hey, remember the platform?

[Daniel Stone]

On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 02:38:45PM -0600, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> FD.o is [stuff]
> 
> as such, it's failing miserably at [stuff]
> 
> if people don't know what FD.o is for, how it works and what the heck is 
> supposed to be a part of it, FD.o well be for naught in the long term. i 
> don't see FD.o being useful as a closed circle "old boys club" style 
> organization, but i do see its agenda being distorted in the public eye by 
> those who have other ideas for it.
> 
> there's more to life than [stuff]
> 
> and who really are we putting this [stuff] together for? ...
> 
> so to shrug off FD.o's abismally poor [stuff]

You seem to be assuming that fd.o is actually a coherent, defined
organisation.  Which it isn't.  platform@ is arguably its only defined
effort, sitewranglers@ aside, and the former is notoriously a trainwreck
in terms of coherency and clarity, even by the hazy
hand-waving-through-all-the-bong-smoke standards of most fd.o groups.

What the platform really needs is for people to say 'I am <special
interest group>, and what would really be useful to me is <stuff>.
<some list> is what I would see useful in a platform, and <other stuff>
is what I would see as counter-productive.  Please feel free to run
ideas by me.'

But then again, my attempt to produce a platform was hardly fruitful, so
as many grains of salt as required.