New Guild Secretary

Dnate Mars · Post by **Dnate Mars** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:44 pm

Well, it looks like we need a new Guild Secretary. Is there anyone that would like to volunteer for the job?

Jon Seattle · Post by **Jon Seattle** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:15 am

Yes, and especially someone who will resist being manipulated by outside interests with a particular agenda.

The fact is that the guild is and must remain open and highly democratic organization. That means it is vulnerable to take-over. I am not saying that it happened in this case, but all an interest group need do is send people over with a set of talking points the guild is in their hands.

This means that the Guild needs to be very careful. If, for example, the guild holds on to all intellectual property (as has been forcefully proposed recently) and does not hand it over to CDS, then someone can take over the guild policy and hold the CDS for ransom. Some future guild can say, do what we say or your public builds are gone.

I will do as much as I can to make sure we do not have this situation.

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:17 am

"The Horror! The Horror!"

Ya Jon, there's a big ugly conspiracy out there to take over the Guild and hold the CDS for ransom..... Sounds like an.. X-File!

Lighten up, will you??

Stay on as Secretary - you're perfect for it- and make sure it develops as a democratic institution -instead of resigning and making paranoid comments about ridiculous possibilties which have no real basis...

Michel

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:24 am

Yeah Jon -- pay no attention to the man behind the curtain; CARE really is democratic project rather than the blatant extension of one man's over-puffed ego.

But seriously, I think that you should stay on as Guild secretary in the unlikely chance that you are not elected to the RA. If elected, of course, your time might be consumed with RA activities.

Beathan

Jon Seattle · Post by **Jon Seattle** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:25 am

Let me get more specific, I am willing to stay on in whatever role the guild members wish if the RA decides to pass something along the lines of the proposed bill above. In any case, I am resigning as guild secretary (really an administrative spot) but for now I am happy to continue doing guild work. Let me talk a moment about the personal issue here, apart from my other posts on the legislative issues.

I am one of the people who made things for the CDS. If the current proposal passes, the proposal that asks all builders to assign IP property rights to the guild not the CDS, I will be required to sign before I can begin work on any project. I would be barred from planning, building, or teaching for the guild.

I made the things I did for the CDS, not the guild, which can change hands rather easily. I am not willing to sign an agreement that gives the guild (even if I like the organization) the rights to public structures such as the Colonia Nova bridge and the aqueduct. I make those for, and would be very glad to assign those rights to the CDS.

The proposal on the table would prevent me from doing any work for the guild because I am unwilling to give the rights to an organization that did not even exist when the objects were made. It would be silly and rather difficult for me to remain as secretary if it were to pass.

As I have a direct interest, I will try to find someone else to chair the debate. If the proposal passes, then I, and I suspect quite a few other builders will be barred from working for the guild. I hope that helps explain things.

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:20 am

What a remarkable proposition.

It would be interesting if those in favour of it could take the time to present their arguments here. I'd love to hear them.

For my part, as an elected representative, I can't see a reason why I would vote to enlist the Guild in building any part of the future CDS if the IP were to remain with the Guild instead of the CDS. For the Guild to present such terms would be 'promising to hold the CDS to ransom'. Who thinks the RA would be idiotic enough to agree to that? (Well, somebody clearly.)

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:47 am

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":2nuzcvvx] Who thinks the RA would be idiotic enough to agree to that? (Well, somebody clearly.)[/quote:2nuzcvvx]

I would be interested in hearing in detail what the thought was - and Jon brings up a good point as well.

But I wouldn't assume the worst from the proposer, though, because he or she may be trying to fix a perceived problem of some kind. (I think we are stronger as a SIM-nation if we encourage people to suggest fixes to perceived problems, so I wouldn't want to completely discourage that! )

The thing I saw earlier looked like that the Guild was holding designs "in trust" for the CDS - but I could see how it might be abused in the manner of what Jon speaks. So ... how would we do that?

Would a fair alteration be "The Guild has the rights to all CDS structure but CDS holds all the IP?"

Nothing I would resign over - though I would make sure it was done in a manner that would not invite abuse - I doubt anyone wants that.

