Cc-europe mailing list

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

it's late, please replace "..." in my last mail with "too astonished"

 |-)

cheers,
John


John Hendrik Weitzmann schrieb:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-europe mailing list
> Cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-europe
> 
>