Re: [OSCOM] oscom past, present and future

Chalu Kim wrote:
> Robert Koberg wrote:
>> I originally responded offlist to Martin (unintentially), so I am reposting.
>>
>> Martin Bähr wrote:
>>  > On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 03:21:53PM -0400, Gregor J. Rothfuss wrote:
>>  >> http://www.advogato.org/article/544.html
>>  >> http://www.advogato.org/article/657.html
>>  >
>>  > oh, wow, these are very interresting, thank you.
>>  >
>>  > now it would be really interesting if you could write an update to those
>>  > articles from the present day perspective, and then i am curious to see
>>  > what we can learn from this for the future of oscom.
>>
>> Look at the history of the United Nations. It too was an organizaton of 
>> competing bodies, supposedly sharing the same goals, similar in the way 
>>   OSCOM wants to be. I wonder if there is a way to deal/account for this 
>> type of thing (other than to simply negate them).
>>
>>   
> 
> IMHO, UN does not represent a good organization but a lynching mob. I 
> know enough people working there to say it is a massive bureaucracy.
> 
>> I wonder...
>>
>> (Of course, I only have open content/config not actual open source - so 
>> take it for what it is worth...)
>>
>> {
>>
>> Respectfully :
>>
>> Martin did respond saying that the UN never tried to reorg - which is 
>> somewhat true.
>>
>> There have been outside efforts that have been rejected out of hand for 
>> reorg (or complete disbandment...) in the UN, however.
>>
>>   
> 
> That unseen hand that steers and starves her is called the United States 
> by way of yanking the budget.  Read on Madelin Fulbright and  Boutros 
> Boutros Ghali . There are lots of readings regarding this.

Interesting. The country that gives /prime real estate/ and BY FAR the 
majority of the money to the UN is starving it. Interesting...

I wonder how that relates to people who contribute to OSCOM - or more 
precisely, who has contributed to content management (not just bullshit, 
anybody can do it, crap) -- or have decided to back off...

-Rob