Reply to Cliff Figallo
Jim Thomas (tk0jut1@niu.bitnet)
writes:
>Hi, folks. I'm the one mentioned in EFF's statement of Major
>Changes who is charged with "maintaining EFF's online presence"
>while considering moving to the D.C. office.
>
>I heard that there was some discussion here about the changes,
>and coming here I realize that Rita is a big part of this list.
>I can understand people feeling that Rita was done wrong in this
>action. I was director of EFF's Cambridge office and I know that
>had EFF decided to focus on the building of and interaction with
>online communities, Rita would have been a most valuable
>employee. The fact that the organization chose, after months of
>consideration and three days of intense deliberation, to focus
>instead on making promoting large scale legal and infrastructure
>changes is the reason for Rita's and Gerard's dismissal. Now
>someone else has to pick up the hope for those roles which EFF
>has decided not to fill. This may come from the grassroots
>groups who form regionally or virtually in and around the nets.
>
>The argument may go on for a while over whether this was a
>righteous choice or not. But organizational boards of directors
>are there to make choices, sometimes difficult and painful ones.
>This was one of those.
Cliff, your willingness to respond to questions is commendable. As
one involved in the same issues as EFF at its inception, and as one
who continues to be a strong supporter of EFF, I sympathize with your
tough and obviously painful decisions and will continue to support
EFF. Nonetheless, the reorganization and the handling of "termination"
raises some equally painful questions for us.
On this list, Rita is considered a friend, and some of us are quite
concerned about the human element in the handling of her firing. Many
of us perceived EFF to be an organization with a soul, but the firings
seems soulless, and I've seen nothing that addresses central
questions: Were those fired given notice? Where they offered an
alternative position? Why, as one poster noted above, did notice of
the firings reach the nets *prior* to the those fired? Why do your
public accounts of the incident seem to differ from the descriptions
here?? I can appreciate the pain you continually express, but I have
seen no indication that you took any action, even an apology for the
bad timing and apparent mishandling, to mitigate the pain. Your
continued allusion to the pain you felt is starting to sound
self-serving. You haven't answered the questions posed, and it leaves
a very bad image for EFF.
As I have written more subtlely in other forums, I'm one of those very
concerned about the direction of EFF and judge that ya'll haven't been
forthright with us. Is it true that the bulk of EFF's current revenue
currently comes from various Bell and related corps? If so, does this
funding have any bearing on the decision to pursue issues related to
those corps, such as ISDN? Whether accurate or not, there is the
(unanswered) perception that EFF is moving to become just another
special interest group and ignoring the small folk who were so
enthusiastic at its founding.
Those of us who've endured the trauma of activist-oriented groups
facing the challenges of transition can empathize with the problem of
maintaining a viable group confronted with changing circumstances.
But, despite all the discussion, there appears to be many questions
glossed over by repititious allusions to the pain you feel.
Some of us feel that EFF has ill-treated our friends who were your
employees. Some of us are members of EFF, and in a sense this makes us
co-conspirators in what I, for one, consider tacky treatment of Rita
(and perhaps others).
From my perspective as an EFF member, you'll do better maintaining
goodwill if you are a bit more direct in answering questions. Just
three of the many I have:
1) How do you justify how Rita's firing was handled?
2) Is EFF about to become just another lobbying PAC?
3) You've alluded to continued commitment to cyberrights, but the
only specifics I've seen are beltway strategies for elbow-rubbing
on commercial issues.
I re-emphasize my support of EFF and sympathy with your tough
decisions, but I'm not at all satisfied with your responses.
attention to the questions being asked.
Jim Thomas
rmcd...@ucsd.edu
>(tk0...@niu.bitnet)" <TK0JUT1%NIU.B...@uga.cc.uga.edu> writes:
>
>>Some of us feel that EFF has ill-treated our friends who were your
>>employees. Some of us are members of EFF, and in a sense this makes us
>>co-conspirators in what I, for one, consider tacky treatment of Rita
>>(and perhaps others).
>
>the entire Cambridge EFF staff did. We all attended a staff meeting at 11 am
>on Wednesday (Rita was there too), and we were told at that meeting while
>a press release was being broadcast to the Net.
