[alicebot-archcomm] RE: dialogue

[Dr. Richard S. Wallace]

The simplest explanation is the there is no legal concept of a "freeze" for
a nonprofit or for-profit corporation.  If the former Board members think I
violated the law, as they have so often claimed, they can take me to court.
I acted in accordance with the law to protect the community, the Foundation,
the free software, and future for all of us.  We have courts in America to
settle disputes and "power struggles", not "freezes."

The process of recruiting new board members and the CEO was in accordance
with the law and bylaws of the Foundation also.

If you want to meet the new board members or CEO, please feel free to email
them.  They know how to reply to emails.

Rich

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Fahey [askrom]" <askROM@graphpaper.com>
To: <alicebot-archcomm@alice.sunlitsurf.com>;
<alicebot-general@list.alicebot.org>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:34 PM
Subject: [alicebot-archcomm] RE: dialogue


> Richard, I'd like to keep our Alicebot AI foundation discussion in the
> public sphere: I'm not on the AIML board, I'm just an AIML community
> member and I speak only as an AIML community member.
>
> Anyway: Maybe I lack the political skills you have, perhaps I am just
> dumb, but I just find it impossible to understand what you're doing
> these days. It appears as if you've just set up some kind of puppet AI
> Foundation. Who are these people? What kind of process went into their
> selection? What made you think that this new board would "go over" well
> with the community?
>
> I'm not going to argue "he said/she said" about the current controversy
> because it is sufficiently incomprehensible to me that you would think
> that setting up this new board was a good idea. It's as if you don't
> "have your finger on the pulse" of what people, particularly those of us
> who have been working with the AIML community for a while, have to say
> about the controversy. The idea of looking for some kind of consensus
> opinion from the community never crossed your mind - you just 'picked'
> three strangers to set up a board and you hoped we would recognize it
> without question? That's not realistic.
>
> You need to keep in mind that nobody cares about Noel Bush or Richard
> Wallace or Chris Fahey - all most of us care about is AIML. Your top
> priority should be preventing the whole AIML community from dissolving,
> which under the current climate is clearly a real possibility. But IMHO,
> your actions don't seem likely to help. To us, the question of who is
> morally in the right or wrong isn't the issue. The perception is simply
> that there was a 4-to-1 vote and you lost and that you don't like the
> outcome. While you may have convinced a handful (not many) people that
> the decision was not made fairly, you haven't yet convinced anyone that
> the decision to freeze the foundation wasn't correct. If you convince
> the world that that 4-to-1 vote to freeze was an "incorrect" vote (not
> an just an "unfair" vote, because however screwed up the letter of the
> process was, it was pretty clear that the other four members agreed in
> spirit to institute the freeze) then perhaps you will gain support for
> your new board. Until then, however, you're tilting windmills.
>
> In light of the controversy, I support the freeze. It's the only
> sensible thing to do during a power struggle - cut off the money and
> settle it calmly, over time. I doubt you could convince me that it's
> better for the survival of AIML to debate the board's issues in public
> and to launch a controversial new board in public rather than try to
> discuss the issue over the course of another year.
>
>
> > > > Richard will do battle with this organization or coalition,
> claiming
> > > > that he owns the acronym AIML and the concepts AIML reflects.
> > >
> > > It is in Richard's best interest for #2 to happen.
> >
> > Why on Earth would it be in my best interest do battle with any
> > organization?
>
> Give me some credit here: it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that when I
> wrote "#2" I meant "the second part of #2, where I suggested that
> Richard might support an AIML oversight organization  - over which he
> has little or even no power but that at least ensures that the AIML
> community continues to use and develop AIML - instead of defending his
> rights even if it means the breakup of the AIML community"
>
> I dunno, maybe I'm wrong and you'll manage to keep things together.
> You're a very surprising person. While I cannot stand behind the "old"
> board of directors anymore - since two of them have left and since the
> board is officially frozen anyway- I also find it hard to stand behind
> your "new" board about whom I know nothing at all. Can you convince me
> that I should support them?
>
> -Cf
>
> [christopher eli fahey]
> art: http://www.graphpaper.com
> sci: http://www.askrom.com
> biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> alicebot-archcomm mailing list
> alicebot-archcomm@alice.sunlitsurf.com
> http://alice.sunlitsurf.com/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-archcomm