Jon Seattle · Post by **Jon Seattle** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:46 am

[quote="Bromo Ivory":iwq9gyqf]
But I wouldn't assume the worst from the proposer, though, because he or she may be trying to fix a perceived problem of some kind. (I think we are stronger as a SIM-nation if we encourage people to suggest fixes to perceived problems, so I wouldn't want to completely discourage that! ) [/quote:iwq9gyqf][quote="Bromo Ivory":iwq9gyqf]The thing I saw earlier looked like that the Guild was holding designs "in trust" for the CDS - but I could see how it might be abused in the manner of what Jon speaks. So ... how would we do that?[/quote:iwq9gyqf]
Just to be clear, the proposals were to have all IP rights held by the Guild and require all builders to make turning over those rights a precondition for involvement. The "in trust" thing was something I thought up later.

There are all sorts of complex issues around this. I really don't have the expertise to know all the ins and outs. Whatever we do, the CDS should have ultimate ownership. Do you agree?

[quote="Bromo Ivory":iwq9gyqf]Nothing I would resign over - though I would make sure it was done in a manner that would not invite abuse - I doubt anyone wants that.[/quote:iwq9gyqf]That is what I am doing, but there was a strong attempt to push this through and "ask forgiveness later". Had we done that it could have either greatly decreased the legitimacy of the Guild or it would have served as a "poison pill" keeping the Guild from attracting donated work from capable builders and making our projects very difficult.

Assuming the proposal (Guild keeps all IP and builders much sign up for past work) had been adopted by the Guild, how would you resolve the personal problem I have above? In my place would you act as Guild secretary without being about to work on projects?

By the way, I would like to post the transcript of the meeting here, (I did capture it in full) but first I would like to ask permission of the people who made the proposal. I would be willing to blank out their names if that helps.

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:24 am

[quote="Jon Seattle":tw3q5b1m]The thing I saw earlier looked like that the Guild was holding designs "in trust" for the CDS - but I could see how it might be abused in the manner of what Jon speaks. So ... how would we do that?[/quote:tw3q5b1m]
Just to be clear, the proposals were to have all IP rights held by the Guild and require all builders to make turning over those rights a precondition for involvement. The "in trust" thing was something I thought up later.[/quote]

Aha - OK that makes sense in context of the whole discussion!

[quote:tw3q5b1m]There are all sorts of complex issues around this. I really don't have the expertise to know all the ins and outs. Whatever we do, the CDS should have ultimate ownership. Do you agree?[/quote:tw3q5b1m]

Well yes, CDS should do that - the only issue would be what was the problem the proposer was attempting to solve. I would be very interested in understading what was the overall goal of the legislation!

[quote:tw3q5b1m]That is what I am doing, but there was a strong attempt to push this through and "ask forgiveness later". Had we done that it could have either greatly decreased the legitimacy of the Guild or it would have served as a "poison pill" keeping the Guild from attracting donated work from capable builders and making our projects very difficult.[/quote:tw3q5b1m]

As Guild Secretary you see issue with this - then bringing it up is rather prudent - something acceptable could be devised, I am sure.

I agree having the transcripts would be important - and maybe polling the proposer in a dialogue might be a good step as well -

[quote:tw3q5b1m]Assuming the proposal (Guild keeps all IP and builders much sign up for past work) had been adopted by the Guild, how would you resolve the personal problem I have above? In my place would you act as Guild secretary without being about to work on projects?[/quote:tw3q5b1m]

Well, the main thing would be to try to get the *right* law passed (if one is indeed required)- you have a unique perspective having been in the Guild - and I feel your concerns have great weight.

I would also like to understand what issue or problem was trying to be solved - because there may be a way to strengthen the CDS overall in this manner!

(And this is an entirely side comment: Would the Guild ever do work outside of CDS? And how might that be accomplished?)

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:45 am

And so we go on, pushing deeper into partisan political territory an issue which is purely technical and should be discussed calmly outside the boundaries of electoral time-tables.

Do any of you seriously think that anyone will ever again volunteer to help the Guild, or CDS for that matter, after what you are now doing ? It's a pure repeat of what was done to Ash, Oni and Ben -incidentally, by the very same people.
[b:20zjswqv]
Hic sunt dracones![/b:20zjswqv]

Jon Seattle · Post by **Jon Seattle** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:45 pm

[quote="michelmanen":1ziticp0]Do any of you seriously think that anyone will ever again volunteer to help the Guild, or CDS for that matter, after what you are now doing ? It's a pure repeat of what was done to Ash, Oni and Ben -incidentally, by the very same people.[/quote:1ziticp0]
You need to understand, Michel, that this agreement, if it assigned (limited) rights to the CDS would be a good thing for builders. I would much rather have donate time and effort to a project if we had a version of the agreement that assigned the rights to the CDS. The agreement protects me as a builder by limiting the use of my design and also making it clear that I retain some rights to the things I've built. I think this applies to almost all sim developers and builders.

