Moderator: SC Moderators
I have been asked to be the temporary host of the Guild meetings. I would like everyone to please try and make it to the meeting on Sunday, July 22nd at 10am SLT. This is the normal meeting time and I hope that many of you can make it.
As it is, I think we need to place the 3rd sim on hold. We are really not ready to get a 3rd sim up and built with the way things are currently going. We need to sit down and talk this out. Maybe once the election is over again, cooler heads will prevail.
Agree -
I believe that removed from the electioneering, it will make for better decisions, given that the Guild is a apolitical organization.
Plus it will give everyone the chance to think about it and calm down.
(Though Rose will be on vacation, unknown if she would be willing to participate at this point)
==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."
I am the one who asked Dnate to chair this meeting. I would suggest the following agenda items:
1. Ultimate ownership and/or trust argument for Guild work for sim design and installation on public land.
2. The right of Guild members to free speech on matters of Guild policy. Do we want to have these?
I think it is premature to suspend work on the new sim. Dnate is chairing a meeting, not taking over as secretary until / unless he is elected.
Thanks
[quote="Jon Seattle":27x2k4kn]I am the one who asked Dnate to chair this meeting. I would suggest the following agenda items:
1. Ultimate ownership and/or trust argument for Guild work for sim design and installation on public land.
2. The right of Guild members to free speech on matters of Guild policy. Do we want to have these?
I think it is premature to suspend work on the new sim. Dnate is chairing a meeting, not taking over as secretary until / unless he is elected.[/quote:27x2k4kn]
I wouid agree, Jon!
As far as the IP issue - it seems to me that the Guild had not achieved unity of purpose at the end of the day - and in order to draft up a legal agreement or form of some sort - a decision had to have been made, and once decided, must remain that way or bring it up as part of the Guild meeting (certinaly not the Forums! 
). So, I agree completely with topic #1.
And for #2, I think these should be reviewed in the light of the Guild as an apolitical body - meaning the Guild cannot afford even an appearance of partisanship - or it runs the risk of being a political football or alienate some/everyone on it! Whether this is a freedom of speech issue or just a code of professionalism or nothing at all, I really can't judge. This problem is faced by many departments/bureaus in RL governments - and the Guild has the added burden as having to remain educational and fun in order to make it work as a volunteer organization.
But I do think that the Guild needs to consider some sort of (virtual or real) firewall from the political arms of the government to keep it an "equal ally" of all in CDS, and be a fun and rewarding place to spend one's leisure time regardless of one's political persuasion.
It is heartening to me that things have settled down and people are going to want to be productive.
==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."
[quote="Jon Seattle":2tnm5ks9]I am the one who asked Dnate to chair this meeting. I would suggest the following agenda items:
1. Ultimate ownership and/or trust argument for Guild work for sim design and installation on public land.
2. The right of Guild members to free speech on matters of Guild policy. Do we want to have these?
I think it is premature to suspend work on the new sim. Dnate is chairing a meeting, not taking over as secretary until / unless he is elected.
Thanks[/quote:2tnm5ks9]
All three of these things will be talked about at the meeting.
[quote="Bromo Ivory":124d1h55]
But I do think that the Guild needs to consider some sort of (virtual or real) firewall from the political arms of the government to keep it an "equal ally" of all in CDS, and be a fun and rewarding place to spend one's leisure time regardless of one's political persuasion.
[/quote:124d1h55]
If this is the case, it is doubly important that the Guild not own either the objects or the IP rights to the objects from which our sims are built. Our project is an attempt at democratic political control of SL sims. We must not separate the meat of the sims (the builds) from politics -- or we become democratic roleplayers in a privately owned sim. That might be fun for some -- but it is not the CDS project.
Beathan
[quote="Bromo Ivory":jdbf0i1h]
And for #2, I think these should be reviewed in the light of the Guild as an apolitical body - meaning the Guild cannot afford even an appearance of partisanship - or it runs the risk of being a political football or alienate some/everyone on it! [/quote:jdbf0i1h]
Indeed I agree, however the accusations of partisanship in this case are trumped up and irrational. The Guild has always talked about issues of IP rights and land use among its members, and as you can see from the transcripts I posted the meetings have been run in a scrupulously non-partisan way.
When I wrote the Guild charter I was careful to make sure that the role of secretary had little actual power. It was not my intension that the secretary could not express opinions on issues having to do with guild policy.
As I have always said, to individuals and publically in this forum, I have always been a reluctant political candidate. I don't care that much about who gets elected, just that we work to preserve our democratic republic.
