Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-europe - Re: [Cc-europe] draft letter to the CC Board on communication and governance

cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-europe mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Henrik Moltke" <moltke AT gmail.com>
  • To: "Florian Philapitsch" <florian.philapitsch AT wu-wien.ac.at>
  • Cc: cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-europe] draft letter to the CC Board on communication and governance
  • Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:42:05 +0200

A few quick comments:

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Florian Philapitsch <florian.philapitsch AT wu-wien.ac.at> wrote:
Dear Paul, dear All,

you are probably right, this should be adressed on a seperate
occasion, but, as I said, when and where?

If we decide to have this discussion in Sapporo, it will be unfair to those that can't go. If we have it on the list, it will be too scattered. If we have it on a wiki, it will go nowhere, unless someone takes the time to draft, maintain and push people to participate. I would personally prefer a face-to-face meeting, and the summit is the only chance to have that, if we want to expand beyond Europe - but unless *someone* finds a mighty big bucket of money very soon - we have a Catch 22.
 
Since we are already talking about that issue, I'd like to add some
(personal and frustrated) thoughts to Henriks rant.

(I sent a few words about my feelings towards iCommons to Florian which I guess would qualify as a rant)

I have been active in the CC-business for a very long time now, I got
in in the midst of the creation of the first CC-licenses for Austria.
Since then I have spent quite some time on the CC-issue. Mainly
because as a web-user I liked the idea of the project and as a jurist
I liked the license-part. I wrote several texts on behalf of CC, I
gave some speeches and I am just finishing the 3.0 licenses for
Austria. For most of these things I did not recieve any money. For
most of these things I did not _expect_ any money.

I too put a lot of time into CC on a number of levels, and feel that I get a lot out of it too (inspiration for my work as a journalist and documentary maker, network, friends, good times etc etc) - but there are some things about money, iSummit attendance etc that need to be adressed and made more transparent. Basically, you do this kind of stuff because it is fun, and because you want recognition. When you are told that your projects or ideas cannot be carried out because there is no money, and you see others spending or suggesting spending money spent on things you deem completely irrelevant, you become a sad panda (thanks for that wording, Florian!).

Here is another catch 22 because, if you decide to leave your formal affiliation with CC, someone else might take over and get credit for your work. On the other and, the step from spending a little free time now and then to several hours a week, sometimes full days or most of weeks - is difficult to draw (this has been the case for me this year prior to the KODA / Tone / new cc dk website release). But if you don't attend to these things, people will never hear about CC even if they´d be inclined to think in this way.


Personally, I am no big fan of iCommons. It feels like a generic
movement, a forced good-will-organisation and the uptight and
disilliusioned jurist in me despises the world-hugging
copyright-hippie direction this "movement" has taken (the idea of a
"greener" iSummit still makes me go *rrrraaaaahhh*). But hey, I do not
have to like iCommons to work on CC which IMO is still a
copyright-project.

Paul, you are right, the decision about the lump sum has been made -
but this does not make it indiscussable. With the chosen solution, the
optics are extremely poor. I regard it almost as a personal insult,
when I invest unpaid time and work into CC, and then CCi (which I do
not wish to blame for anything here) pays iCommons a sum for my
participation and ultimately (and in the worst case scenario) I have
to pay for my trip to Sapporo and the stay there.
This will result in fewer people travelling to Sapporo, therefore
saving CCi some money but it also will result in some people (like me)
severely considering if they want to further want to invest time and
work when they end up paying for their trips themselves.

To sum this up in an over-simplifying way - personally, I do not want
to have to do with iCommons.
 
As a copyright jurist I am interested in
the CC-licenses and the many interesting legal questions they bring
on. Thinking that, ultimately, iCommons is getting money for the work
I do, is making me a sad Panda :)

I feel exactly the same, but there are so many things that I am uncertain about, and have vague doubts or mixed  feeling about. From where does iCommons get funding - now and in the past? How is the summit handled financially, between CC and iCommons, before and now? Who decides who gets to go, and who doesnt, based on which criteria? Who decides who gets appointed to which positions, and is the value I have helped generate channeled into these paid positions?
As much as I love Larry, I find it ironic having these feelings towards the organisation he built up.

I would love to continue but have to hurry to make my nightshift at my IRL, paid work, tee hee - sorry for spelling and harsh wordings in case there are any

Henrik


kind regards from Vienna,
Florian

Zitat von Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>:

> On 23 Apr 2008, at 10:03, Florian Philapitsch wrote:
>
>> I totally agree with this letter and will be happy to sign it.
>> The issue with the seperation between iCommons and CC is raised, but
>> not really elaborated upon.
>
> dear Florian,
> thanks for your reponse....
>
>> In my opinion this will be one of the
>> major issues in the future. If I think of the mentioned 1000 USD paid
>> by CCi for the participation of (voluntary working) CCi-members to
>> iCommons, thereby nuking the sponsorship for travels, I feel that
>> clear and clean borders have to be drawn here.
>
> i do not think that we should adress this issue in the letter
> (disclosure: i am on the board of icommons) for the simple reason that
> this decision has been made and we are beyond the point that it can be
> changed. i agree with many of you here that the way the contribution by
> CC to icommons is structured is not the most obvious or elegant one,
> but in the end it does not really matter if icommmons pays a lup sum of
> USD xxxx to icommons or if that sum is expressed as xx * nomber of
> participants send to the summit by CCi. i do agree with you that there
> need to be clear and clean borders and i think that our letter
> underlines this.
>
> best regards, paul
>
>> This HAS to be addressed and discussed, however, I am not sure, if
>> this letter is the right place. On the other hand - what is?
>
> --
> Kennisland | Knowledgeland
> t: +31 20 5756720 | m: +31 6 41374687
> www.kennisland.nl | www.knowledgeland.org



_______________________________________________
Cc-europe mailing list
Cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-europe




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page