Rado S wrote: > [To James:] But when it comes to matters belonging to the council's area of > concern you're fast (and often the only one) to respond. > You're very public, you'd be a good representative for netrek or the > council. > > Then please suggest some way to make the council more public in its > functionality. How to interact with the council when it's secret and > no speaker in their name known? > What benefit has a _secret_ council when public requests need public > responses? I think you are showing some confusion over how organizations of many sorts function. I am going to provide some details for you to consider. A friend of mine, who is a free mason would say: The organization has secrets. The organization is not secret. :-) I am a board member of a member-owned organization called the National Capital FreeNet. As a board member, we keep secrets both for the benefits of the organization, and due to government requirements. For example, discussions regarding the salary of our Executive Director, or firing an employee are held "in camera", and not open to "the public". Other examples are strategy meetings, or meetings where the board will agree on a stance to have as a board with one voice. The practice of having secrets is normal to most organizations whether public or private. At our meetings throughout the year, we try to invite the public, but there is no guarantee that the public will be allowed to speak. It is up to the chair person to decide whether or not to acknowledge questions raised from the floor. Members of an organization must now confuse their membership as a right to speak. We offer members the right to speak in the yearly AGM (annual general meeting). At this time, the members are invited to nominate candidates to be their representatives, and to elect the representatives that will serve them. General members do NOT have the right to speak. They have the right to elect representatives. If their representatives fail to serve them, they can gather sufficient support to have a representative evicted, or they can wait until the term ends and elect somebody else instead. This is much like the government. You can vote George Bush in. If he does things you don't like, there isn't much you can do except wait until his term is up and elect somebody else. What rights do you believe you have? If your primary argument is that you do not understand how a "secret" council can provide value, your argument has no weight. Councils can serve members both in public and in secret, but often both. See the minutes from any meetings and see how they can be read in 5 minutes or less, for a meeting that took 60 minutes or more to complete. What happened to the other minutes? Where are all the subtleties? What of all the inside jokes that were cut, because they might be offensive or misconstrued? These are all "secrets". Stuff that the minute taker didn't feel you needed to know. In terms of Netrek - I wasn't aware that any official Netrek organization or committee existed. I don't think the name is trademarked, and I don't think there is any official entity, whether a person, or a business, who *owns* Netrek. There are copyrights from the last two decades that cover the works that make the source code available for nearly any use you wish. As such, I would say that you have many rights. Which also means that James, and the "secret council" also have many rights. In particular, just as *you* have the right to collect a few like minded people, meet at a bar, and discuss the future of Netrek, so do they have this same right. There is no requirement that they provide location and time to all players at least 5 business days in advance. There is no requirement that they ask your opinion. In most open source movements, maintained by individuals who are primarily motivated by personal pride, the "leaders" are usually the people who step up to the plate, who are accepted amongst their peers. James has this authority. He stepped up. He is accepted. I accept him, and find myself offended by statements you have made about him that hint at malicious intent. If James and a few other share this respect, and elect to meet amongst themselves in private, they are fully within their right to do so *without* condemnation from you. This is your rights: 1) You can continue to email people. I would suggest using a more respectful tone in order to maximize effectiveness. 2) You can branch netrek, and see who jumps ship with you. If you really do know what you are talking about, you should be able to get a large enough base to move with you, and you can invent something like Netrek Paradise. Call it Rado Netrek. Whatever you wish. You remain fully empowered whichever route you take. Good luck. Cheers, mark -- Mark Mielke <mark at mielke.cc>