[quote="Beathan":tn92yrxg]If this is the case, it is doubly important that the Guild not own either the objects or the IP rights to the objects from which our sims are built. Our project is an attempt at democratic political control of SL sims. We must not separate the meat of the sims (the builds) from politics -- or we become democratic roleplayers in a privately owned sim. That might be fun for some -- but it is not the CDS project.[/quote:tn92yrxg]
This is so important. I agree completely.
I want to point out, Bromo, that to the artists who put their work, mind and soul into the spaces where you play, this is not just a game. That is not to say that we do not like to have fun too -- we do, but we donate some of ourselves to make our sims the best place we can.
That is why the work here is so much better than many other sims in second life. The people who contribute are, almost always, people who believe in the democratic project. I sincerely hope you do to0.
[quote="Jon Seattle":ep6fjg5q][quote="Beathan":ep6fjg5q]If this is the case, it is doubly important that the Guild not own either the objects or the IP rights to the objects from which our sims are built. Our project is an attempt at democratic political control of SL sims. We must not separate the meat of the sims (the builds) from politics -- or we become democratic roleplayers in a privately owned sim. That might be fun for some -- but it is not the CDS project.[/quote:ep6fjg5q]
This is so important. I agree completely.
I want to point out, Bromo, that to the artists who put their work, mind and soul into the spaces where you play, this is not just a game. That is not to say that we do not like to have fun too -- we do, but we donate some of ourselves to make our sims the best place we can.
That is why the work here is so much better than many other sims in second life. The people who contribute are, almost always, people who believe in the democratic project. I sincerely hope you do to0.[/quote:ep6fjg5q]
Jon, we are of a like mind here - it is far, far from a game - and my only hope is to make CDS a stronger -democratic- environment overall. I found it troubling to find the hurt and alienation with this last series of events - and my only point about "fun" is that anytime you have a volunteer organization when people are also donating their free time - is that the reward is the environment and satisfaction of achieving your goals. So you have to work to keep the environment supportive and positive.
But we are straying way too close to the election politics at this point, so I will stop here. 
==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."
IF YOU HAVE NOT VOTED, [u:1avfjd58]PLEASE[/u:1avfjd58] GO VOTE BEFORE YOU READ THIS THREAD. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ELECTORAL POLITICS -- THIS IS ABOUT POLICY ONLY.
[quote="Bromo Ivory":1avfjd58]
Jon, we are of a like mind here - it is far, far from a game - and my only hope is to make CDS a stronger -democratic- environment overall. I found it troubling to find the hurt and alienation with this last series of events - and my only point about "fun" is that anytime you have a volunteer organization when people are also donating their free time - is that the reward is the environment and satisfaction of achieving your goals. So you have to work to keep the environment supportive and positive.[/quote:1avfjd58]I agree with this, but there are times when things have to go through a crisis. I predict the Guild will bounce back to being a supportive place after this IP issue is dealt with.
This crisis is a crisis of values, that Beathan described very well. You cannot paper over these paths for the CDS. I don't think that the people who proposed that the Guild act more or less like a board of directors for the sims meant any harm from their point of view. It was simply a logical way to make things run more efficiently.
I have rather strong principles in this area. Ones that I cannot just avoid and still rest easy with my conscience. There are some principles that take priority over keeping people comfortable. I come from a "say-it-like-it-is culture" so I did.
I tried to make this a debate about ideas (unlike the things I said in the General thread, where it was more specifically about CDS political parties.) That is why I was so careful not to name names. Unfortunately some posts got more personal and things got out of hand.
Sadly, in this case, there are people who are trapped in the middle who feel that the best course is to avoid the conflict, and that the Guild is somehow ruined if it has to go through a difficult spot. The thing is, that I do predict that the outcome will be much better for the CDS than if I had papered this crisis over. The Guild will return I have no doubt.
For me personally, the question will be (on Sunday) does the Guild still need me to run things or can it carry on on its own. Remember I really wrote the Guild into existence, waiting more than three months for the legislation to pass, writing the charter and circulating it, setting up weekly meetings that were too often attended by a single person (me). The Guild has more people now, and more who are interested so it may be able to work on it's own. I happen to be proud if it's design.
I am willing to stay on to help the Guild grow after this if it needs me, or more likely the people who are uncomfortable with dealing with these issues will hold a bonfire to roast me alive on Sunday. Bring your own wood 
! But please, please, whatever you do, make sure the CDS owns its own streets and bridges.
Honestly, I think the biggest problem was just a simple way of thinking. The New Guild replaced more or less the old Guild. The old guild would have been the logical spot to store all the CDS related IP works. This was always my thinking as we were discussing this. We will work this out. We have had worst problems with IP rights in the past and we ended up stronger after the fact.
