[alicebot-archcomm] RE: dialogue

Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:00:12 -0700

Well I'm not so sure, Anne.   Maybe it can be done without money, but you
will agree that someone has to volunteer to run these website polls,
elections, and surveys.

Now consider the structure of the non-profit.   We on the Board should not
get involved in the management of the Foundation, so that rules us out as
volunteers for this polling activity.   In fact it must take place under the
direction of the CEO.  The CEO is already very busy with the existing
volunteer tasks, just keeping going what we have already: mailing lists, web
site, software downloads, marketing and committees.   Even this takes money
we don't really have.  The CEO would like to paid for his work too.  So
perhaps the polling activity could be added, but it would require a
motivated volunteer willing to work hard with Russ.  I think you will agree
that with funding it would be a lot easier.

The Foundation is really too far ahead of itself as a business.   There are
too many plans, too many activities, too many ideas, and too many people for
the funds we have raised.   The Board's #1 job is fundraising and despite
Noel's protestations of hard work, the previous Board failed in its
fiduciary responsibilities gigantically.   I can't promise the new Board
will do better, but I can promise we will be independent.  That is, we won't
be Webmasters, managers, accountants or executive officers of the
Foundation.    This Board has no intention of meddling with the operations
of the Foundation beyond planning, fundraising, and setting long-term goals.
We have a professional CEO who will manage the business for us now.

Perhaps in the coming year we can consider alternative schemes for electing
the Board.  I am grateful for the input provided by the ArchComm during the
"August Coup."  Under less stressful conditions, with more careful
deliberation, we might be able to come up with a new method.  This will not
be easy however.  Remember how hard it is to change <get name="X"/> to <get
var="X"/>.  It's even harder to amend the bylaws of the Foundation.

Rich
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anne Kootstra" <anne.kootstra@chello.nl>
To: <alicebot-archcomm@alice.sunlitsurf.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 7:57 AM
Subject: RE: [alicebot-archcomm] RE: dialogue

> With respect to surveying the community, there are enough ways to do so,
> even without a structured membership with fees as the one you suggested.
>
>
> One way of doing would be to have a poll on the website where people
> vote and need to register their e-mail address, then confirm their vote
> from that e-mail account.
>
> Second would be to consider the combined people from all mailing lists
> as our community and then request nominations from those people. This
> what makes working in and for communities and committees so much fun.
> Ever ran for class president at highschool/college/uni? Ever been
> nominated for something, as a thank you for a job well done?
>
> Finally, the Board decides who has the capacities to take up a seat and
> decides. It takes some more time, but I think it's part of being a
> community. People also vote for the election of politicians in their
> parliament, that's because they care about their future. The same is
> valid for an online community.
>
> Regarding the retention of more information about who is actually
> participating in the AIML community, there are certainly enough ways of
> doing so without the need of exchange of money.
>
> --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 16:24
> To: alicebot-archcomm@alice.sunlitsurf.com
> Subject: Re: [alicebot-archcomm] RE: dialogue
>
>
> A good way to increase community involvement would be to activate the
> section of our bylaws concerning "Members."  Right now the AIF has no
> members and no Membership Committee.  We tried to discuss this topic in
> the previous Board, but got derailed by disputes.
>
> Organizing the membership takes work and money.  Someone has to
> volunteer to run the membership committee.  Dues must be decided upon.
> There will be bookkeeping and recordkeeping responsibilities.
>
> Right now there is no way to survey or poll "the community" to "check
> its pulse."  One person can stand up and say "I represent the community"
> but how do we know?  Without a structured membership, and people coming
> and going all the time, how do we really know who the community is?
>
> Rich
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anne Kootstra" <anne.kootstra@chello.nl>
> To: <alicebot-archcomm@alice.sunlitsurf.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 1:19 AM
> Subject: RE: [alicebot-archcomm] RE: dialogue
>
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> alicebot-archcomm mailing list
> alicebot-archcomm@alice.sunlitsurf.com
> http://alice.sunlitsurf.com/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-archcomm