[hackerspaces] Sigh -- I'm not helping with Maker Faires this year.

[Mitch Altman]

It's official. I'm greatly saddened that I won't be able to help at this year's Maker Faires after they applied for and accepted a grant from DARPA.

I look forward to working and playing at Maker Faire again, after they are no longer associated with DARPA.

[Digimer]

I'm not familiar with any controversy behind DARPA. May I ask the
back-story?

--
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.com
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Dis...@lists.hackerspaces.org
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[Doug Philips]

Isn't this a day late? Or is that the meta joke?

-=Doug

[Al Jigong Billings]

It is a government agency associated with and funded by the military (the 'd' stands for "Defense"). Some of us don't want to be associated with the Military (or the Military-Industrial Complex) or our ongoing wars in multiple nations.

Al

-- 

Al Jigong Billings

http://www.openbuddha.com

[Digimer]

On 04/02/2012 08:26 PM, Al Jigong Billings wrote:
> It is a government agency associated with and funded by the military
> (the 'd' stands for "Defense"). Some of us don't want to be associated
> with the Military (or the Military-Industrial Complex) or our ongoing
> wars in multiple nations.
>
> Al

Good enough for me.

[Al Jigong Billings]

On Monday, April 2, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Don Ankney wrote:

It's hard to point this out without sounding like a troll (and I'm really trying not to), but DARPA funding is pretty closely tied to the origin on the Internet. I honestly don't understand the objections for grants such as Maker Faires.

This has no bearing on the objections people have being associated with the military and projects that may be used by the military for their ends.

 The creation of the Internet was a long time ago.

 

For the Internet, the DARPA funding is acceptable because we believe in the end result of the funding. How is Maker Faire any different? It's not as if the Faire has the potential for being weaponized.

"Acceptable" to you, perhaps. Not to others here.

Do we really need to go round and round about this again?

Many of us won't take money from the Department of Defense for our work which can then be freely repurposed to military uses. Period. It doesn't matter what kind of dress you put on the pig.

Being associated with DARPA also legitimizes their tactics of cooping the grassroots Maker movement. Many of us also disagree with that as well. The military can go build their own hackerspaces.

Al

 

[Doug Philips]

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Al Jigong Billings
<alb...@openbuddha.com> wrote:
> This has no bearing on the objections people have being associated with the
> military and projects that may be used by the military for their ends.

Is that how the deal is? Anyone participating in a Maker Faire is now
giving "the military" free license to use their stuff?

> Many of us won't take money from the Department of Defense for our work
> which can then be freely repurposed to military uses. Period. It doesn't
> matter what kind of dress you put on the pig.

Is that the deal here? Who is taking the money in this case, and what
is the ROI?

> Being associated with DARPA also legitimizes their tactics of cooping the
> grassroots Maker movement. Many of us also disagree with that as well. The
> military can go build their own hackerspaces.

That's a separate argument, which applies to the ARPANet and current
internet as well. Let's keep to the specifics on this case please.

Oh, and this is pretty fracking hilarious given the innate tendency of
hackerspaces to want to weaponize (lasers, rockets, etc.) most things
and there seems to be no shortage of fiery death dealing dinosaurs and
other easily repurposed projects either. Too bad the maker movement
doesn't have a pacifist non-violent leg to stand on, but I know few in
my makerspace would be there if we had that stance.

Oh well. In the end it seems the facts (as yet laid out) don't really
matter here.

-=Doug

[Sparr]

Perhaps I could help clear things up with the following summary that I
think may convey Mitch's position, as stated and previously narrowed
down:

"I do not contribute to projects that are currently being funded by
the military."

[Richard Frankum]

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Doug Philips <do...@hackpittsburgh.org> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Al Jigong Billings
<alb...@openbuddha.com> wrote:
> This has no bearing on the objections people have being associated with the
> military and projects that may be used by the military for their ends.

Is that how the deal is? Anyone participating in a Maker Faire is now
giving "the military" free license to use their stuff?

I think you're reading into Al's statement there, and though he (and Mitch!) have strong misgivings about DARPA the grant for Make probably isn't specific to Maker Faire participation.

It's hard to jump into the middle of the story, but I suppose this all got hashed out a few months ago (the DARPA grant was announced in Feb, I think?). I think "Do we really need to go round and round about this again?" is a reasonable question, if a bit blunt.

Speaking of blunt, some googling shows that the original discussion was pretty heated as well. For example, I have no idea who @demilit is, but they make good points in their storify that were expressed _really_ badly on Twitter.

http://storify.com/demilit/darpa-and-make-round-up

Personally, I have a lot to read about what DARPA is giving money for nowadays!

 

-=Doug

--Richard

tokyohackerspace.org 

[Doug Philips]

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Matt Joyce <ma...@nycresistor.com> wrote:
> It's a personal decision.  And I respect Mitch's right to act based on
> his beliefs.  I don't agree with it myself, but I understand his
> position.