As for the hold off on the sim, I meant it as just my thoughts on the issue. I figure we need to make sure that the IP rights are correctly sorted before we get too far into the actual building of the sim. I did not mean to step on your toes, but sometimes emotions can cause things to come out the wrong way. In the end, I hope you, Jon, stay on in you current position. And I am sure by our meeting those that have ordered Harry Potter 7 will have finished and be well rested. So no excuses for not being there!
Also, please be sure that you have voted.
Jon wrote:
[quote:1ktdindl]I am the one who asked Dnate to chair this meeting.
I would suggest the following agenda items:
1. Ultimate ownership and/or trust argument for Guild work for sim design and installation on public land.
2. The right of Guild members to free speech on matters of Guild policy. Do we want to have these? [/quote:1ktdindl]
I am not in the least surprised that you propose to hold this meeting and "suggest" this agenda knowing fully well that the person who worked hardest on the IP issue and volunteered her time, efforts, skills and resources to the Guild -and who you attacked, insulted, lied about, threatened and demeaned both professionally and personally for purely personal reasons and in flagrant conflict of interest with your current party political agenda and activities, wont be able to be present. It's totally in keeping with your character, actions and ethics.
As for your remaining Guild Secretary, after witnessing your recent, utterly paranoid and entirely unjustified behavior, I can only say: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."
(This is my personal position as a citizen of CDS exercising his right of free speech and is entirely unrelated to any stand CARE may or may not have on this matter).
[quote="michelmanen":2rz4e02w]I am not in the least surprised that you propose this knowing fully well that the person who worked hardest on the IP issue and volunteered her time, efforts, skills and resources to the Guild -and who you attacked, insulted, lied about, threatened and demeaned for purely personal reasons, wont be able to be present. It's totally in keeping with your character, actions and ethics.
As for your remaining Guild Secretary, after witnessing your recent entirely paranoid and unjustified behavior, I can only say: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."
(This is my personal position as a citizen of CDS exercising his right of free speech and is entirely unrelated to any stand CARE may or may not have on this matter).[/quote:2rz4e02w]That was really helpful Michel. Well done. We can always rely on you to pour oil on troubled waters.
The record shows that when Jon raised the issue at hand he did so without attacking or naming anybody.
We've managed to get to the position where all parties in this dispute recognise that time is needed to cool down and look at this calmly. Your flame post only adds fuel to the fire. How do you think it helps to attack not only someone's actions but their character and ethics? You know full well that Jon is a man of honour and that those attacks are going to be the sharpest possible. For someone who demostrates pretensions towards leadership you really have no idea how to build bridges and work with other people.
Guilty as charged, Pat. I should have never posted that.
But there are some actions so outrageous, so revolting, so utterly unjustifiable that it makes it impossible for me to just sit back, bite my tongue and say nothing -when I know fully well that Rose was subjected to this appalling and frankly disgusting treatment solely because she is in private, my friend and business partner (and not even a CARE member!) -and, furthermore, when I see this continuing as we speak and made even worse by Jon's proposal to discuss such issues and possibly reach important decisions in her absence.
This, in effect, will deprive her of even her most basic right to face her accuser, reply to his charges, and justify her conduct and point of view. Such unconscionable violationof her basic rights and wanton disregard of due process, the rule of law and any professional code of deontology currently in force in any reputable and respected professional organisation by an individual in flagrant conflict of interest between his position as leading officer of a non-political quasi-governmental orgnaisation and his candidacy for an RA seat as member of a major CDS political party, cannot in good faith be allowed to stand unchallenged.
The topics mentioned by Jon must be tabled until Rose's return. Nothing less will do without causing grave and irreversible damage to this community and its citizens.
As mentioned, it is a personal statement -as a private citizen exercizing his right to freedom of speech- and in no way purports to represent or speak for CARE as a whole or any ot its members.
Utterly disingenuous, once more. Rose is not 'on trial' and the issues at hand can be discussed without any reference to her dispute with Jon. Michel, are you seriously trying to tell us that we need to wait three weeks to resolve the issue of whether ultimate ownership of IP rights to CDS property should belong to the Guild or the CDS? You want to delay work on our third sim because of that? Similarly, the right of Guild members to free speech should be a given. I would suggest removing that item from the agenda, it goes without saying that the Guild is not some Stalinist organisation which prevents whistle-blowing (which is what Jon was really doing despite Michel's overblown rhetoric).
Get your facts straight. Rose published an attack on Jon. Jon responded. Rose deleted her post, Jon deleted his.
Why are you continuing this dispute in Rose's absence?