Cc-europe mailing list

[John Hendrik Weitzmann <jhweitzmann AT mx.uni-saarland.de>]

Hi J-C and all,

> Could you please point out in a mailing list
> archive the CC+ and CC0 pre-announcement
> you refer to? I do not recall any,
> but if there was one, it is important to know.

what I probably had in mind was Mike's mail "[CCi] CC0 beta/discussion
draft pre-announcement" from right before the Torino workshop.
Admittedly that was not quite "pre-" really, for the first press
releases were in december.

But the first time I had learned about the idea to facilitate commercial
dealing on the deed level (i.e. CC+) was when Larry presented at the
legal day in Dubrovnik. And CC0 is nothing but the idea of the PD
dedication with better enforceability plus assertion. So I didn't really
feel ... when the press releases came, and was somehow surprised when
some of us gave the impression that CCHQ had launched something that
nobody had ever heard of before.

> Regarding the other points:
> 1. sure, it should go beyond cc-europe: but first
>    I would suggest to get it straight among ourselves;

true, but as I understood it you were planning this as "from CC-Europe
to CCHQ"

> 2. I do not see any alternative to writing an email
>    to the Board: how else would you suggest to proceed?

a pre-discussed "we the people" mail seems a bit like desperate measures
to me, and I think things are not _that_ bad after all. And the
possibilities I meant to influence CCHQ are the regular ones, like
asking the right people there the right questions, writing proposals and
sending them over mailing lists or channeling requests through the CCi
office. So far I never got turned down by anyone in S.F. or Berlin.

> 3. Regarding governance, I do not think anybody is
>    suggesting to create new rules and regulations.
>    I have in mind something informal yet effective
>    as our involvement in the 3.0 pre-launch
>    discussion. Isn't what other have in mind, too?

The things I mentioned above for 2. are, of course, not solid ways of
taking part in CC governance. But do we really need such solid influence?

Instead of complaining about having nothing to decide in S.F. we should
maybe suggest that CCHQ should - in the light of the progressing
internationalization of CC as a concept - set up something like an
international advisory board of commoners, mutually nominated by CCHQ
and the national CC projects. That IAB could simply be counselling or
get equipped with certain rights, like ...
- approving nominees for internationally important positions (General
Cousel maybe?)
- approving the CC policies relevant for international projects
- deciding on what parts of the CC portfolio should get ported
internationally
- ...

Maybe this way there could be a better integration of the non-US CC
evangelists w/o hindering rules for the work of national CC projects.

all the best,
John