[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] AeA Awards Rep. Minnis

Wed Jan 14 19:47:12 UTC 2004

This discussion has been moved from the plug mailing list, where it
doesn't belong (of course).  It's my fault that we cluttered plug 
with it in the first place and I sincerely apologize.

If anyone is interested, I can make a digest of the discussion for 
completeness sake and post it here.

There were a few comments that were made that I feel need a followup.
So, here goes:

plug.9.faster at spamgourmet.com writes:
 > gepr at tempusdictum.com (gepr at tempusdictum.com) typed this ...
 > >  > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:10:12PM -0800, gepr at tempusdictum.com wrote:
 > >  > > Woohoo!!  Cheers to Minnis for killing it!  And congrats to Minnis
 > >  > > and Decket.
 > >  > 
 > >  > Just whose side are you on, anyway?  Minnis really blocked an obvious
 > >  > cost-cutting measure and killed it outright, and you think that's good?
 > > 
 > > I'm on the side of limited government and the delegation of
 > > responsibility to individuals who are accountable for those decisions.
 > 
 > I agree in theory, but...
 > 
 > > Packing the law books with more laws will not help open source (or
 > > proprietary software).... It will just make me (a small business
 > > owner) spend more and more money on attorneys in order to figure out
 > > what the hell I'm supposed to do with the software I create and use.
 > 
 > The bill would not have affected small businesses. It was about
 > requiring state government offices to prove that they had considered
 > software from sources other than the ones who took them out to lunch,
 > bought them concert tickets, contributed to their boss' political
 > campaigns, etc. 

The important issue here lies in the word "prove".  The more we make
a "delegate" _prove_ that they have made or will make the right 
decision, the less of a "delegate" that person becomes.  If you 
carry the bill's position to its logical conclusion, we should 
make "delegates" prove that everything they do is rational and 
reasonable.

And that's just pure nonsense.  Any person making a decision about
software in our government was either appointed, hired, or elected
to handle some of the burden of governing.  Treat that person like
an adult and let them do their job.  If you don't agree with any
one decision, take it up with that person.  If you don't agree with
a history of decisions, take it up with that person and their boss.
If that person is elected, campaign to remove them from office.

Don't add law after law making every decision a DELEGATE has to 
make into a matter to be decided by the courts.  It is that trend
that has led to the majority of the waste we see in government.

No, the waste is not in the schools, it's not in the pork, it's not in
Mars missions... it's in litigation.  Should I prove this?  No.  I
don't intend to convince anyone of this point.  I'm just stating an
opinion.... an undefended, ignorant, ill-informed, opinion that may or
may not show that I am unaquainted with any yahoo's version of "the
facts". ;-)

All I ask is that you hear the point.  I don't care if anyone agrees
or disagrees.

 > > If the open source community wants to help the propogation of open 
 > > source, then do 2 things:  1) write more CODE or work on code that
 > > is being used and 2) work to REMOVE legislation that forces decision
 > > makers to give unbalanced attention to special interest groups.
 > 
 > In theory, this is the way it should work. In practice, it is almost
 > impossible to get rid of old legislation except by passing new
 > legislation that explicitly overrides the old.
 > 
 > And I don't think there's a lot of 'forcing' going on, just a lot of
 > 'gentle persuading'. Mostly backed up by money, which isn't a big part
 > of open source marketing.

You're right, of course.  However, our government, like the thing it
governs IS a sociological system.  And sociological systems not only
_depend_ on influence and control mechanisms, they are _constituted_
of influence and control mechanisms.  E.g. I periodically give Debian
money and in return, their existence is more robust.  I periodically
give the National Rifle Association money and, in return, I get a 
silly magazine and some political influence in helping to defend 
our constitution.  If I hit all the hospitals and doctors offices
in Portland and give all the doctors and nurses pens and coffee 
mugs with my company's new drug printed on them, then I will probably
see an increased interest in that drug.

This is the way the world works.  And I believe that open source works
the exact same way.  So, perhaps whatever the open source products are
that expect to be used in government should be pressing the flesh and
bending the ears of mid-level bureaucrats in state government?  Is
this such a strange proposition?  In fact, perhaps we should package
up a large box of Debian thong underwear[1] and pass it around Salem?
I'd donate a couple hundred dollars to such an outreach.

 > > If open source is the highest quality and the playing field is level,
 > > then it will win.  (In fact, I think it'll win even if the playing
 > > field isn't level -- I'm about 90% free of proprietary software
 > > myself.)
 > 
 > I need a little more convincing that you personally are a representative
 > model of state government software selection practices before I accept
 > that the field doesn't need leveling.

[grin]  I'm not.  But, running my business is _way_ easier and way 
cheaper than it would be if I had to spend the ungodly sums of money
Apple wants me to pay for a badly hacked OS.  So, in microcosm, my
business is analogous to any _delegate's_ suite of responsibilities
in government.

1. http://www.cafeshops.com/debianstuff.3644086

-- 
glen e. p. ropella              =><=                           Hail Eris!
H: 503.630.4505                              http://www.ropella.net/~gepr
M: 971.219.3846                               http://www.tempusdictum.com