Re: eGovOS conference in D.C.; I'm not attending that

[Stanley A. Klein]

The conference is about the use of free/open-source software by government
at all levels and internationally.  Microsoft applied to speak.  Even
though they are not properly involved in free/open-source software the
proper thing to do politically is to let them speak in a panel session
structured as a debate and let them get skewered at the Q&A as everybody
knows they will.

Remember the conference is taking place in Washington, DC to try to
influence the government on the benefits of free/open-source software.  

Since you seem to be rather ignorant of politics and how things are done in
the real world, let me be more graphic in talking about the uproar and
firestorm I mentioned in my previous posting.  We want the headline in the
press to be " 'Shared source is lipstick on a pig' respond attendees to
Microsoft position in an open debate at a free/open-source conference."

We don't want the headlines to be "Academic freedom is OK for controversial
racists but not for Microsoft,"  "Whatever happened to the first amendment
-- George Washington University charged with bias against unpopular views
at conference,"  "Microsoft is right, Free Software is UnAmerican charge
Microsoft supporters in Congress after Microsoft denied right to speak at
free/open-source software conference,"  "Government employees ordered to
withdraw from conference committee and drop involvement with Free Software
after controversy over rejection of Microsoft as speaker at conference."

Does that make things more clear?

I don't understand your remark about Bayonne being denied a first place
award by Microsoft being at LinuxWorld.  Everybody knew Microsoft's booth
was a joke and an attempt to "show their flag" where they knew they had no
support.

I understand that Tony Stanco spoke at LinuxWorld to the effect that the
Free Software and Open-Source software communities need to learn how to
lobby in Washington to counter Microsoft's big-bucks lobbying efforts.
This discussion proves to me that this community has an enormous amount of
learning to do before it capable of becoming as effective at lobbying as it
needs to become.


Stan Klein



At 07:35 PM 2/8/2003 -0500, Ruben I Safir wrote:
>
>> 
>> Are you suggesting that in order for the conference to be legitimate a
>> university and a conference committee that includes several government
>> employees should deny a speaker from Microsoft the right to present the
>> Microsoft position in debate before an audience almost guaranteed to be
>> packed with active competitors and adversaries of Microsoft?
>> 
>> Can you imagine for a moment the uproar and political firestorm that would
>> result from such a situation?
>
>Fine, as long as it takes place out of the room and as long as they get my
name
>and the URL for the Free Software Chamber of Commerce right before they
attack it
>
>In any event, it's not a debate.  If it's a debate on Free Software versus
>Propriatory software, say so on the website so that everyone knows this and
>is prepared going in.
>
>Overwise, it's a conference on the reasons and uses of Open Source and
Free Software
>for government and Microsoft doesn't qualify under EITHER category.
>
>
>> As an attendee and participant in this and related events, let me assure
>> you that the event does not merely pretend to be part of our community, it
>> is part of our community.  And the spirit of our community is not betrayed.
>
>If this event includes Microsoft, it betrays the Community.  Bayonne was
imediately
>affected by the presense of Microsoft at LWE in NY by denying it a first
place award
>and the press it deserved.
>
>That translates to food on dinner plates for my members ... period.