[alicebot-archcomm] archcomm membership

[Anne Kootstra]

I agree with Ernest here, although I've been silent about this issue due to
not wanting to create another flame war. I sincerely hope we can all work
this out on the Arch Comm. mailing list. 

The current advertisement by the AIF indeed contains too many conflicting
statements.

1. Alice's AIML knowledgebase has been GPL'ed, in effect all AIML that is
released as part of that KB is also GPL'ed. The claim that Alice contains
proprietary technology until the year 2004 can therefore not be made.

2. It's not unheard of for members of a non-profit organisation to have
special perks as part of their membership. However, and I agree with Ernest
here, it is indeed a bit weird to see an exchange of services (two active
parties) promoted when a donation (only one active party) is intended. This
is certainly a situation where there is a conflict of interest. It should be
clarified who owns the rights to the AIML set and under which licence it's
provided to the subscribers. 

3. I have yet to see some proof that the AIF is indeed a non-profit
*charity*. If I'm not mistaken, a non-profit organisation can be setup by
anyone but a charity needs to be acknowledged by the IRS (tax agency). As
far as I know the IRS has not acknowledged the AIF to be a charity.
Promoting such an fact or hiding the charity ID number is something that may
be in conflict with one or two California regulations.

4. Currently the only one benefiting from the acquired funds is Dr Wallace
himself. Although I have to admit that the mission statement provides for
distribution of funds to individuals:

	"ALLOCATE public and/or private funds as appropriate to
organizations, agencies or individuals who can provide AIML, programs or
products of high quality if they are deemed beneficial to the community."

I would like to know who, why and when the decision has been made to
allocate these Foundation funds to him. Especially since article V of the
'Articles of incorporation' states that:

	"The property of this corporation is irrevocably dedicated to
charitable purposes and no part of the net income or assets of this
corporation shall ever inure to the benefit of any director, officer, or
member thereof or to the benefit of any private person." 

It leaves little room for personal opinion in its interpretation. Although
one person can have more than one role in the Foundation it is still highly
unusual for a person to be both in a decion making role and the receiving
role of such a (board) sponsorship decision.

All in all I think Dr Wallace needs to clarify a few things to us, the Arch
Comm., and the AIML community as to why community money is spend on him and
not on any of the other proposed elements in the mission statement.  



As for the Arch Comm. membership becoming a paid membership my opinion on it
is very clear. The Arch Comm. should be a committee where a person's
knowledge or other merits are the reason for their invitation. A donation to
the AIF should not entitle that person to a seat on a committee that is at
the heart of the Foundation.

If influence into the long term strategy of the AIF should be given to
paying members then it should be in the Board. It is very common for
students or workers to have influence in a school's/companies decisions by
means of a single representative in the highest decision making organ.

The Arch Comm. is the wrong place to include these financially contributing
members of the AIF. If paying members or corporate representatives are
becoming part of the Arch Comm. without other merits then I think this
committee has lost it's objectivity and can no longer be considered an organ
of a Opensource community.

I hope this will never come to be.

As ever,

Anne Kootstra