[Wylug-discuss] 'Pathetic' FLOSS Advocacy - Put it to the test?

[Dave Fisher]

Hi All,

Some people will remember me getting flamed a few weeks ago for
expressing a certain amount of pessimism about the open source
commmunity's marketing and lobbying capacities (lack thereof).

I must have gone 'over the top', because even mild-mannered Jim Jackson
demanded that I 'show the source' for my outrageous claim that people
(including me) rarely had the time, or would rarely accept the collective
self-discipline needed, to do the job properly.

Well, today Phil Driscoll's post urging people to object to fast
tracking ECMA 376 into an ISO standard gives me the opportunity to put a
*very small* part of my argument to the test.

An Assertion:

  An effective lobbying group takes practical steps to maximize the
  proportion of its members promoting a lobbying objective.

Evaluation: 

  To test whether an open source group, like wylug, is 'an effective
  lobbying group' against this criterion, first define key terms as
  observable phenomena whose presence and characteristics can be
  measured.

  For example:

      1. "Wylug" - People who are subscribed to the wylug-annnounce
         mailing list.
    
      2. "A lobbying objective" - BSI Committee IST/41 votes against
         fast tracking ECMA 376 as an ISO standard.
      
      3. "Promoting" - write an email to francis at franciscave.com urging
         BSI Committee IST/41 to reject fast tracking.
    
      4. "Practical steps" - Urge those who have not yet written an
         email, to do so, by writing to them or talking to them.
    
      5. "Proportion" - Number of wylug members divided by the number
         who have written an email.

Discussion:

   Clearly using these definitions, one cannot assess the proportion of
   members 'promoting a lobbying objective', without counting those who
   have written an email.

   Similarly, one cannot measure whether 'practical steps' have been
   taken to *maximize* participation, without ensuring that those who
   have not yet written are urged to do so, i.e. merely repeating Phil's
   request to *all* members on wylug-discuss won't cut it.

   Ipso facto:

     Wylug cannot be an 'effective lobbying group', because it can't
     maximise participation rates without knowing what they are.

   Wylug can't know what it's participation rates are unless members
   report on their action/inaction.

A falsifiable hypothesis:

   "Less than 5 percent of wylug members report that they have written to
   francis at franciscave.com urging BSI Committee IST/41 to reject fast
   tracking."

Now, that's easy to test.  

All it requires is someone to ask wylug members to report the fact that
they have written an email, and to count them when they do so.

I tend to think that if less than 5 percent of wylug members are
willing/able to report that they have written such a letter, it's not
unreasonable to question our capabilities as an open source advocacy
group.

Dave
(Flame-proof hat and suit rivetted shut)