[Foundation-l] Response to message by thread breaking nazi.

Sat Jan 19 20:32:17 UTC 2008

On 1/19/08, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2008 12:25 AM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:

> >  I should think it
> > apparent to pretty much everybody that the Kaltura collaboration is
> > not convenient in the short term.

> The choice of a partner which fundamentally requires proprietary
> technology, over alternative paths which use or create non-proprietary
> technology (which may currently be less mature or less adopted), is
> short term advantageous compared to other options.

Personally I think the situation is more nuanced than either of you present
it as. The Wikimedia Foundation can be a influence for guiding towards
what its mission is in many ways (and I regret our mission statement still
does not make it explicit that we are for non-proprietary formats; </ceterum
censeo> ).

Some routes are more frayed than others, though, and one needs must
make an evaluation of what the best/most effective use of resources/good
will/authority etc. is. Erik has clearly made one which you, Greg do not
wholly agree with. That, I think, is fine. We should still respect the fact
that evaluating that is what Erik is being paid for, and naturally Erik
chooses whose opinion he relies upon, within the parameters set to him
by the board (and here I remind the board, that it *does* have the authority
to guide its employees _as a body_, though clearly not as individual trustees).

Do I think Erik perhaps could have consulted wider before making his mind
up. Well, I have no first hand knowledge of how far and wide Erik cast his
net before coming to the decision to recommend Kaltura as a worthy
effort to the volunteer community, but in general a bit more never hurts.

On the wider issue in general on how to best limit the pervasiveness and
exclusionary tendency of proprietary standards...

On one hand, we can support in house efforts that are as pure as can be;
and hope the efforts will further the standards thus adopted by our
projects, due to our position of considerable influence in our chosen area.

On another hand, we can try to attract projects that are currently not
working to such purist standards, to move in that direction, by the good
reputation we have, by offering the reputation up as a nice label for them
to use, with the understanding they will make an effort to move towards
such purer standards. (I don't know if this is the calculation that has been
made in this case, and whether the calculation has weighed the aspects
correctly, but this is certainly one approach)

It is, however, worth noting that this is a historical departure from the
way we have operated, if indeed we have now adopted this strategy.
The usual way has been to think that not moving towards encumbered
stuff, such as fair use content, is the best way to spur the creation of
genuinely free stuff.

It can be argued that we aren't moving towards flash, but rather pulling
Kaltura away from it, but that argument hasn't really been made, as what
was expressed was talk of their using gnash as a move in the right
direction (and everyone will have to make their own mind up if that is
movement by them at all, standards wise).

Sorry to be so long-winded, and thank you for reading. (I do have some
other thoughs on this matter, but perhaps best to save them for later.)

Cordially;

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]