Re: [Envolution-devel] Power Mongers

[Scott K. <sc...@ki...>]

On Sun, 2003-07-06 at 13:06, Denver Prophit Jr. wrote:
> I stopped showing up because you were running everything.  Wrong the
> idea of a organization structure was NOT to dictate to the community but
> to be in a better position to handle the community and its direction,
> ideas and inputs.
> 

And since your idea wasn't the one consensus agreed upon everyone else
is a "power monger"? Is that what you are suggesting Denver? Sounds like
a case of sour grapes you have there.

Let me tell you about organization. This organization has a structure
already. It just wasn't the one you wanted. Instead of having a tall
hierarchial structure it remains relativly flat...which is what Brian
wanted as well. It doesn't require some IRS Tax designation in order to
be a valid organization.

> I suggested the 501-3C to Brian for funding non-profit projects like
> promotion, paid programmers and the like.  I NEVER suggested a company
> for profit.  

If you are looking for a 501-3c then I would suggest you look into
supporting the Free Software Foundation or the Opensoftware Development
Consortium. They are already in place. They already do what you suggest
(which I will assume is your underlying motive). It doesn't mean every
opensource project has to organize for the sake of pecuniary measures!
And forming yet another non-profit entity is simply unneeded and
redunadant.

I'll take it one step further Denver. This project was NOT founded upon
money issues. I will repeat this again since you don't seem to grasp the
concept. This is a volunteer free/open source project...NOT a charitable
organization who funds anyone!!!!! Furthermore, this community is an
international network of people from all different backgrounds and
cultures as well as nations. This means that U.S. 501-3c status means
diddly squat in Asia, Europe, and most other countries. So in addition
to being redundant, 501-3c wouldn't be practical.

Envolution doesn't require some IRS Tax designation in order to be a
valid organization.

> But here we are again back to calling for organization when
> this could have been done a year ago.  

NO. This is not what is happening. We are simply calling for better
communication. Nice try in trying to hijack the context of my original
reply that prompted this thread.

> Why would I say you took almost
> total control and usurped everyone else's job?  Because myself and
> others who confided in me told me so.  

Well let's let results speak for themselves cause I surely doubt you can
speak for these so called others. FACT ONE: This community is growing.
FACT TWO: This community is stable. FACT THREE: Nobody here works "for"
envolution so no body here has a "JOB", as you put it, to be usurped!
Where and who are those others? Let them speak for themselves!

> After it was decided not to go
> the route of a organization structure but stick to your idea of a
> programmers structure I was asked to promote and market by Brian.  

Promotion and marketing is not exclusive to your "structured
organization". Envolution is almost at 10,000 members by promotion and
marketing on an informal level....all since August of 2002. I'd say your
arguments are without merit and instead based upon Xaraya like values.
If you want 501-3c status then I suggest you go join Xaraya and the DDF,
just be sure to assign copyright to any of your work you contribute over
to the DDF so THEY can control what happens with your code. That's the
kind of structure you sound like you are advocating.

> Yet,
> everyday no tasks were assign to me and you went ahead in your capacity
> as lead programmer and take over marketing and promotion and everything
> else under the sun.

Hummm. First of all, as Max can attest, ole Zoom was never the lead
programmer. And considering we grew from 4 initial people to almost the
10,000 people registered today I can safely say WE (not I) did something
right.

I am no longer in the day to day management of Envolution Denver. But I
am still a founding member of this project and I have been correct way
more than I have ever been wrong in my judgments about how a project
such as this should be run. 

As Max will explain to you Brian, Brandon, and I did not give up our
interests in Envolution as a project. So you can bank on this...As long
as ole Zoom is around I will not allow this project to become like
Xaraya or the DDF.

So here is the bottom line Denver.If you have such a problem with
Envoluton or the way Max, Brian, Brandon, and I founded it..including
the underlying values, then why don't you find a place where you would
feel more comfortable?

This community is not about you...it's not even about me, Max, Brandon,
or Brian. It is about free/open software development on an international
level. 

It is working, it is growing, and it is NOT a US IRS legal entity which
does nothing but collect money and fund people IT thinks deserves it.
Besides that, go tell all of our international support sites that they
will have to abide by US Tax law in order to be part of the Envoltuion
international network. I'm sure they will quickly let you know how they
feel about that.

In closing let me remind you that Brian, as you refer to so often, is
NOT the leader of Envolution. Four people, of which I am one founded it
are the ultimate artibrators in a dispute. Co-Founder Tiraboschi
Massimiliano is the project leader as agreed upon by the four founding
members after the public elections failed to produce anyone interested
in running the project.

Envolution always has been, and will continue to be, free for all
people. It will not be privatized or commercialized. And in difference
to your opinion about being a 501-3c entity under US IRS Tax Law does
not mean it is NOT a business. A non-profit entity can and often is a
business.

It won't work here Denver, and suspect you would be happier elsewhere.

Zoom