>
>
>--Mike
>
>
>
>--
>Mike Godwin, |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
>mnem...@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
>(617) 864-0665 |
>EFF, Cambridge | --Robert Frost
The underlying policy decision leading to reorganization and termination
had to have been deliberated by the same people who find other people
expendable. Makes you wonder about the underlying policy itself and what
effects it might have that such folks would also find "acceptable." Too
bad there's no netroots organization that can demand more than keyboard
accountability from those who claim to be acting on behalf of the "greater
good" when they do things like this. But, then, we've had twelve years
during which human casualties are simply "collateral damage." So, EFF may
simply consider this to be an instance of "friendly firing. . ."
rmcd...@ucsd.edu
Mike Godwin
>Some of us feel that EFF has ill-treated our friends who were your
>employees. Some of us are members of EFF, and in a sense this makes us
>co-conspirators in what I, for one, consider tacky treatment of Rita
>(and perhaps others).
I want to point out here that Rita learned of the changes at the same time
Cliff Figallo
>Were those fired given notice?
No. But generous severance packages were offered to all.
>Where they offered an alternative position?
If the position was not one that could be taken over by existing staff
(such as our librarian and sysops), the employee was kept on for the
transition period. I can't speak for those who were fired, but the
condition for continued employment required that the employee take orders
from Jerry Berman. There was strong resistance to this idea by some.
>Why, as one poster noted above, did notice of the firings reach the
>nets *prior* to the those fired?
One thing about the nets is that a lot of bullshit gets disseminated without
any fact-checking. This was one such case. No way this info reached the
nets before 11AM Eastern time. At that hour, Mitch addressed staff AND
the announcement went out over the nets.
>Why do your public accounts of the incident seem to differ from the
>descriptions here??
I didn't realize that they did differ. In what way do they differ?
>I can appreciate the pain you continually express, but I have
>seen no indication that you took any action, even an apology for the
>bad timing and apparent mishandling, to mitigate the pain. Your
>continued allusion to the pain you felt is starting to sound
>self-serving. You haven't answered the questions posed, and it leaves
>a very bad image for EFF.
Jim, I think maybe you are also wearing your heart on your sleeve. I am
not sure what you want to see in the way of answers or feelings. You won't
get me to say that this was a fun thing.
>As I have written more subtlely in other forums, I'm one of those very
>concerned about the direction of EFF and judge that ya'll haven't been
>forthright with us. Is it true that the bulk of EFF's current revenue
>currently comes from various Bell and related corps? If so, does this
>funding have any bearing on the decision to pursue issues related to
>those corps, such as ISDN?
I'd say that the greater part of EFF's funding is from corporations. Yes.
We don't accept corporate donations for policy initiatives until we have
already formed the policy. If the policy happens to be in the corporation's
interest AS WELL AS in the public interest, we accept the donation. Private
donors support the rest of the work with memberships basically covering
its own cost of materials and administration. More donations from private
citizens like yourself would help balance things.
>Whether accurate or not, there is the
>(unanswered) perception that EFF is moving to become just another
>special interest group and ignoring the small folk who were so
>enthusiastic at its founding.
I am one of the small folk, Jim. I ran the WELL for 6 years to serve the
small folk. I took the job at EFF to serve the small folk. I did not
come to work within the DC framework, but I wouldn't have worked for EFF
at all if I believed that it was a corporate trade organization. Its
founders and board want to make big changes for the benefit of the people
who network now and in the future. It wants to help develop systems and
legal systems that will allow non-computer experts to also network.
>Those of us who've endured the trauma of activist-oriented groups
>facing the challenges of transition can empathize with the problem of
>maintaining a viable group confronted with changing circumstances.
>But, despite all the discussion, there appears to be many questions
>glossed over by repititious allusions to the pain you feel.
OK, OK, No more pain! I feel great! But everything I've told you is
the truth from my and, I believe, EFF's perspective.
>Some of us feel that EFF has ill-treated our friends who were your
>employees. Some of us are members of EFF, and in a sense this makes us
>co-conspirators in what I, for one, consider tacky treatment of Rita
>(and perhaps others).
I don't know how EFF could have chosen its course of action and treated
its employees any better. There is no "nice" way to fire people.
>From my perspective as an EFF member, you'll do better maintaining
>goodwill if you are a bit more direct in answering questions. Just
>three of the many I have:
>1) How do you justify how Rita's firing was handled?
The band-aid and hairy leg technique is to do it fast and painful
rather than hair by hair.
>2) Is EFF about to become just another lobbying PAC?
No.
>3) You've alluded to continued commitment to cyberrights, but the
> only specifics I've seen are beltway strategies for elbow-rubbing
> on commercial issues.
Here I am, Jim. In what way is this elbow-rubbing on commercial issues?
>I re-emphasize my support of EFF and sympathy with your tough
>decisions, but I'm not at all satisfied with your responses.
>attention to the questions being asked.
Keep trying me.
--
<<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>>
Cliff Figallo f...@eff.org
Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation (617)864-0665 (voice)
Cambridge Office (617)864-0866 (fax)
Mitchell Kapor
>Too bad there's no netroots organization that can demand more than keyboard
>accountability
I agree. I wish someone would set one up so we could all join. Whether
EFF was to be such an organization was decided (in the negative, obviously)
by the Board. It's not the EFF the Board wanted to see develop. Hard
choices had to be made, and this was one of them. We can and will do a lot
of good in many ways, but not as a representative democracy. We hope local
groups will form organizations in a confederation and we are actively
trying to facilitate that, as our original announcement indicated.
Anne Burton Harwell
> >Too bad there's no netroots organization that can demand more than keyboard
> >accountability
>
> I agree. I wish someone would set one up so we could all join. Whether
> EFF was to be such an organization was decided (in the negative, obviously)
Funny thing, Mike, we've been talking about that very thing around here.
Would you be up for helping out in some fashion? The credibility you could
give would be enormous.
-abh
Graham Toal
:choices had to be made, and this was one of them. We can and will do a lot
:of good in many ways, but not as a representative democracy. We hope local
:groups will form organizations in a confederation and we are actively
:trying to facilitate that, as our original announcement indicated.
If defending injustices in the courts is left to local groups, it won't
happen if you're not going to divert the funds you get from big business
to grass roots defence. If you truly aren't influenced by the companies
like bellcore who fund you, you should have no objection to freeing up
this cash, no? Say, I've just had a thought. Is this sponsorship anything
to do with why eff aren't taking an interest in the USL BSDI suit affair?
G
Mike Godwin
Anne, Mitch is not the person here who goes by the name of "Mike."
Jim Thomas
>rmcd...@popmail.ucsd.edu said:
EFF's reorganization may be a catalyst in forcing the rest of us to
critically examine our own roles in political action and organizing.
Part of the hand-wringing over EFF's "changing goals" may be in part the
result of focusing on the part of the elephant most to our liking and
obscuring both the larger entity and the growth pangs that young
organisms endure. Mitch's implicit call for others to organize at the
grassroots level may lead to increased participation by others.
Perhaps John Barlow could be enticed to cross-post his Well comments over
here. They were a concise and re-assuring summary of the new direction.
Jim Thomas
l
Graham Toal
:>Would you be up for helping out in some fashion? The credibility you could
:>give would be enormous.
:Anne, Mitch is not the person here who goes by the name of "Mike."
One thing about this - we seem to have garnered an interesting bunch
of neww recruits to words-l out of it... I wonder how many of them
are reading the rest of the <tripe> while they're browsing through
here... new meat, anyone?
G
Graham Toal
r
here. They were a concise and re-assuring summary of the new direction.
Or more appropriately on comp.org.eff.talk please?
G
Cliff Figallo
>Mitch Kapor writes:
I'm afraid it doesn't work like that, Graham. It is not really our cash to
free up to spend any way EFF likes. EFF decides on a policy to actively
support, then it looks for financial support for that project. The funds are
donated under the assumption that they will be used as stated in the funding
proposal. As far as litigation goes, EFF will not be providing financial
support for it unless the case is potentially a precedent-setter. EFF will
continue to provide legal referral services and general legal information
to those who request it.
Graham, you may continue to hypothesize on the motivations behind EFF's
decisions, but you might also consider taking our word for it. It's
certainly just as likely that EFF is telling you the real scoop as it is
that EFF is conspiring in all the ways you describe. In the meantime, we
hope that those of you who really care about the integrity of legal system
will continue to educate yourselves and others while working locally to
make sure that if offenses occur, they are recognized and fought.