[PLUG] Oregon Open Source bill 941 hearing summary

[Cooper Stevenson]

John,

I am not a professional lobbyist. I made the efforts that I did simply
because I felt that I owe a lot to the dedicated software developers;
those tireless souls who have made it possible for me to deliver a
quality IT system at what I consider to be an exceptional value.

I understand your concerns regarding our testimony. Perhaps we could
have been clearer. I am reminded that I did not included in my notes the
"$38 billion marketing potential" argument (one that is absolutely true)
that I had meant too.  

Please too understand that we walked into this as complete amateurs and
walked out with not one but two hearings on the subject. Given that most
bills aren't granted even one hearing, I think we did exceptionally
well.

Take heart. In 2005, our job will be much easier as it is becoming clear
that professional lobbying organizations supporting open-source software
are forming. I will continue to work on this issue during the interim
and will have prepared for the next session.

That way, the professionals testifying will have the information they
need to make the most effective presentation possible.


Sincerely,


Cooper Stevenson


On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 16:26, John Todd wrote:
> >John Todd wrote:
> >>
> >>I was not very impressed with the people who spoke for the 941 
> >>bill, though they gave some good points.
> >
> >You weren't the target audience. But thanks for your support.
> 
> Right, I'm not the target audience, but that does not eliminate me as 
> a person who can see the effect on the target audience.  The target 
> audience was the senators, who were considering why this 
> exactly-worded bill should be made a law, and not considering the 
> larger issues of closed v. open source, etc.  The only person to 
> substantively bring the concept of "why is this being made a law" up 
> was the opposition, and there was no prior discussion of that exact 
> phrasing or reasons given by the supporters.  The opposition also 
> brought focus upon the possible perception that the supporters were 
> advocating one way of software design over the other, which is also 
> not the point of the legislation, and there was too much advocacy in 
> the supporters (which is understandable) for the larger issues of why 
> open source is better, cheaper, etc.  Those points were not, as best 
> as I am able to tell, what the legislators should be considering in 
> the decision to make this a legal requirement in the State of 
> Oregon's decision process for IT purchases.
> 
> The supporters were very well-worded in their descriptions of why 
> open source is a better idea for software development.  They 
> championed that point exceedingly accurately.  That was not the 
> question, though, and they missed the concepts that would stick in 
> the heads of the Senators at the time when a decision needs to be 
> made about enacting of a law.
> 
> And yes, I am quite a supporter of the bill, and would have been 
> there to speak if I had known earlier that it was that morning.  It 
> directly effects my work, and I am frustrated that it appears (from 
> comments elsewhere) that this version will also die without seeing 
> approval.  As it was, I learned about it the prior evening from the 
> PLUG list and was unable to make it to session due to time 
> constraints, but was able to watch on cable.
> 
> >Epilogue: Plus, while this may not have been their choice, the 
> >pro-941 speakers let the opposition speak last, which allowed the 
> >Fear Uncertainty and Doubt creep into the discussion. 
> >
> >No actually that is just the way Senate hearings work, the 
> >opposition gets to go last.
> >
> >david pool
> 
> As I said, that may not have been their choice.  I am unfamiliar with 
> what version of the RRoO the Senate uses, but it does make sense that 
> status quo gets last word.
> 
> Hopefully this experience will be material for future debates.  Is 
> anyone aware of a nationwide mailing list or repository for activists 
> pushing for this type of legislation?
> 
> JT
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG mailing list
> PLUG at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug