[alicebot-archcomm] RE: dialogue

Anne Kootstra alicebot-archcomm@alice.sunlitsurf.com
Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:19:22 +0200 

Although I'm pretty sure that your intentions in forming a new board
were noble. I do agree with Chris that in a small non-profit
organisation, especially one where nearly all of the work is done pro
bono by volunteers, it's not done to act as a commercial entity. Charity
organisations like Greenpeace or the Red Cross have the financial
responsibility and the size for it to be necessary, I don't think the
Foundation has reached that stage of evolution yet. 

I'll grant you that the bylaws, and most likely the laws of the state of
California, provide you with these privileges. But its my opinion that
in its current form the Community, who does all the work for free here,
is left in the cold. Although the decision may have been ultimately one
by the Board, the Community should have been a part of that decision
making process.

The Community could have made suggestions of people it considers to be
worthy to be in the Board. Perhaps some other people with a fine
reputation in the AI community or people from the AIML Community itself.
The Board could impose restrictions for example: two thirds of the board
need to be US residents, in order to make meetings a real option.
Several others can be thought of. 

But what's in the past is in the past and I'm not inclined on using the
US legal system to fight this new board. It's simply not in the best
interest of the AIML Community (I'm not referring to the Foundation
here) to do so. Although I do think you owe us an explanation why you
think these people are able to take up the responsibility of a Board
member. Basically answer the question why the Community should put its
time, patience and it trust in these people. 

What I think the best next steps are, in order for this Board to become
a real representation of the AIML Community, is to come up with a plan
on how to proceed from here. Most likely the contents of this plan is
not finished, but I think it would make a good impression to tell the
Community when to expect it and what it will contain. Let's start with
small steps and take it from there. 

--Anne




-----Original Message-----
From: alicebot-archcomm-admin@alice.sunlitsurf.com
[mailto:alicebot-archcomm-admin@alice.sunlitsurf.com] On Behalf Of Dr.
Richard S. Wallace
Sent: dinsdag 20 augustus 2002 8:36
To: alicebot-archcomm@alice.sunlitsurf.com
Subject: Re: [alicebot-archcomm] RE: dialogue


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

_______________________________________________
alicebot-archcomm mailing list alicebot-archcomm@alice.sunlitsurf.com
http://alice.sunlitsurf.com/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-archcomm