[Linux-aus] Re: NNIC Public Meeting - Adelaide

[Janet Hawtin]

I actually emailed you initially but the message bounced.
I used the asn at cisa.asn.au address which returned a pending
error for a few days then did not send.

> As the facilitator of that meeting, I am stunned. What you have posted is
> inaccurate, misleading, and downright insulting.

It is an accurate representation of my feelings on the proposal.

Your approach is subjective and creates a controlling structure which
disadvantages volunteers and open source people alike. In my opinion
the central control structures proposed ignore the few questions in
the survey which are not directly structured to engineer a response in
favour of a central ethics control body.
The NFP groups say that they would prefer to trust the opinion of each
other than an IT organisation. This is completely ignored. You
mockingly characterise peer to peer communication between your client
groups as communistic.

> Fact 1 - CISA and ACS have no affiliation. Yes, there was an ACS office
> bearer there and so were 25 other people with an interest in IT in the
> nonprofit sector.

There were at least two ACS members there.
You acknowledged ACS when talking about the model for an existing body.
Your presentation included many features of the TIPI proposal which
also partners with Monash University and is sponsored by the same
agency.
I understand now that ACS says they are not co sponsors of the project.
That was not apparent at the time.

> Fact 2 - There is no 'the model' for a possible NNIC. The point of the
> meeting, and others like them around Australia, was to look at possible
> options. Anyone who had bothered to read the material handed out at the
> meeting and/or looked at the NNIC section of our www.communIT.info website
> would be acutely aware of that.

All of the models apart from the one which is characterised as
communistic feature
central controlling entities from the IT sector.

In your overall statements you said that separating head from hands
and having two entities being responsible for accrediation and
brokering were the favoured outcomes from the extensive research you
had done so far.

My strong impression was that the next stage was to produce the report
and that the scope between the outcomes was more about moving
deckchairs into different formations than about shifting the locus of
control or trying approaches which did not involve accrediation and
brokering.

> Fact 3 - On at least two occasions I ruled out the possibility of a NNIC
> ever being an accreditation body. What I did point to was overseas models
> where IT services organisations can list their offerings and some provide a
> rating service for service users, just like some software sites.

The overseas examples listed include sites which are honestly
Microsoft sponsored such as NPower, but also include ICTHub which were
based on funding and support from government to create a technology
Hub for not for profits. From my searching of these sites on open
source they contain such laughable nonsense such as a critique of MS
RTF format as a cumbersone open source technology. A review of the
open source characteristics of MS Access. Basically this model has
resulted in websites which are basically a software portal for
proprietary products and which contain inaccuracies which have been
complained about by members of the Free Software Foundation with
regard to open source and free software technologies and solutions.
Given that the meeting process was taking the piss out of free
software as a matter of course, and that you becoming a channel
partner of techsoup I feel you are not a fair representative of the IT
sector to not for profit groups.

"Later this year CISA will launch as the Australia and New Zealand
global channel partner of TechSoupStock in the US, which channels
software and hardware donations from major corporates like Microsoft
and Cisco to nonprofit organisations, saving them millions of dollars
in expenditure."

> Fact 4 - None of the models discussed mentioned any form of service
> brokerage.

Your overall statement was that one entity would manage the voice of
the sector to government and that a second hands entity would use an
accreditation model to advise the sector on who was safe to employ.
This is brokering in my book.

> Fact 5 - If a NNIC is ever established, CISA would certainly want to retain
> the key role it has developed as a trusted provider of services and
> information for many years but exclusive brokerage of such services is
> neither an aim or even remotely possible in this diverse economy.

It is possible with a partnership with ACS providing accreditation
which enables projects to be insured at a lower rate. For not for
profit groups costs are an issue and it would be easy to leverage
accreditation through ACS to insurance.
As the not for profit groups are proposed to be asked to subscribe to the
'hands' and 'head' organisations they will already have invested and
committed funds to gain access to any voice in government, this then
makes it difficult or more expensive to make choices outside of that
structure.

It is now stated that this partnership does not yet exist but it is
more than consistent with the goals outlined in the TIPI project.

