Probabilly this will be the first of a serie of reflections.
Once again, the meeting was inconclusive and some of the previsible consequences had started already.
When some one consideres a path to follow should think very well and carefully in all the possible consequences (and I'm not implying or saying that they weren't, of course -- how can I know that? -- ), even beeing aware that probabilly won't be able to forseen ALL in advance.
Throughout the time I've learned that each person as a will, in it self, that must be accounted for. Some will be in our way, others against, more even will make different angles with our own positions. And it's from all the forces involved that a result borns and a path is layied.
For the good, for the worst, for somewhat indeterminate consequence.
I think that's the reason why I'm so carefull when it comes to persons.
I always take each position into account, to the most of my abilities, and try to see where can a consensus be reach or where are the tension points.
Tension is a generator of movement by itself if it can be mantained under the breaking-up point; oftenlly I recall to myself the image of the damn. The water, retained, is potential, is power to do, but MUST be stoped from going over the damn wall or it will most probabilly destroy it.
So it's tension.
And that is the reason why I'm always more against absolute power and absolute majorities.
I always remember the saying that says "Absolute power corrupts".
And what I assisted today, makes me remember all this once over again.
There are 2 diferent views of the issues in question (aren't always?...)
One defends the maintenance of the starting rules, definned by ourselves, in the begining, especially when there will be 2 new partners in the enterprise.
The other tryies to alter the present position, introducing a further separation between the existing partners, based in the consideration that some deserve it more has they had done more.
Personally, although I think that each one has a legitim right to their claim and to defend its position, and even claim for himself more, the fact is that that is not the only possible position.
Beeing forseenable the necessity to open the capital to outside investidors very soon, and beeing very much uncertain yet if the present way will lead to success or not, for the most someone tryies to explain why should the 4 part proposel be accepted (let's call this way to the one that makes 3 different levels beteewn the existing partners), and tryies to say that is not an avaliation in the present moment, in deteriment of the 3 part proposel (let's call this way the one that recognizes that the initial situation should prevail until the capital is open to outside investidors), wont be able (IMHO) to make it sufficientlly clear to avoid that interpretation (as an avaliation right now).
And if they do think is necessary to make and mantain that 4 part proposal, parhaps, that should be a 5 part proposal as I clearlly failed by not beeing able to obtain results within time.
And of course if one wants to avaliate only by the results that can be seen outside and considers that no others exist nor than events should be avaliated within their own context, then the logical implication should be to propose a 5 part proposal and I should be clearlly penalized.
I said that I think that changing positions from 2 to 3 levels now that 2 new partners are beeing leted in is dangerous.
In fact that's a Pandora's box. After the precedent taken, all its possible and no one can claim more the defense of starting positions any more and be coherent.
In April I was this close to really get out.
If I'm incompetent than I must assume the total consequence.
I didn't because I don't act on the moment and try always to reflect on the subjects before taking position. But it had it consequences.
That's why I'm only retaining the functions I've been attributed to and don't even touch in what is beeing done unless I'm called upon.
My own aprehensions were made public and if I'm considered worthfull to help, I won't say no nor will I do whatsoever to boyicot any effort.
If the solutions succed or not, will have to do to themselves, to the persons implementing them and to the uncontroled circunstancies arround that always affect whatever is done. And I do, sincerelly hope, that they will succed!
But, as I've said beffore, only time can tell and only time can judge. And it will, for the better and for the worst.
On my own part, whenever I'm not certain or I don't understand something, I don't start just emiting opinions, even having them.
I always listen and I will always change (as I've done so many times in the past) whenever I'm proved to be wrong.
But I have to be proved wrong considering ALL events, not just part of them.
And no one ever will listen me saying that I don't understand something or how something is and then start issuing sentences abount that same issue.
For me, from the beginning, the enterprise was more a question of building something that would allow to have means to be able to work in the new technologies and in the Internet than just a question of gaining money.
Don't you think I don't want or I don't need it! Only I and those who have been living with me know exactelly how much has costed me already in terms of plain money to have what I do have now (which is almost nothing) and the sacrifies I have had to do to mantain it.
Parhaps that is the difference.
I've been arround here all my life.
I've been trying to have access to the Internet since 1992, here in Portugal, in a time when no one otside universities or investigation centers had access to.
And even before the Internet I was arround with the experimental phase of the X-400 email services, and even beffore that with BBSs.
So I'm not one of the latelly arrived to this area.
What I'm saying today is almost the same that I was saying back in 1993-1994 when no one of the others envolved in EV even had hearded of Internet.
That's parhaps the reason why I'm a dinossour, who can tell?
I won't be judge in self cause and that is a principle I wont change even if it is in my own lost.
Thats the reason why I must abstain my self from the 4 part proposal.
The other one, I think that, beeing coherent, I must vote in favor although I can't say its one I completelly agree with. But between both, and to be honest and choerent, I must vote it over the 4 part proposel.
That's what I've said and thats what will be my position in the bailot.
I don't emit positions when I feel that they might lead to some form of coertion but, at the same way, I must make totally clear how I think IN TIME, in the present moment.
This is public enough to acheive that.
Of course no names are or will ever be mentioned, Anyway, they are irrelevant but to the intervenients themselves.
But at the same way I think that the situation is not irrelevant and certainelly will lead to very much more reflection upon it on the near and parhaps not so near future.