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

[David Holden]

On Wednesday 24 January 2007 9:25 pm, Dave Fisher wrote:
> 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)

May I suggest that pointing people to a complex 15 section document, asking 
them to coming with a well thought out personal response to the issues raised 
by friday would hardly constitutes a good hypothesis test case.

 Dave.


-- 
Dr. David Holden.

See: <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html>
regarding Word or PowerPoint. GPG key available on request.
-------------------------------------------------------------