🚀 go-pugleaf

Some readers of austin.eff have asked for a deconstruction EFF-National's
reorg announcement. You wanted to know how this might be a good thing
(especially given all the flak about it in other parts of the Matrix).
I'll give you some of my feelings here. I won't pretend to speak for
other directors of our local organization, but I get the sense that
we're pretty much in sync.
 
EFF-National seemed to be moving in too many directions at once.
This resulted in a lack of focus and, as noted in EFF's statement,
some philosophical differences. (I don't parse this as "infighting";
reasonable people disagree). It seemed pretty clear that the organization
would have to make a choice between political advocacy and serving
the net with legal representation, grassroots development, etc. This
is what they've done, after painful deliberation in a long retreat
last weekend.
 
In my opinion, this was the right choice. Jerry Berman and the
Washington EFF office seem extremely effective in the advocacy role.
On the other hand, despite the heroic efforts of Cliff Figallo and
Mike Godwin, EFF never seemed quite suited to a role as a service
organization. Cliff, Mike, Gerard van der Leun and the Cambridge staff
have been doing a job that needs to be done, but is perhaps better done
in a slightly different context. I have no doubt that their work will
continue so long as they choose to continue doing it, and it appears
that at least Cliff and Mike will receive some kind of support for
their activities from EFF:
 
>Cambridge Office Director Cliff Figallo will manage the EFF transition
>process, working out of Cambridge. He is now considering a move to
>Washington for organizational functions yet to be defined. In the meantime,
>he will oversee our on-line presence and assure electronic accessibility.
 
>We recognize the enormous resource represented by Mike Godwin. He probably
>knows more about the forming Law of Cyberspace than anyone, but differences
>of style and agenda created an impasse which left us little choice but to
>remove him from his current position. EFF is committed to continuing the
>services he has provided. We will discuss with him a new relationship which
>would make it possible for him to continue providing them.
 
The part of the announcement most relevant to EFF-Austin's concerns is
the following paragraph regarding chapter development:
 
>We have labored mightily and long over the whole concept of chapters, but,
>in the end, the Board has decided not to form EFF chapters. Instead, EFF
>will encourage the development of independent local organizations concerned
>with Electronic Frontier issues. Such groups will be free to use the phrase
>"Electronic Frontier" in their names (e.g., Omaha Electronic Frontier
>Outpost), with the understanding that no obligation, formal or informal, is
>implied in either direction between independent groups and EFF. While EFF
>and any local groups that proliferate will remain organizationally
>independent and autonomous, we hope to work closely with them in pursuit of
>shared goals. The EFF Board still plans to meet with representatives of
>regional groups in Atlanta next week to discuss ideas for future
>cooperation.
 
 
I'm sure that many of you read my earlier article on chapter development,
which outlined some of the EFF-Austin directors' issues with EFF-National.
I rather bluntly stated that we didn't need EFF-National in order to
continue. We'd shared that insight for some time: the national org was
so young when we formed that they were never able to give us much 
support, so that by the time we were talking about creating a structure
for chapters, it wasn't clear why affiliation was necessary. What seemed
more promising was the idea of confederation.  Grassroots organizations
could evolve as we did, under their own power, though with a little help
from their friends (including EFF-National and EFF-Austin). They would
be independent, and they would have their own identities. However, using
the medium of communication which has brought us all together in the
first place, these organizations could share community without mediation
by any kind of central authority.
 
I suppose the reason this evolution seems so positive to me is that
it follows the inherent democratizing effect of computer networking.
 
At the same time, the essential advocacy role of EFF will be preserved
in Washington. At our last board meeting, Bruce Sterling reminded me
how important it is to have folks like Jerry Berman and his staff
working for our interests in the capitol. This we shall still have.
 
All this, and Barlow, too!
 
So to me, nothing is ending here. We're just beginning our work, and
EFF has brought new focus to its mission:
 
>POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND ADVOCACY. EFF has been working to promote an open
>architecture for telecommunications by various means, including the Open
>Platform Initiative, the fight against the FBI's Digital Telephony wiretap
>proposal, and efforts to free robust encryption from NSA control.
 
The top of the list, already the mission of EFF's Washington office.
 
>
>FOSTERING COMMUNITY. Much of the work we have done in the Cambridge office
>has been directed at fostering a sense of community in the online world.
>These efforts will continue. We have realized that we know far less about
>the conditions conducive to the formation of virtual communities than is
>necessary to be effective in creating them. Therefore, we will devote a
>large portion of our R & D resources to developing better understanding in
>this area.
 
And those of us who are already involved in local organizations across
the world can bring day-to-day practical support to this endeavor.
 
>
>LEGAL SERVICES. We were born to defend the rights of computer users against
>over-zealous and uninformed law enforcement officials. This will continue
>to be an important focus of EFF's work. We expect to improve our legal
>archiving and dissemination while continuing to provide legal information
>to individuals who request it, and support for attorneys who are
>litigating. Both the board and staff will go on writing and speaking about
>these issues. Our continuing suit on behalf of Steve Jackson Games is
>unaffected by these changes.
 
We can hope for continued support for Mike Godwin, and for other
attorneys who are setting precedents in cyberspace law.
>
>RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT. We have started many projects over the years as
>their need became apparent. Going forward, EFF will allocate resources to
>investigating and initiating new projects. To ensure that our projects have
>the greatest impact and can reasonably be completed with the resources
>available, EFF will sharpen its selection and review process.