PledgeBank is now closed to new submissions. The site is available as an archive for you to browse, but you can no longer create or sign pledges. Find out more…



Firstly, I don't see any public ad-hominem argument on either side of this debate, nor any trolling. What goes on by private mail was, of course, one of my gripes from Thursday, and I think that those taking part in private discussions should try to keep them that way or not have them at all.

Secondly, whilst I still have my reservations about where this is going, they mainly lie in a difference of opinion about when things should have started moving in relation to when the pledge will be met. I would have been slower, but so what? Danny has addressed those concerns of mine, and reading back over the initial comments to this pledge it's easy to see why people needed to get things moving before the pledge was met.

Thirdly, Steve has (in this case rightly, I think) raised the issue of ORG being a member-led organisation or not. For most people, this means elections of some kind. I think I side with the current volunteers in that I don't see how an organisation can be formed with strong foundations and simultaneously be elected from the start - someone has to take the initiative. That said, in the coming days/weeks some indication of how long those involved expect things to take, and how/where they expect others to get involved will be extremely welcome. (Granted, putting a time-table on volunteer projects is extremely difficult).

Here's hoping that the foundations are being laid for ORG to be the UK EFF-style organisation we were all talking about, and that its current (modest but focused) aims are met as soon and as effectively possible. I certainly don't want to see all this effort go to waste, even if it takes a while for everyone to get the organisation they want.
Tom Carden 在 16 天前。