NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/austin/eff/256

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 8.3 KB | 170 lines

Newsgroups: austin.eff
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!swrinde!news.dell.com!natinst.com!cs.utexas.edu!tic.com!riddle
From: [e-mail] (Jon Lebkowsky)
Subject: Chapter Discussions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: aahsa.tic.com
X-Submissions: [e-mail]
Organization: none
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:34:22 GMT
Approved: [e-mail] (Moderator, Prentiss Riddle)
Lines: 155

We're going to work a little harder at keeping the membership up-
to-date on the EFF Chapters Conference developments. I want to
begin by offering this brief overview of what's happened so far.

As you all know, EFF-Austin is the only official local chapter of
the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Steve Jackson and others in
Austin had suggested that the organization begin grassroots
development with local chapters, so the Austin group was formed
as an "alpha" or model chapter, so defined by Mitch Kapor, then
Executive Director of EFF. As a local computer networking group,
even as a community-building effort, EFF-Austin has been quite
successful. As a chapter of the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
however, we have been hampered by the national organization's
inconsistent perspective on chapters and by overall poor
communications. It is important to remember here that the
national organization is young and still disorganized, and it has
until recently pivoted on the efforts and inclinations of one of
its founders, or so it seems from the outside...there has been
something of a veil over the internal operations of EFF-National.
For some of us the assumption has been that the organization was
run more like a private corporation than a public, nonprofit
civil liberties organization.

Whatever the case, EFF-National seems to have seen the need to
open up, change the distribution of authority and information,
and begin a structured approach to the development of local
chapters. To that end, Cliff Figallo was hired as director of the
Cambridge office. Cliff visited Austin in September, soon after
he began work, and we had hopeful discussions about EFF-Austin's
part in a confederation of local chapters. Cliff had been talking
to two nascent chapters, one in the San Francisco Bay Area
(this!group) and one in New York (NTE). We suggested to him that
a confederation meeting, with representatives from the various
organizations with potential for affiliation, would be a good
idea. At this meeting we could bring the diverse networking
groups together to evolve a strategy and a structure for chapters
development.

Cliff carried this idea to a board meeting of EFF-National which
was held in the San Francisco Bay Area. Mitch Ratcliffe of
this!group was present at that meeting. The national board of
directors decided to support the meeting concept. The meeting
would be held in Atlanta, a "neutral" site physically located
between the two coasts. Mitch Ratcliffe would represent chapters-
in-formation on the steering committee for the conference, which
would also include EFF-National officers and directors.

When the EFF-Austin directors received word of this, we were
surprised and disappointed that our input had not been solicited
before plans were firm. We were also concerned that Austin had no
representation on the steering committee for the meeting. We did
not understand why a member of an unaffiliated group that had
been somewhat negative about affiliation was appointed to the
steering committee, but EFF-Austin, the only existing affiliated
chapter, was not involved.

We therefore offered Austin as an alternative site for the
meeting, with the idea that our organization could host such a
meeting better than a presumably disinterested party (Georgia
Tech). Around this time John Quarterman implemented an electronic
mailing list to facilitate ongoing discussion among local group
organizers and individuals who were interested in goals and
activities similar to those of EFF.

The list immediately became quite active with discussion of the
meeting, and of our proposal that the venue be changed to Austin.
Though the change of venue never received official response from
EFF-National, Mitch Ratcliffe essentially flamed the proposal,
implying that EFF-Austin was trying to gain some kind of
advantage in negotiations.

We dropped the suggestion of a venue change. We tentatively
accepted the invitation to attend the meeting, and I was proposed
as an addition to the steering committee. The steering committee
accepted, and I have been working with them since.

Since then, we have been discussing the agenda for the meeting,
the latest version of which I will post separately. We have also
seen controversy over EFF's financial involvement in development
of a product for linking to the Internet, which they plan to
distribute for free. The basis for controversy: 1) the product
will favor one commercial Internet conncectivity provider over
others 2) it will compete, perhaps unfairly, with commercial
products that have similar functionality 3) specifics relating to its
development were not shared with members of the organization
4) software development may be inconsistent with EFF's mission.
Jerry Berman, Acting Executive Director of EFF-National, has
promised to take up this matter at an EFF board retreat in early
January.

In working with the steering committee, and through private
communications I have received related to that task, I have come
to believe that there is sincere effort on the part of EFF to
develop a more open organizational structure incorporating local
chapters, and that the principals involved in these discussions
are sensitive to the need to preserve as much as possible the
autonomy and identity of each group.

Here are some problems that I see that are specific to our group:

1)      EFF-National doesn't really know us. Most of our
communication in the past was with Mitch Kapor, and that was
limited.

2)      EFF-National perceives us as "mavericks," which of course
could be a good thing or a bad thing, I'm not sure which. I
think the real concern is that EFF-Austin evolved pretty
much on its own, has an established structure and identity,
and may resist an attempt on the national organization's
part to create a different set of rules for chapters.

3)      EFF-National has nothing to offer EFF-Austin. We are an
established, incorporated entity. We have access to the
Internet. We don't need money or guidance from EFF-National,
therefore they're probably wondering whether we're a chapter
or a "competitor." And that is a good question: why would we
affiliate? We would have to be strongly supportive of what
EFF-National is doing. This is something we might want to
discuss in a general meeting.

4)      EFF-National has not been good at communicating with its
members. How many of you feel that you know what EFF-
National is doing? If don't know what EFF-National is about,
how can you agree or disagree?

5)      EFF-National's officers and directors don't really seem to
be at home in cyberspace, at least not all of them. E.g.
there seems to be a resistance to ASCII, mailing lists, and
newsgroups as tools for communication and problem
resolution. A lack of subtext may be the barrier they
perceive.

6)      Goals not synchronized: major players at EFF-National seem
to have extremely different goals for the organization. Is
it a civil liberties group? A forum for debate (and flame)?
A support group for consciousness enhancement? A quasi-
public corporation? To me, the overriding goal should be
community development on this new frontier in cyberspace. I
think Cliff Figallo is the one person at EFF-National who's
focused on this concept.

On December 20, EFF-Austin's directors participated in a telephone
conference call with Jerry Berman and Shari Steele (a staff attorney
at EFF's Washington, D.C. office). The discussion was encouraging.
We had the sense that some of the difficulties in our relations and
communications with EFF-National could be attributed to the falterings
of a young organization which is still working to establish a clear sense
of mission, a clear set of goals. The chapters conference in January
should give us a much better sense of direction and we look forward
to the results of the EFF board retreat before that.

Thanks,
Jon Lebkowsky