🚀 go-pugleaf

	While I agree with most of the organizational changes that EFF
has just announced, I do have some question with their policy
vis-a-vis local chapters.

I've long been an advocate of local chapters' retaining a great
deal of autonomy, to reflect the highly distributed character of
the Net and the necessity for adapting our actions to local
conditions. But it seems to me that it's going too far in this
direction to say:

'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.'

What will happen when someone announces the formation of 'Cracker
Haven:  An EFF Bolthole,' whose announced policy is that
'Information wants to be free!' and starts life by freeing
credit-card numbers?  It appears that EFF National is putting
itself in a position where it can't even disavow such an
organization.

Another thing that concerns me is that, by adopting this policy,
EFF will hamper its effectiveness inside the Beltway.

Briefly, the leadership of EFF has been dominated by lawyers, who
are depending on the courts--their natural environment--to be the
first line of defence for the freedoms of cyberspace.  While, of
course, fighting our battles in court is vitally important,
exerting influence in the political arena may be equally
important in the long run.

Political influence comes from 1) money, and 2) votes.

Money:  If EFF is not going to get of its financing from its
membership, where will it come from?  If the answer is corporate
donations, these donors may not, in every instance, have the same
interests as the online population at large.  And is EFF going to
support, with contributions and otherwise, the candidacy of
people favorable to the online community?

Votes:  This translates to 'members' that can be counted.  If
there is *no* reciprocal relationship between EFF national and
local organizations,  it's going to be hard to convince people on
the Hill and in the White House that EFF is anything more than a
lobbying group for Sears, IBM, DowJones etc.

 In my opinion, EFF *ought to* be a true grassroots organization,
and it can't become one by just sweeping the hard questions of
grassroots organizing under the rug.  Although I can sympathize
with their having 'labored mightily and long over the whole
concept of chapters,' and probably being as heartily sick of the
whole subject as I am, their decision seems to me to be a cop-out
rather than a solution.


Dick