Re: Reflections on the election and implications for the OVC

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu Nov 04 2004 - 12:48:24 CST

At 10:12 AM -0800 11/4/04, Alan Dechert wrote:
> >
>> Read my comment: in the light of what worked and what didn't with
>> DREs. Whatever we do next will have to be in the context of the
>> results of the 2004 election. Also, many of our decisions were made
>> in the idealistic environment where we expected to get lots of money
>> and also expected to have plenty of time to build something. Neither
>> of those turned out to be the case.
>>
>Arthur, you recently have been suggesting many changes -- from changing the
>list name to vague notions of changing the mission. None of these changes
>appear to strengthen the position of the OVC.

Changing the list name was proposed because I'm getting increasing
amounts of spam bounced to the moderator. And I'm the moderator. I
need to check each of the messages to make sure it's not from a
legitimate person on the list, who happens to have sent the message
from the wrong email address. It's certainly not a weakening of the
OVC to do so.

I have not proposed to change the "mission." I've proposed a
reassessment of how the OVC addresses that mission based on how
things have changed over the last few months. I think such
reassessments are healthy and can strengthen the OVC in the long run.

>You often use verbiage like "we failed" at this or that. I also used the
>word "failed" with respect to funding proposals. But I don't think OVC has
>failed at anything.

The OVC has not yet raised the money nor built a production quality
system for open voting. I'm suggestion we reconsider what we aim to
build based on the issues of time to market and incremental success.
I'm not dogmatically tied to a particular architecture. However, I
am tied to adjusting the OVC's strategy and tactics to achieve
success.

>The funding proposals failed -- not OVC. Things are
>taking longer than we expected or hoped. OVC started with me sitting in my
>living room thinking there ought to be a way to do this. I see only growth
>and maturation. We need to make adjustments for sure, but the fundamental
>mission, vision, and goals of the OVC are just fine, I believe.

I'm glad that you took up the challenge 4 years ago. Many of us
joined the task about 16 months ago. In that time, we achieved a
demo and publicity. However, our momentum has slowed in the last 7
months. I took the lead in writing several proposals for funding,
but none of them obtained funding. Quite a few of us contributed
greatly to those proposal writing efforts, notably David Mertz, Karl
Auerbach, and Amy Pearl.

We can "stay the course" or we can reassess what we should do in
light of the 2004 general elections. As an officer and a board
member of the OVC, I would be remiss if I didn't propose we
re-evaluate our strategies and tactics in light of events.

Today so far, we have 6 new memberships and 5 other donations
totalling $180. That's about 50 cumulative members. At this point,
the OVC has about $1400 in the bank and isn't ready to pay a
President or Executive Director. I look forward to Lori's work in
achieving the goal of 1,000 members.

>I agree with what David Mertz is saying.
>
>Alan D.

Best regards,
Arthur

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Tue Nov 30 23:17:09 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 23:17:43 CST