[Cryptech Core] info about commons conservancy

[Leif Johansson]

On 2018-09-28 03:00, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rob Austein wrote:
>> I don't think that one or two individuals holding wrong opinions would
>> by itself constitutes a credibility problem by association for us.
> 
> I think it does when the topic is so serious.
> 
> I am surprised and disappointed if the majority position is to
> shrug such an incompatibility off.
> 
> I don't want CrypTech to co-locate with an organization where an
> individual with that opinion is involved, because it is so strongly
> counter to the goal of the project.
> 
> Who we choose to work with matters a lot.
> 
> 
> I was asked off-list to point out the link between Conservancy and
> electronic voting:
> 
> --8<-- https://www.commonsconservancy.org/organisation/
> Board of Directors
> 
> Guido Aben (secretary)
> ...
> A generalist more than a specialist, he has been involved across the
> range of the "buy-or-build" spectrum, in projects ranging from the
> rolling out of a national dark fibre footprint, running cloud
> services procurements through to the deployment of complex niche
> builds such as an Internet voting system during national elections.
> ...
> -->8--

I know Guido quite well. Guido is a sensible and very smart individual
who takes opensource very seriously. Have you tried to reach out to
Guido to try to find out if that passage is an indication of a serious
interest or just an example of something that sounds complex and hard
and looks good in a blurb?

> 
> I do find the organization problematic simply because this individual
> is involved, even if the organization itself has not explicitly taken
> position - because in a way they have; by accepting the individual on
> their board.
> 
> 
> As I read more around the Conservancy site I also see that all finances
> must be handled by NLnet, making the practical purpose of the Conservancy
> unclear, in addition to the credibility concern.

The purpose of the dual organization has been made clear before but I
will repeat it here anyway: they keep IPR in one organization and money
in another to reduce the risk of patent litigation designed to "empty
the coffers". Smart or not, realistic or not, this is the reason and
I have never seen anything nefarious motive here.

	Cheers Leif