What is problematic is when those rights are assigned to the Guild. If the Guild were to fold, or perhaps one day it decided to become a private enterprise what would happen to my work? What leverage would I have if the Guild decided it has much broader rights than appears in the agreement and started say, mass-reproducing one of my designs?

The CDS is a much better repository for these rights than the Guild. Because the CDS has stable property bound by agreements with LL someone can find the CDS if there is any problem. There is no similar assurance with the Guild.

Not all builders share your deep disdain for representative government. Some of us have a deeper faith in democratic institutions. I will have to ask, but am pretty sure almost all of the Colonia Nova builders would be willing to do it again given an agreement with the CDS.

Jon Seattle · Post by **Jon Seattle** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:05 pm

[quote="Bromo Ivory":jrq9c43b]Well yes, CDS should do that - the only issue would be what was the problem the proposer was attempting to solve. I would be very interested in understanding what was the overall goal of the legislation![/quote:jrq9c43b]About a year ago we had a lack of clear IP agreement turn into a terrible struggle over rights between the Neufristadt government and two people, one of whom had been the Guild master. (The old Guild had cute medieval titles, a different organization, etc..) As a result, in two waves, huge amounts of NFS was deleted. Shortly after I arrived I logged in one day to find the bridge, the city walls, and some streets missing*. It was terrible and a mess. Actually it was even worse, but I will let other people tell the story.

Here are the reasons we need an IP agreement:

-- We need an agreement that will allow designers (can I please use that word rather than builders) and software developers will feel comfortable donating their work to the CDS. They need to retain rights to use their own work in projects other than the CDS, and they need to know that the CDS will not sell their work in competition with them.

-- On the other hand, a major reason for this agreement is to make the CDS's rights to content very clear so that we will have no more mass deletions.

Michel's alternative, (I think mainly intended as a slap in the face to the RA), does neither. On one hand work that is supposed to be donated to the CDS ends up in the hands of an organization that might or might not apply it to CDS use, or even worse may dictate conditions for its use to the RA. And if the Guild is taken over (it is required to accept all citizens as members) it does not protect against the deletions.

[quote="Bromo Ivory":jrq9c43b](And this is an entirely side comment: Would the Guild ever do work outside of CDS? And how might that be accomplished?)[/quote:jrq9c43b]Actually this has been debated a bit. For example, Moon has been interested in perhaps having the Guild design objects or do contract work. It is a really complex issue. We may some day go there, but I suspect not for a while.

--------
*That day I did meet a tall, white haired woman with back wings building a gothic bridge in place of the contemporary steel bridge that had been deleted. I was rather suspicious, did she have something to do with the deletion? She tried to brush me off with a high-brow comment and instead we ended up in a very interesting debate about post-modernism and architecture.. but that is another story.

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:27 pm

[quote:26du24j1]Michel's alternative, (I think mainly intended as a slap in the face to the RA), does neither. [/quote:26du24j1]

This was not MY alternative. It was developed by Guild members in guild meetings at the request of Guild and community leaders with hte assistance of competent and dedicated legal professionals who freely donated their time and skills to the Guild. I just happen to agree with and support their proposal.

You are again using this for purely partisan purposes and personal attacks. Are you congenitally incapable of acting otherwise???

Jon Seattle · Post by **Jon Seattle** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:47 pm

So far the people who proposed this have not chosen to come forward to make their names public and you have stepped up to promote it, so it seems to be yours. Why do I have a strong impression that you were behind this to start with? Are you working through proxies in this case?

In case people are worried, I have yet to meet a single builder who actually supports the idea of having the Guild own all the IP rights for the public infrastructure in CDS sims.

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:53 pm

You disgust me. I will no longer have anything to do with you and your ilk.

CDS Discussion

New Guild Secretary

New Guild Secretary

Here Be Dragons...

Re: Here Be Dragons...