier and we could have done something earlier. It's unfortunate,
but I can't see what we can do in the short term.

All we are trying to do, is give formal recognition in how us as a
community make decisions. I think we need to be careful that whilst
the steering group has great power, at the end of the day, the
governance task force philosophically had the intention of ensuring
steering only makes decisions when it had to - it's not designed to do
the work (and which is where expenses would occur effectively). Our
intention, is for all the work to be done by the community. So in
effect, the steering committee is protecting the community from
itself. Whilst focus on being a member and consequently the steering
committee may bring about this view of risks for liability, I think
it's just looking at it in a way that in reality, is not going to be a
big issue.

I know this answer will not satisfy you, but I hope you can balance it
with the bigger picture. If you are a member, I'd just be more alert
about what decisions get made (which are public anyway) - and whever
you feel a sense of unease, you can question and put motions to
overrule if it's ignored. I value your input so would love to have you
contribute in future, but just because you are not a member doesn't
mean you can't get involved - it just means you can't vote, which may
frustrate you as you feel limited in influencing the outcomes.

Regards,
Elias

[Aaron Cheung]

> Aaron is making a an issue out of nothing, and this has been answered
> before, but for your sake I will restate everything

Elias, I do not mean to pick on whatever you said, sensitive or not; and to
the point of this, my understanding was that the very first questions about it
(are we going to form a non-profit organization) was originally posted by me,
yes, but originally very neutrally, for the exact issues of what's being discussed
now, and for what kind of drafting directions needed wrt the governance docs
back then.

But everytime the question's asked, everytime it's avoided; and the last time
asked, it was explicitly replied in the Steering telecon that whether what we're
heading towards a non-profit, or a for-profit, or whatever, was to be decided.

You (and Chris) repeatedly said my questions had been answered before.
Yes, but that was the kind of answers i/we've gotton, so you tell me, has
the question been truely answered or not -- since you said I'm making an
issue "out of nothing".

And yes, you supplied your version of your vision, and what we've gotton
from you was essentially, trust us, trust me, I've all the good intents and
everybody knows. Ok, sure. But does whatever you say fully represent,
or sufficiently represent, officially of the DP project? If yes, why can't you
simply answer are we working towards a non-profit organization, or not?
And if no (that your words don't quite represent the official positions of the
DP project), then -- that's the problem (of simply asking your followers
to simply trust you and/or the/any leaders.) Again, the question(s) started
out as neutral questions, only somebody took it too personal and the
discussion became emotional. What's the benefit for me to make a circle
of enemies, with you, and with, what, 1200 people here?

Just like the plenary question i posted in my last email. Assume that it's not
from me and you'll see all the reasons and validities for such asking; it's just
marketing 101, for a proper introduction (v. done via a we-need-to-rush,
this-is-what-you-do-step1-step2-step3 manner), simple as that. Rgds, /ac.

[Elias Bizannes]

Aaron

 

1) I *don't know* if we are going to form another entity. The decision is up to me just as much as it is up to you. I've stated my reservations, but that's about all I can do. It just gets frustrating when the question gets asked repeatedly. It's like me bugging you to tell me what the whether will be tomorrow. And again. and again. I DON'T KNOW! Maybe, maybe not - we as a group haven't decided yet!

 

2) Your questions on what is the plenary and what does it do - read the by laws. It defines it and what their powers are.

 

--
Elias Bizannes
http://liako.biz

[Aaron Cheung]

Elias, well, then the out-of-nothing issue still stands that we don't know what we're creating a new Steering group of these 12 seats for... or another way put, we don't know what we're voting for, with respect to what goals we're trying to achieve.. or what you're planning to do with the incumbent Steering group, which in my opinion should be addressed before yet another group of near 100 people get upset to be dumped or made defunct by this voting process.

 

The question got asked repeatedly (3 or 4 times total, under different circumstances, across several weeks) because it was important and it was not getting answered repeatedly. And if the question can be likened to the weather tomorrow, it's still gonna be portably cloudy, pretty obvious..

 

Re plenary and the bylaws.. ok.. great, though still confused (bylaws? of what?), but I guess you don't think it's important (to have a proper intro about it).. well, anyway, guess it's fine.. has been a long day, and I can see that you're tired about it, and you can see that I'm tired about it too. Thanks, /ac.