True that.
There is a deeper meta issue here (and perhaps this also has been
covered before), which is why are things so bound-up in that one
particular logo'd conference system? Makers aren't typically very
tolerant of being told what we can and can't do: Don't take that
apart, don't make it do something else, just sit and consume! It's
puzzling then to see that attitude here. Maker Faire defines how all
this works, and they've changed so I won't participate. Cool! Start
something else! But just do nothing means that the DoD wins, they're
in control, if you don't play their game, you don't play? Really?

So why not take the lessons learned and "reboot" Maker Faires? Is the
movement still so fragile that it would be treasonous to do so? Why
"wring your hands" over this instead of taking some more positive
action?

Surely there are more reasons than this one to support another venue.
Don't call your thing a MakerFaire and then you're not under that
poisoned umbrella.

I guess I'm just too idealistically naive to think that there has to
be just one way to do this and that one way can be so easily poisoned.
Sigh. Probably shouldn't be posting when I should be sleeping, so will
switch modes now. :)

-=Doug

[Justis Peters]

On 04/03/2012 12:44 AM, Doug Philips wrote:
> So why not take the lessons learned and "reboot" Maker Faires? Is the
> movement still so fragile that it would be treasonous to do so? Why
> "wring your hands" over this instead of taking some more positive
> action?

This is an excellent point. It reminds me a lot of another time that a
critical mass initially gathered by O'Reilly achieved mitosis into two
fruitful movements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BarCamp#History

Kind regards,
Justis

[Al Jigong Billings]

On Monday, April 2, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Doug Philips wrote:

Oh, and this is pretty fracking hilarious given the innate tendency of

hackerspaces to want to weaponize (lasers, rockets, etc.) most things

and there seems to be no shortage of fiery death dealing dinosaurs and

other easily repurposed projects either. Too bad the maker movement

doesn't have a pacifist non-violent leg to stand on, but I know few in

my makerspace would be there if we had that stance.

No one spoke about pacifism unless you think not wanting to be in the pocket of the DoD is pacifism.

DARPA is making an effort to coopt the Maker movement on a number of fronts. Some are by involvement with Maker Faire and by grants for projects at hackerspaces (with strings attached, of course). Others are by funding programs at schools. It all serves to both legitimize DARPA and to associate it with Makers. Some of us don't want that. If you want that, fine, but please show some respect for other viewpoints.

 

Oh well. In the end it seems the facts (as yet laid out) don't really

matter here.

Well, when you lay out some actual facts, maybe they'll matter.

Al

[Al Jigong Billings]

On Monday, April 2, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Doug Philips wrote:

Maker Faire defines how all

this works, and they've changed so I won't participate. Cool! Start

something else! But just do nothing means that the DoD wins, they're

in control, if you don't play their game, you don't play? Really?

You mean do something else like Mitch taking a group of hackers to China to see people and work on things or his previous efforts visiting various groups, running workshops, and so forth? Are you even aware of these things?

 

So why not take the lessons learned and "reboot" Maker Faires? Is the

movement still so fragile that it would be treasonous to do so? Why

"wring your hands" over this instead of taking some more positive

action?

 Who is wringing hands and who is not acting?

 I'm president of a hackerspace that's been going for most of two years at this point. We're doing plenty. Thanks.

 

Surely there are more reasons than this one to support another venue.

Don't call your thing a MakerFaire and then you're not under that

poisoned umbrella.

You seem hyperfocused on Maker Faire. Mitch simply said he wasn't participating. End of story. If you are, great. 

 

Al

[Dan Wobser]

I respect Mitch's stance on not participating in DARPA related stuff.

But what I don't get, and maybe I missed something here, is - what does DARPA have to do with Maker Faire?

I thought Maker Faire was headed by Make magazine?

I read the previous post about the DARPA funding being awarded to some hackerspace group, but isn't that totally separate from Maker Faire/Makezine?

Again, I've probably missed something.

-Dan Wobser

[Mitch Altman]

My main reason for making my decision public is to encourage public discussion on this important topic.  I'm glad it's working.  We really need to consciously make choices on what we do for money.  In my mind, it is not about the money.  My hope is that we do what we do because we are exploring and doing what we love (whatever that means to you!).
 
To further this public discourse, I am organizing a panel on the topic of DARPA funding for hackers and hackerspaces, at the upcoming HOPE #9 conference in NYC, July 13-15.  I would love to have Mudge on the panel, since he is a proponent of DARPA funding for hackerspaces.  If anyone knows Mudge, please ask him if he would be willing to make use of this forum to air his views.
http://www.hopenumbernine.net/
 
Best,
Mitch.

 

---

From: malt...@hotmail.com
To: dis...@lists.hackerspaces.org
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 19:14:16 -0700
Subject: [hackerspaces] Sigh -- I'm not helping with Maker Faires this year.

It's official. I'm greatly saddened that I won't be able to help at this year's Maker Faires after they applied for and accepted a grant from DARPA.

I look forward to working and playing at Maker Faire again, after they are no longer associated with DARPA.

[Jerry Isdale]

Sorry but I'm a bit confused by Mitch's refusal to attend Maker Faire because DARPA funds its high school educational program but his willingness to go to China and attend Maker Carnival, etc.  The Chinese government (as socialist/communist state) is heavily invested in its industry, tourism, military and occupation of various former other countries (eg Tibet).  China is seeking to benefit its military/domestic security, etc by bringing in western technology.  Going to China is as supportive of the repression of Tibet as going to Maker Faire is of supporting US DoD in my humble opinion.