> Fact 5 - The sites you list which we referred to at the meeting are all
> highly respected, provide a wealth of highly accurate information to
> nonprofits on FOSS and other technologies, and have no means of controlling
> the sector. e.g. TechSoup's Netsquared site is dedicated entirely to Web 2.0
> technologies, The ICT Hub KnowledgeBase and CISA's CommunIT are both built
> on open source platforms, and the list goes on an and on.

I am happy to go through the sites and pull out the examples which
made me angry if you wish.

> Fact 6 - At no stage did anyone in the meeting discourage peer networking or
> describe it as a communist approach. The NNIC consultation consortium is a
> network of peers, the public meetings are peer networking  etc etc

You pointedly title it with a quote from chairman Mao and wryly smile
about it in mentioning it. You also did not discuss any peer models as
an option.
There was no suggestion that the not for profit sector could for
example vote themselves about who had provided good service and was to
be recommended.
The not for profit sector are treated as consumers in the controlling
models, not the people that the not for profit sector most trusts from
advice as the survey indicated.

> Fact 7 - None of the models discussed proposed people paying to get access
> to brokerage or services. What was discussed was whether a NNIC should be a
> membership-based organisation with the usual democratic structures involved.

It was stated and agreed that subscription from the not for profit
groups would be necessary for them to have some buy in into the
decisions.

> Fact 8 -  "the idea that funding will be spent on generating and supporting
> organsations in brokering
> multinational companies to get people hooked on expensive products and to
> block volunteers from being valued and empowered as the real capacity
> builders in our communities is frankly a rort." Where this arrant nonsense
> comes from I have no idea, except from the acknowledgement in the meeting
> that major corporates are already active in the sector and that their
> corporate social responsibilities should be put under more pressure.

I still feel that this is a risk because the cart is already leading the horse.
The model is prescribed as a central structure subscribed to by NFP groups.
There is no concern or debate about how accreditation would impact
volunteering best practice which aims to build skills in the
volunteers at hand. Often these people are disadvantaged financially
and or in other ways and are the people least likely to be in a strong
position with an accreditation based system.

> Fact 8 - CISA has been trying for some time to get volunteer-based ICT
> support for the nonprofit sector. However we don't want zealots of any kind
> promoting products that they happen to prefer but are not in the interests
> of that organisation at that time.

The ICTHub does precisely that.

> Fact 9 - Direct connection between the grass roots and the centre is exactly
> what was being advocated in the meeting.

My recollection was that there was an important separation of the
ideas, policies and directions (head) from day to day practice
(hands).
There was also no discussion about grass roots to other grass roots,
only to the centre.

> Fact 10 - I didn't happen to notice anyone jumping on chairs or flailing.
> The only jumping going on was the effort you have put into reaching your
> bizarre conclusions.

I dont understand this point sorry.

> Whatever your gripe is with the ACS, don't take it out on my organisation,
> which has worked its guts out to get the ICT capacity development for the
> nonprofit sector that it deserves. I hope you have the decency to publish an
> apology, and my comments, to that list.

I strongly feel that the approach taken by projects including NNIC and
TIPI are prejudiced around an assumption that the NNIC knows best and
will broker both access to technology and to government, perhaps the
internal structures vary but the overall assumptions and impact are
consistent in that they manufacture an expert body, or collection of
expert bodies which in my opinion have demonstrated that they are
partisan and are not in a position to act as an unbiased broker or
vocie to government.

Admittedly the advisory council to the department has recently
appointed the Head of Microsoft Australia to chair their group so it
is probably getting to the point where it is difficult to see the
assumptions from inside these processes and discussions.

I have previously had a lot of respect for CISA and its conference.
I feel strongly that this project in its current form is not doing
justice to the organisation or the not for profit sector. I feel that
the survey was very leading.

I appreciate that ACS have said they are not a party to the project.
This was not clear at the time both projects hold much in common
including sponsoring department and participants.

I am forwarding this post to the list as requested. I do still feel
strongly about the characteristics of these projects and the way that
they have been undertaken as I have stated.

I feel that the campaign on ethics could do with some.
I feel that the project for 'capacity building' could go further to
appreciate the nature of this capacity and the ecology that this is
derived from in the sector that it aims to service.

Janet