[Tom Morris]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:09 AM, Steven Greenberg
<gree...@puzzlingevidence.net> wrote:
> As the organization matures, the current Steering Group believes that it's
> time to get formal decision making bodies in place. The first step in this
> process is for the membership to elect people to full terms of office in the
> Steering Group.
>
> The process in brief: You become a voting member of DataPortability,org by
> saying that you want to be one. That's it. You just have to send an email
> to the address below. Then, people declare that they're willing to serve on
> Steering. Finally, the members vote and the people with the most votes are
> the new steering group.
>

I was going to write up a sneering response, but I think that the
late, great Douglas Adams puts it better than I ever could:

"I bring you news," he said, "of a discovery that might interest you."
"Is it on the agenda?" snapped the man whom Ford had interrupted.
Ford smiled a broad country-rock singer smile.
"Now, come on," he said.
"Well I'm sorry," said the man huffily, "but speaking as a management
consultant of many years' standing, I must insist on the importance of
observing the committee structure."
Ford looked round the crowd.
"He's mad you know," he said, "this is a prehistoric planet."
"Address the chair!" snapped the management consultant.
"There isn't a chair," explained Ford, "there's only a rock."
The management consultant decided that testiness was what the
situation now called for.
"Well, call it a chair," he said testily.
"Why not call it a rock?" asked Ford.
"You obviously have no conception," said the management consultant,
not abandoning testiness in favour of good old fashioned hauteur, "of
modern business methods."
"And you have no conception of where you are," said Ford.
A girl with a strident voice leapt to her feet and used it.
"Shut up, you two," she said, "I want to table a motion."
"You mean boulder a motion," tittered a hairdresser.
"Order, order!" yapped the management consultant.
"Alright," said Ford, "let's see how you are doing." He plonked
himself down on the ground to see how long he could keep his temper.
The Captain made a sort of conciliatory harrumphing noise.
"I would like to call to order," he said pleasantly, "the five hundred
and seventy-third meeting of the colonization committee of
Fintlewoodlewix ..."
Ten seconds, thought Ford as he leapt to his feet again.
"This is futile," he exclaimed, "five hundred and seventy-three
committee meetings and you haven't even discovered fire yet!"
"If you would care," said the girl with the strident voice, "to
examine the agenda sheet ..."
"Agenda rock," trilled the hairdresser happily.
"Thank you, I've made that point," muttered Ford.
"... you ... will ... see ..." continued the girl firmly, "that we are
having a report from the hairdressers' Fire Development Sub-Committee
today."
"Oh ... ah -" said the hairdresser with a sheepish look which is
recognized the whole Galaxy over as meaning "Er, will next Tuesday
do?"
"Alright," said Ford, rounding on him, "what have you done? What are
you going to do? What are your thoughts on fire development?"
"Well I don't know," said the hairdresser, "All they gave me was a
couple of sticks ..."
"So what have you done with them?"
Nervously, the hairdresser fished in his track suit top and handed
over the fruits of his labour to Ford.
Ford held them up for all to see.
"Curling tongs," he said.
The crowd applauded.
"Never mind," said Ford, "Rome wasn't built in a day."
The crowd hadn't the faintest idea what he was talking about, but they
loved it nevertheless. They applauded.
"Well, you're obviously being totally naive of course," said the girl,
"When you've been in marketing as long as I have you'll know that
before any new product can be developed it has to be properly
researched. We've got to find out what people want from fire, how they
relate to it, what sort of image it has for them."
The crowd were tense. They were expecting something wonderful from Ford.
"Stick it up your nose," he said.
"Which is precisely the sort of thing we need to know," insisted the
girl, "Do people want fire that can be applied nasally?"
"Do you?" Ford asked the crowd.
"Yes!" shouted some.
"No!" shouted others happily.
They didn't know, they just thought it was great.
"And the wheel," said the Captain, "What about this wheel thingy? It
sounds a terribly interesting project."
"Ah," said the marketing girl, "Well, we're having a little difficulty there."
"Difficulty?" exclaimed Ford, "Difficulty? What do you mean,
difficulty? It's the single simplest machine in the entire Universe!"
The marketing girl soured him with a look.
"Alright, Mr Wiseguy," she said, "you're so clever, you tell us what
colour it should be."
The crowd went wild. One up to the home team, they thought. Ford
shrugged his shoulders and sat down again.
"Almighty Zarquon," he said, "have none of you done anything?"

This mailing list looks very much like what one would find if the
Hairdressers' Fire-Development Subcommittee had access to Google
Groups.

--
Tom Morris
http://tommorris.org/