If you are going to be anti-military, then you should be anti-military of any nation.

Jerry Isdale

isd...@gmail.com

[Al Jigong Billings]

And the personal attacks start… Only a matter of time.

-- 

Al Jigong Billings

http://www.openbuddha.com

[Will Bradley]

It's a slippery slope, if you pay taxes you fund your country's military too. But if you're against war, you do what you can to resist it, and in the way you feel best. I know I wouldn't support interests or strings attached like this, and am rethinking Maker Faire as a result.

[John de Largentaye]

Aw, I was looking forward to participating in the Learn to Solder workshop with you.

Though I wouldn't have made the same decision, I respect yours.

[Justin Myers]

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:25, John de Largentaye <jo...@largentaye.org> wrote:

Though I wouldn't have made the same decision, I respect yours.

This.

It works great for both sides of the discussion.

[Matt Joyce]

That's just silly. Good and evil are terms relative to a moral
standpoint. There is no central moral authority and as such no means
by which to gauge a decision's value on that scale.

-Matt

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Sparr <spa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Pete Prodoehl <ras...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In the world of open source software, if you release something with an open
>> license, you typically allow everyone to use it. The good guys, the bad
>> guys, etc.
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=jsmin+evil

[Al Jigong Billings]

I generally work on the principle of whether something causes harm and minimizing the suffering in the world. I'm not sure contributing to an arm of the DOD is really minimizing harm.

While we all cause harm unintentionally (and occasionally intentionally), we can choose not to explicitly join ourselves to causes, organizations, etc. who will cause harm. O'Reilly Media and Make are involved with the Mentor program and getting it to fund work in high schools. The synopsis of the Mentor program is as follows:

"The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has embarked on a series of programs aimed at revolutionizing the way defense systems and vehicles are made. Titled Adaptive Vehicle Make, the portfolio has three principal objectives: to dramatically compress development times for complex defense systems such as military air and ground vehicles, to shift the product value chain for such systems toward high-value-added design activities, and to democratize the innovation process. The Manufacturing Experimentation and Outreach (MENTOR) effort is part of the Adaptive Vehicle Make program portfolio and is aimed at engaging high school students in a series of collaborative distributed manufacturing and design experiments. The overarching objective of MENTOR is to develop and motivate a next generation cadre of system designers and manufacturing innovators, and to ensure that high school-age youths are exposed to the principles of modern prize-based design and foundry-style digital manufacturing."

Notice the use of the word "military" there.

Al

-- 

Al Jigong Billings

http://www.openbuddha.com

[Matt Joyce]

They are DARPA. The D stands for Defense. And their DNS ends in .mil.

No mistakes about it. Their mission is to keep the us stocked with
the pointiest spears in existence.

[Al Jigong Billings]

And I want to hook a hackerspace and the maker movement in general to this troika because?

I guess we haven't learned anything in 10 years of constant war.

-- 

Al Jigong Billings

http://www.openbuddha.com

[Matt Joyce]

You may not want to. And that's perfectly okay. =D

[Al Jigong Billings]

More background reading:

http://www.librarycult.com/2012/02/make-darpa-one/

http://www.librarycult.com/2012/02/make-darpa-two/

Al

[Will Bradley]

I think the scale being used here is the creator's. When people work at something, frequently it's to please themselves, others, or to make the world "better." They would be dismayed to discover that their work made the world "worse."

Moral relativism is a pretty easy way to argue that war is peace and freedom is slavery.

[Matthew Dumas]

Maybe it's me, but I don't see very much to discuss. Mitch doesn't want to deal with people that deal with the military, and that's fine. Other people do, and that's also fine.

The only problem I see is that people are offended and upset by Make doing what businesses do. Make has never said that they are not out to make money, they are not a non-profit (not that it matters), and they are, in the process of taking money, educating children. If you are really against the education of children because it is sponsored by the government, then you should be against all public schools. Don't hold a double standard, the government is pumping billions into the school system in efforts to churn out the kind of adults they think will be productive, the DARPA funds are just a small part of that.

My point is that Make never promised you anything, so don't act like they betrayed you.

[Matt Joyce]

Ultimately the discussion hinges on the introduction of a new bias
into what Make is attempting to do with Maker Faire, and how that
impacts us as participants in that community.

Yes Make as an entity has some given pre-existing biases. They are
for profit. They are targetting a demographic. They want to achieve
certain goals. Etc etc.

But the bias of good vs evil can't be described as some absolute moral
imperative. That's dangerous. Before we pick a name for the bias,
let's maybe define some criteria. I think many people are taking
issue with Mitch's broadish generalization of the entirety of DARPA as
an entity.

Certainly that is a concern of mine. But I feel the concern I have is
more focused on the bias that we're trying to introduce here. Is it
about DARPA? Is it about the military? Or is it about opening a
dialogue on ethics, and consequences in engineering / science / math.

What is the criteria for this bias? Is a bias in a public forum a net positive?

-matt