[Gllug] Talk by Richard Stallman in London, 12 Feb

[Richard Cottrill]

Quick note: I believe the Canberra LUG didn't invite him to speak. As I
posted originally the LUG had perhaps two or three people in the audience.
As I think about it there was probably more than 20 people there; but
certainly not as many as 50.

IIRC (and this is pretty vague) he was invited by a computer professionals
group in Canberra. There's some cross-over I expect between the LUG and the
bunch who organised it; the meetings are/were held in the same room. I don't
think that RMS's talk was even announced/discussed on the LUG list though.

I also think if RMS were to play to the audience he wouldn't necessarily
need to have a flashy presentation and a laser pointer. I think a little
personal grooming would have done wonders. If he simply described what libre
software is, where it came from, and what it does; he would have been far
better off (who was it that forced RMS to bathe before he could stay in the
house?). If he had crossed over into ROI, TCO, etc, (and I think questions
were asked and brushed aside) then so much the better; but that wasn't
required.

If you were to talk about Apache to .Net developers then you could play to
their common understanding. I also think RMS had a harder topic in that he's
talking about abstract philosophical/political stuff and Apache/.Net is
mostly techie stuff. Perhaps RMS got the wrong audience; but to the
uninitiated (RMS and (GNU/)Linux had a much smaller profile than they do
now) the bar he was asked to clear wasn't all that high. RMS has admirably
demonstrated that he is capable of some spectacular feats but IMHO he
couldn't play to his audience.

Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gllug-admin at linux.co.uk [mailto:gllug-admin at linux.co.uk]On Behalf
> Of Kieran
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 1:03 PM
> To: gllug at linux.co.uk
> Subject: RE: [Gllug] Talk by Richard Stallman in London, 12 Feb
>
>
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Richard Cottrill wrote:
>
> > I think you've just hit on the nerve of why the community at
> large thinks of
> > nerds as being unable to communicate. In ANY description of
> communication
> > the 'audience' (a loaded concept in communications theory)
> forms a part of
> > the communication. To NOT pitch to one's audience is to be unable to
> > communicate effectively. In this case RMS did not communicate
> effectively.
>
> RMS was invited to speak.  As he is in numerous place.  And he was
> invited because of what he has done, and what he has written about.
>
> If you want a "cost of ownership analysis" speach, hire Eric Raymond.
> The fact that someone thought it would be cool to throw RMS to the
> wolves of the Australian government's procurement team (or whatever)
> is neither here nor there.
>
> > If he assumes that everyone wants to hear about him and his
> opinions rather
> > then about the free software movement then frankly it suggests
> that not only
> > does he have a problem communicating; but also that he's a touch
> > egotistical.
> >
> If someone invites me to talk about Apache, and the audience turns out
> to be .Net developers, is that my fault?
>
> If anyone is at fault, it is probably the Canberra LUG, who invited the
> wrong speaker, or promoted to the wrong audience.  But probably, it was
> just an accident.
>
> Blaming RMS for who turns up to a meeting in Australia, or London, or
> wherever is deeply unfair.  (Blaming him for being unrealistic,
> control-freakish, provocative or even a troll on the TCL lists is
> another matter.  Please, shoot the right target if you have a problem
> with it.)
>
> Regards
>
> Kieran
>
>
> --
> Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
> http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug
>


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug