| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 15.07.20 21:16l 936 Lines 41533 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB15258
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V15 258
Path: IW8PGT<IZ3LSV<IR1UAW<IQ5KG<IK1NHL<CX2SA
Sent: 200715/1910Z @:CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM #:35013 [Salto] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB15258
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: AMSAT Open Source Policy (Bruce Perens)
2. Re: AMSAT Open Source Policy (Joseph Armbruster)
3. Re: AMSAT Open Source Policy (Bruce Perens)
4. Election Packages mailed July 14 (Brennan Price)
5. Re: Publications and mailing lists (Brennan Price)
6. Re: Publications and mailing lists (Bruce Perens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:17:01 -0700
From: Bruce Perens <bruce@??????.???>
To: Joseph Armbruster <josepharmbruster@?????.???>
Cc: AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>, "Stephen E. Belter"
<seb@??????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT Open Source Policy
Message-ID:
<CAK2MWOuWMC7ZoRyAhfQe0_+zxu50pWYABR4_yL8VWT==Eg+_+Q@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 7:21 AM Joseph Armbruster <
josepharmbruster@?????.???> wrote:
> You did not really answer the first question: "How does AMSAT benefit
> by pursuing an open source policy?"
Oh, come on, Joseph. Getting out from under ITAR would be a really big deal
for AMSAT, and that is enough of an answer. I can add that a public benefit
non-profit should actually *be* of public benefit, and granting its work to
the public is how it does that. And there is a vast Open Source
collaboration on satellites and radio that AMSAT is mostly not part of.
This has resulted in GNU Radio (Michelle serves on their board) and
complete satellite designs. As I mentioned in another post, there are also
Open Source thruster designs which I support, and having the ability to
change orbit, maintain your orbit, avoid a collision, and deorbit using
them is a big deal.
I had been through a similar discussion with a private company that I
> worked for about a 3D visualization
Yes, but that was a private company. There is way too much private company
thinking around here! We aren't a private company and should not act like
one.
> One comment on what you said about GPL "you use the GPL where you want
> companies to participate more, rather than just take your stuff and
> modify it in private, never returning anything." This is a common
> misunderstanding / mis-representation of what the GPL does.
Ahem. You really do not have to school me about the GPL, and this is sort
of insulting in that way. Yes, I know that there are ways in which
sometimes people don't have to give back. There are also disadvantages to
them if they work that way, one being that they must re-port their version
to every new one released by the public project, if they want the
improvements made by the public project, which are often desirable and
sometimes have security implications.
The fact is that there has been a many-times multiplier of my one month of
evenings creating Busybox and the subsequent work by embedded systems
companies and public projects. I wrote the first 35 commands into Busybox.
It was at 135 the last time I looked, and is probably a lot more now. This
is entirely because of GPL. It also spawned several other projects
including an embedded libc and a program that builds your whole embedded
system for you.
> On the whole protesting of ITAR/EAR and Defense Distributed, when you say
> the Federal Government lost, from a practical standpoint, that's not really
> true.
And not entirely relevant to AMSAT, since we are not making firearms and
don't have *states* chomping at the bit to sue us. We have an entirely
Federal issue. I know legal hardship very well, having just won a
GPL-related suit. But the fact is that the path I laid out explicitly
follows the law and has little chance of legal hardship.
> Because if the wrong politically-motivated person in the Department of
> Whatever (or friend of a girlfriend of a mistress of whomever) gets an
> itch, they can make your life a living hell.
Unfortunately this is true whatever strategy AMSAT takes, and the secretive
nature we currently have is NOT protective! The ITAR strategy I laid out
would be more protective, since it uses a very clear carve-out to take our
work outside of the scope of ITAR.
Thanks
Bruce
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:52:34 -0400
From: Joseph Armbruster <josepharmbruster@?????.???>
To: Bruce Perens <bruce@??????.???>
Cc: AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>, "Stephen E. Belter"
<seb@??????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT Open Source Policy
Message-ID:
<CADkz4c-1zQBFv-sL6QFPBZCDrkuAi3RsDAFwT7x+jXp=2Rs2bA@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Bruce,
I've heard the carve-out mentioned in the past but i'm not entirely
certain about the details. Can you explain how it works and provide
any input you (or others) may have received from the DDTC or DOS to
substantiate this? From what i've heard in the past and just read
from your writings, it goes something like this:
IF information is "published in a journal" (placed in the public domain?)
THEN the information is no longer subject to ITAR
You're not the only person I have heard mention this but it sounds
like you may have information that could at least help me and others
understand exactly how it works, because I honestly have no clue.
I've heard others within AMSAT mention it in the past but there's
always been reasonable shadows of doubt over whether or not it's valid
or not.
And just for clarification, I did not intend to "school" you on GPL
nor insult you in any way with my statements about it. I know nothing
about your professional or technical career, experience with software
licensing / etc... but will try to look up your resume now. All
schooling aside, what I said is in fact the way that it is. There is
no give-back requirement in GPL. The terms only apply to those to
whom the work is conveyed. There is no guarantee that once a
GPL-sourced code base is placed into the public sphere, that anyone
who takes it and edits it will return their changes to the source.
That's not to say that people who do contribute to OSS, aren't doing a
good thing, obviously that's the entire spirit of it.
Joseph Armbruster
KJ4JIO
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 1:17 PM Bruce Perens <bruce@??????.???> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 7:21 AM Joseph Armbruster
<josepharmbruster@?????.???> wrote:
>>
>> You did not really answer the first question: "How does AMSAT benefit
>> by pursuing an open source policy?"
>
>
> Oh, come on, Joseph. Getting out from under ITAR would be a really big
deal for AMSAT, and that is enough of an answer. I can add that a public
benefit non-profit should actually be of public benefit, and granting its
work to the public is how it does that. And there is a vast Open Source
collaboration on satellites and radio that AMSAT is mostly not part of. This
has resulted in GNU Radio (Michelle serves on their board) and complete
satellite designs. As I mentioned in another post, there are also Open
Source thruster designs which I support, and having the ability to change
orbit, maintain your orbit, avoid a collision, and deorbit using them is a
big deal.
>
>> I had been through a similar discussion with a private company that I
>> worked for about a 3D visualization
>
>
> Yes, but that was a private company. There is way too much private company
thinking around here! We aren't a private company and should not act like one.
>
>>
>> One comment on what you said about GPL "you use the GPL where you want
>> companies to participate more, rather than just take your stuff and
>> modify it in private, never returning anything." This is a common
>> misunderstanding / mis-representation of what the GPL does.
>
>
> Ahem. You really do not have to school me about the GPL, and this is sort
of insulting in that way. Yes, I know that there are ways in which sometimes
people don't have to give back. There are also disadvantages to them if they
work that way, one being that they must re-port their version to every new
one released by the public project, if they want the improvements made by
the public project, which are often desirable and sometimes have security
implications.
>
> The fact is that there has been a many-times multiplier of my one month of
evenings creating Busybox and the subsequent work by embedded systems
companies and public projects. I wrote the first 35 commands into Busybox.
It was at 135 the last time I looked, and is probably a lot more now. This
is entirely because of GPL. It also spawned several other projects including
an embedded libc and a program that builds your whole embedded system for you.
>
>
>>
>> On the whole protesting of ITAR/EAR and Defense Distributed, when you say
the Federal Government lost, from a practical standpoint, that's not really
true.
>
>
> And not entirely relevant to AMSAT, since we are not making firearms and
don't have states chomping at the bit to sue us. We have an entirely Federal
issue. I know legal hardship very well, having just won a GPL-related suit.
But the fact is that the path I laid out explicitly follows the law and has
little chance of legal hardship.
>
>>
>> Because if the wrong politically-motivated person in the Department of
Whatever (or friend of a girlfriend of a mistress of whomever) gets an itch,
they can make your life a living hell.
>
>
> Unfortunately this is true whatever strategy AMSAT takes, and the
secretive nature we currently have is NOT protective! The ITAR strategy I
laid out would be more protective, since it uses a very clear carve-out to
take our work outside of the scope of ITAR.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:06:55 -0700
From: Bruce Perens <bruce@??????.???>
To: Joseph Armbruster <josepharmbruster@?????.???>
Cc: AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>, "Stephen E. Belter"
<seb@??????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT Open Source Policy
Message-ID:
<CAK2MWOuHQhS9n9L8V4cTZTtZ_N5G27my_KdNX6qS34BEvOd0aQ@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>
> I've heard the carve-out mentioned in the past but i'm not entirely
> certain about the details.
Maybe I'm weird, but I found ITAR 120 pretty easy to read. It bothers me
that more people do not read law, since it is a framework they must live
within. Of course there are complications like case law that make this a
never-ending project.
I am going entirely by the published law in ITAR 121. DoD is often loath to
issue determinations, and we continue to work on that, but the law is clear
enough. This is all work I wrote for ORI and is on their web site:
ITAR is the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations. The sections of
ITAR that concern us are 120
<https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/ITAR_Pa
rt_120.pdf>
and 121
<https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/ITAR_Pa
rt_121.pdf>.
Various
technologies are declared ?munitions? which can not be exported to nations
on an ?embargoed list?, for example North Korea.
All items which are subject to our international collaborations carried out
over the Internet are technical data under ITAR. This includes software as
well as other information. Our ITAR strategy does not apply to physical
objects such as space satellites, but to their designs and the software
which is part of them, which are techical data under ITAR. We can expect to
deal with ITAR and EAR when physical objects are transferred to individuals
other than U.S. nationals or across national borders.
We must not not provide defense services. Specifically, we do not answer
questions or perform any requested services for individuals who
are identified as asking for information to use for a military purpose for
any nation, including the United States ? since we must comply with the
export regulations of many nations other than the U.S.
ITAR includes a carve-out for ?Public Domain? which we make use of. First,
let?s look at the ITAR text and how it defines what it restricts:
? 120.2 Designation of defense articles and defense services.
The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(a) and 2794(7)) provides that
the President shall designate the articles and services deemed to be defense
articles and defense services for purposes of this subchapter. The items so
designated constitute the United States Munitions List and are specified in
part 121 of this subchapter.
?
? 120.6 Defense article. Defense article means any item or technical
data designated
in ?121.1 of this subchapter. The policy described in ?120.3 is applicable
to designations of additional items. This term includes technical data
recorded or stored in any physical form, models, mockups or other items
that reveal technical data directly relating to items designated in ?121.1
of this subchapter.
?
120.10(a) Technical data means, for purposes of this subchapter:
?
120.10(a)(5) This definition does not include information concerning
general scientific, mathematical or engineering principles commonly taught
in schools, colleges and universities *or *information in the public domain
as defined in ?120.11.
*?*
? 120.11 Public domain.
(a) Public domain means information which is published and which is
generally accessible or available to the public:
(1) Through sales at newsstands and bookstores;
(2) Through subscriptions which are available without restriction to any
individual who desires to obtain or purchase the published information;
(3) Through second class mailing privileges granted by the U.S. Government;
(4) At libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain
documents;
5) Through patents available at any patent office;
(6) Through unlimited distribution at a conference, meeting, seminar,
trade show or exhibition, generally accessible to the public, in the United
States;
(7) Through public release (i.e., unlimited distribution) in any form
(e.g., not necessarily in published form) after approval by the cognizant
U.S. government department or agency (see also ?125.4(b)(13) of this
subchapter);
(8) Through fundamental research in science and engineering at accredited
institutions of higher learning in the U.S. where the resulting information
is ordinarily published and shared broadly in the scientific community.
Fundamental research is defined to mean basic and applied research in
science and engineering where the resulting information is ordinarily
published and shared broadly within the scientific community, as
distinguished from research the results of which are restricted for
proprietary reasons or specific U.S. Government access and dissemination
controls.
University research will not be considered fundamental research if:
(i) The University or its researchers accept other restrictions on
publication of scientific and technical information resulting from the
project or activity, or
(ii) The research is funded by the U.S. Government and specific access and
dissemination controls protecting information resulting from the research
are applicable.
?
So, according to ITAR, public knowledge is not subject to regulation under
ITAR. The meaning of the words ?Public Domain?, as used in ITAR, is that
knowledge is known to the public, rather than that copyrights have been
abandoned and that material has been dedicated to the public domain in a
copyright sense.
ORI?s general method of making sure that all research and development is
public knowledge is to keep it visible to the public via our web site, both
during and after development. Updates are often on a daily basis, and
developers are instructed not to allow any development to remain invisible
to the public for long. Similarly, the teams collaborate using online
discussion which is archived and available for anyone to read as it happens.
However, ITAR 120.11 doesn?t explicitly include publication on a web site
as a means of assuring knowledge is in the public domain (EAR does). ITAR
specifies a list of activities which make knowledge public, many of which
we can perform.
Let?s look at the individual means of placing technical information in the
public domain as spelled out in ITAR 120.11. Consider that we make a physical
distribution, say a Blu-Ray disc or USB stick, of all of our software and
other content. ITAR then allows us to make this public domain:
(1) Through sales at newsstands and bookstores;
If we sell (or give away) our physical distribution through a newsstand or
a bookstore, we are in compliance with ITAR 120.11(a)(1). The material in
the distribution is considered to be in the public domain under ITAR
120.11, and is not subject to regulation under ITAR. Amazon.com is a
bookstore, perhaps the world?s most popular. So, we could make our physical
distribution available for sale by Amazon.
(2) Through subscriptions which are available without restriction to any
individual who desires to obtain or purchase the published information;
I would argue that subscriptions to access our web site satisfy this term.
However, we can also take the physical distribution and send it to
subscribers who have paid a fee for that service.
(3) Through second class mailing privileges granted by the U.S. Government;
Why won?t first-class mail work? Because second-class mail was used for
periodical publications and the United States Postal Service has a
qualification process to allow periodicals to make use of it.
The Postal Service is an ?establishment of the executive branch of
the Government of the United States?, under 39 U.S.C. ? 201, as it is
controlled by Presidential appointees and the Postmaster General (a federal
appointee).
Today the name ?second-class mail? has changed to ?periodical mail?.
Periodical mail requires printed material, and a schedule at least
quarterly, an application fee and some forms (some of which must be filed
periodically). It does allow incidental material to be in another medium
such as a Blu-Ray disc or USB stick. So, we could send out a quarterly
journal with printed papers, including our physical distribution as above.
(4) At libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain
documents;
We could fulfill this requirement by submitting our physical distribution
to the *Library of Congress, *and arranging for it to be distributed by
other libraries.
But arguably, if a library offers access to the web, and can thus access
our web site, that would fulfill this requirement.
?
(6) Through unlimited distribution at a conference, meeting, seminar,
trade show or exhibition, generally accessible to the public, in the United
States;
This applies to our technical presentations. Perhaps we could also arrange
to distribute our physical distribution to all of the attendees of such a
conference.
And this section could also apply to *online *meetings, seminars, and
exhibitions, as long as they are available in the United States.
?
So, this gives us five methods through which we can easily place our work
formally in the Public Domain, as defined by ITAR, as well as the continual
publication of our technical data on our web site. If we do these things
periodically, publish new material on our web site as close to instantly as
possible, follow a policy not to perform defense services or distribute
physical objects to certain people or nations, we can operate an Open
Source collaboration internationally for information that would otherwise
be restricted under ITAR.
EAR Strategy
The text of the Export Administration Regulations is here
<https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/regulations/export-administration-regulatio
ns-ear>.
We are concerned with keeping our work out of EAR definition ?subject to
the EAR?, which covers all things which are regulated under EAR. Here are
the regulations concerning ?subject to the EAR? and published material.
They contain a similar carve-out to ITAR regarding published material.
? 734.2 SUBJECT TO THE EAR
(a) Subject to the EAR ? Definition
(1) ?Subject to the EAR? is a term used in the EAR to describe those items
and activities over which BIS exercises regulatory jurisdiction under the
EAR. Conversely, items and activities that are not subject to the EAR are
outside the regulatory jurisdiction of the EAR and are not affected by
these regulations. The items and activities subject to the EAR are
described in ?734.2 through ?734.5 of this part. You should review the
Commerce Control List (CCL) and any applicable parts of the EAR to
determine whether an item or activity is subject to the EAR. However, if
you need help in determining whether an item or activity is subject to the
EAR, see ?734.6 of this part. Publicly available technology and software
not subject to the EAR are described in ?734.7 through ?734.11 and
Supplement No. 1 to this part.
?
? 734.7 PUBLISHED
(a) Except as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, unclassified
?technology? or ?software? is ?published,? and is thus not ?technology? or
?software? subject to the EAR, when it has been made available to the
public without restrictions upon its further dissemination such as through
any of the following:
(1) Subscriptions available without restriction to any individual who
desires to obtain or purchase the published information;
(2) Libraries or other public collections that are open and available to
the public, and from which the public can obtain tangible or intangible
documents;
(3) Unlimited distribution at a conference, meeting, seminar, trade show,
or exhibition, generally accessible to the interested public;
(4) Public dissemination (i.e., unlimited distribution) in any form (e.g.,
not necessarily in published form), including posting on the Internet on
sites available to the public; or
(5) Submission of a written composition, manuscript, presentation,
computer-readable dataset, formula, imagery, algorithms, or some other
representation of knowledge with the intention that such information will
be made
publicly available if accepted for publication or presentation:
(i) To domestic or foreign co-authors, editors, or reviewers of journals,
magazines, newspapers or trade publications;
(ii) To researchers conducting fundamental research; or
(iii) To organizers of open conferences or other open gatherings.
(b) Published encryption software classified under ECCN 5D002 remains
subject to the EAR unless it is publicly available encryption object code
software classified under ECCN 5D002 and the corresponding source code
meets the criteria specified in ? 742.15(b) of the EAR.
?
742.15(b) Publicly available encryption source code
(1) Scope and eligibility.
Subject to the notification requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of
this section, publicly available (see ? 734.3(b)(3) of the EAR) encryption
source code classified under ECCN 5D002 is not subject to the EAR.
Such source code is publicly available even if it is subject to an express
agreement for the payment of a licensing fee or royalty for commercial
production or sale of any product developed using the source code.
(2) Notification requirement. You must notify BIS and the ENC Encryption
RequestCoordinator via e-mail of the Internet location
(e.g., URL or Internet address) of the publicly available encryption source
code classified under ECCN 5D002 or provide each of them a copy of the
publicly available encryption source code. If you update or modify the
source code, you must also provide additional copies to each of them each
time the cryptographic functionality of the source code is updated or
modified. In addition, if you posted the source code on the Internet, you
must notify BIS and the ENC Encryption Request Coordinator each time the
Internet location is changed, but you are not required to notify them of
updates or modifications made to the encryption source code at the
previously notified location. In all instances, submit the notification or
copy to crypt@???.???.??? and to enc@???.???.
?
Since EAR allows publication on a web site under 734.7(a)(4), we can easily
make sure that all of our work but cryptographic software is not subject to
the EAR. Development of cryptography is not specifically a goal of ORI, and
is being carried out well by other Open Source projects, for example
OpenSSL and GNU TLS. However, it is expected that such software will be
included in our projects. The main reason is that all popular web browsers
are being programmed to deprecate or reject unencrypted web sites for ample
security reasons. And of course our software can be expected to make use of
authorization, authentication, and communication facilities for which
encryption is useful for critical.
In order to make sure that our encryption software qualifies as not subject
to the EAR, we will make the email notifications required under
742.15(b)(2). - This may be obsolete - I think the government announced
that encryption was no longer under the EAR but I haven't looked carefully,
and given that the current administration doesn't like end-to-end
encryption in social networks, laws may change.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:19:41 +0000 (UTC)
From: Brennan Price <brennanprice@???????.???>
To: AMSAT BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Election Packages mailed July 14
Message-ID: <1080983828.1888423.1594837181502@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
The ballots, candidate statements, and return envelopes for the 2020 AMSAT
Board of Directors Election were prepared by Paladin Commercial Printing of
Newington, Connecticut. Paladin mailed the packages from Hartford,
Connecticut, on Tuesday, July 14, to members of record on July 1.?
Non-US addresses were sent first class (the only option for overseas). US
addresses were sent presorted standard, which is routine for mail that
requires a two-way response time measured in weeks, as this does.?
Allowing for postal delivery standards and guard time, the Secretary will
not consider a ballot as lost in post any earlier than August 12?(four weeks
after the mailing). This timing permits a replacement ballot to be mailed
first class in both directions, even internationally, with time to spare
under prevailing postal delivery standards.
Paladin has shipped materials for 100 blank election packages to me. I will
use these materials to assemble and mail replacement or substitute packages
as necessary. These requests and packages will be tracked and accounted
against the voter list and returned ballots to guard against duplicates, and
will be identifiable against the package mailed by Paladin for further
verification and accounting by the tellers. Members desiring a replacement
ballot package should contact me?no earlier than August 12.
The package is clearly labeled as election-related and contains:
1) An instruction and ballot sheet, with the ballot perforated,
2) A sheet of candidate statements, and
3) A No 9 return envelope, which bears the address to which ballots should
be returned and the member's name and address for verification against the
voter list and any replacement ballot requests.
Secrecy at the time of counting will be maintained by separating the ballot
from the envelope without inspection, placing the ballot in a receptacle,
and scrutinizing the ballots after all have been separated from the envelopes.
Ballots should be returned in the return envelopes provided to arrive at the
designated Post Office Box in Vienna, Virginia, by 5 p.m. Thursday,
September 15, 2020. Separation of the ballots from the envelopes and
counting will occur as soon thereafter as practicable, and no later than
September 30.
73,
Brennan Price, N4QX
Secretary
Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:46:49 +0000 (UTC)
From: Brennan Price <brennanprice@???????.???>
To: Bruce Perens <bruce@??????.???>
Cc: AMSAT BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Publications and mailing lists
Message-ID: <857370158.1894141.1594838809413@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Bruce,
There is no bylaw guidance on point here, so much of this falls to the
interaction between and practices of the candidates of the day and the
Secretary of the day.
In this particular case, I finished verification of nominations on June 20
and asked for candidate statements by June 29. All candidates substantially
complied with the timing I requested.
>From that point, there are two relevant events that occur on different
schedules: access to corporation mailing lists for the candidates, and the
layout of the candidate statements to accompany the ballot packages.
The corporation mailing list was offered to the candidates on July 3 (with
individual candidates accepting either immediately or soon after), after
checking to ensure that the voter list provided to Paladin met Paladin's
requirements and matched the list offered to the candidates.?
The candidate statements required typesetting (by me--Paladin simply printed
the finished product), which was concluded July 5. Typeset statements were
sent to the candidates for proofing, and released for printing by me on July
6.
Whether mailings a candidate may choose to undertake or commission arrive at
a member's address before the ballot arrives depends on whatever actions
(with the safeguards discussed below) the candidates have taken since July
3. I am not privy to any candidate's plans in this regard and don't wish to
be.
On the other hand, it is not possible for the candidate statements to arrive
later than the ballot, as they were sent in the same package on July 14.
73 de Brennan N4QX
On Monday, July 13, 2020, 11:23:15 PM EDT, Bruce Perens <bruce@??????.???>
wrote:
Brennan,
Thank you very much for this discussion, and please bear with me for one
more question. How much time are the candidates given to prepare, print, and
have mailed their campaign documents between the time that AMSAT informs
them that it ratifies their candidacy, and the time that the ballots are
mailed?
It seems very likely that some members will have voted before they could
possibly receive the mailed campaign information.
Thanks
Bruce
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 7:44 PM Brennan Price via AMSAT-BB
<amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
> I generally don't intend to engage in the ongoing discussion s beyond an
announcement on process once the ballots are mailed (which they will be,
tomorrow or Wednesday, on or before the date specified in the bylaws), but I
do want to address what the Bylaws say about the organization's publications
and mailing lists, as I think (perhaps na?vely) that would be helpful.
> Article III Section 3 provides, in relevant part:
> <<Duly nominated and eligible candidates shall be afforded equal
opportunity to circulate statements of their qualifications and positions to
the Members through the corporation?s publications and shall have use of the
corporation?s mailing lists for election-related purposes at no cost to the
corporation.>>
> The production and publication schedule of the AMSAT Journal does not
render it a suitable vehicle for candidate statements given the
bylaws-mandated nomination and election timing. The absence of campaign
statements from the Journal is entirely consistent with the Bylaws: no
opportunity for any candidate is inherently equal opportunity for all
candidates.
> Traditionally, the organization has used the ballot mailing itself the
relevant publication, and this is the approach that will be taken this year.
The?"equal opportunity" requirement and paper format (not to mention common
practice across multiple organization's) necessitates a target word count,
balanced to the extent possible against letting candidates have their say.
All candidates met or came close to meeting the target I suggested (350
words), with the most long-winded exceeding by 14 words according to the
Word 2016 word counter. Upon review, I offered the remaining candidates the
chance to expand up to 364 words. None of them took the offer. All six
statements will accompany the ballot, and none of them required editorial
work beyond the correction of a repeated word and an excess space. I thank
the candidates for making that part of the job easy.?
> I have construed the mailing list as the postal mailing list, which has
been offered to each candidate (and thus far, five of the six have accepted
the list). Data protection regulations require the corporation to take
reasonable efforts to safeguard personally identifiable information, and
candidates accepting the list have agreed to support those efforts by
limiting use of the list for the "election-related purposes" specified in
the bylaws.?Two results follow:
> 1) There are no election-related purposes once the election ends.
Accordingly, candidates have agreed to discard the list after the election.
> 2) It is common to engage agents for mailing and postage purposes. I will
not hyper-officiate any candidate's choice to do so, but candidates have
agreed that any agent will have access to the list only for the time
necessary to execute the mailing and will be required by the candidate to
discard it afterwards.
> This is a reasonable effort to safeguard in light of the bylaws
requirement for candidate access to mailing lists, which establishes an
expectation (however infrequently it came to fruition in past) that members
may receive election-related postal mail.?
> I think that's enough for now.?
> 73,Brennan Price, N4QXSecretary, AMSAT
>
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@?????.???. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:56:55 -0700
From: Bruce Perens <bruce@??????.???>
To: Brennan Price <brennanprice@???????.???>
Cc: AMSAT BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Publications and mailing lists
Message-ID:
<CAK2MWOtmo1k=T8K=0X9-_sUb1epPoM1gBZ9HAO9E3KHOGp8c5g@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Brennan,
Thank you very much. The election bylaws do not provide properly for
canvassing. I think the assumption was that the candidates would be able to
do that in AMSAT's periodicals, but the election dates specified in the
bylaws and the periodical lay-out schedule could never have aligned, as you
previously observed.
Thanks
Bruce
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:46 AM Brennan Price <brennanprice@???????.???>
wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> There is no bylaw guidance on point here, so much of this falls to the
> interaction between and practices of the candidates of the day and the
> Secretary of the day.
>
> In this particular case, I finished verification of nominations on June 20
> and asked for candidate statements by June 29. All candidates substantially
> complied with the timing I requested.
>
> From that point, there are two relevant events that occur on different
> schedules: access to corporation mailing lists for the candidates, and the
> layout of the candidate statements to accompany the ballot packages.
>
> The corporation mailing list was offered to the candidates on July 3 (with
> individual candidates accepting either immediately or soon after), after
> checking to ensure that the voter list provided to Paladin met Paladin's
> requirements and matched the list offered to the candidates.
>
> The candidate statements required typesetting (by me--Paladin simply
> printed the finished product), which was concluded July 5. Typeset
> statements were sent to the candidates for proofing, and released for
> printing by me on July 6.
>
> Whether mailings a candidate may choose to undertake or commission arrive
> at a member's address before the ballot arrives depends on whatever actions
> (with the safeguards discussed below) the candidates have taken since July
> 3. I am not privy to any candidate's plans in this regard and don't wish to
> be.
>
> On the other hand, it is not possible for the candidate statements to
> arrive later than the ballot, as they were sent in the same package on July
> 14.
>
> 73 de Brennan N4QX
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 13, 2020, 11:23:15 PM EDT, Bruce Perens <bruce@??????.???>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Brennan,
>
> Thank you very much for this discussion, and please bear with me for one
> more question. How much time are the candidates given to prepare, print,
> and have mailed their campaign documents between the time that AMSAT
> informs them that it ratifies their candidacy, and the time that the
> ballots are mailed?
>
> It seems very likely that some members will have voted before they could
> possibly receive the mailed campaign information.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 7:44 PM Brennan Price via AMSAT-BB <
> amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
> > I generally don't intend to engage in the ongoing discussion s beyond an
> announcement on process once the ballots are mailed (which they will be,
> tomorrow or Wednesday, on or before the date specified in the bylaws), but
> I do want to address what the Bylaws say about the organization's
> publications and mailing lists, as I think (perhaps na?vely) that would be
> helpful.
> > Article III Section 3 provides, in relevant part:
> > <<Duly nominated and eligible candidates shall be afforded equal
> opportunity to circulate statements of their qualifications and positions
> to the Members through the corporation?s publications and shall have use of
> the corporation?s mailing lists for election-related purposes at no cost to
> the corporation.>>
> > The production and publication schedule of the AMSAT Journal does not
> render it a suitable vehicle for candidate statements given the
> bylaws-mandated nomination and election timing. The absence of campaign
> statements from the Journal is entirely consistent with the Bylaws: no
> opportunity for any candidate is inherently equal opportunity for all
> candidates.
> > Traditionally, the organization has used the ballot mailing itself the
> relevant publication, and this is the approach that will be taken this
> year. The "equal opportunity" requirement and paper format (not to mention
> common practice across multiple organization's) necessitates a target word
> count, balanced to the extent possible against letting candidates have
> their say. All candidates met or came close to meeting the target I
> suggested (350 words), with the most long-winded exceeding by 14 words
> according to the Word 2016 word counter. Upon review, I offered the
> remaining candidates the chance to expand up to 364 words. None of them
> took the offer. All six statements will accompany the ballot, and none of
> them required editorial work beyond the correction of a repeated word and
> an excess space. I thank the candidates for making that part of the job
> easy.
> > I have construed the mailing list as the postal mailing list, which has
> been offered to each candidate (and thus far, five of the six have accepted
> the list). Data protection regulations require the corporation to take
> reasonable efforts to safeguard personally identifiable information, and
> candidates accepting the list have agreed to support those efforts by
> limiting use of the list for the "election-related purposes" specified in
> the bylaws. Two results follow:
> > 1) There are no election-related purposes once the election ends.
> Accordingly, candidates have agreed to discard the list after the election.
> > 2) It is common to engage agents for mailing and postage purposes. I
> will not hyper-officiate any candidate's choice to do so, but candidates
> have agreed that any agent will have access to the list only for the time
> necessary to execute the mailing and will be required by the candidate to
> discard it afterwards.
> > This is a reasonable effort to safeguard in light of the bylaws
> requirement for candidate access to mailing lists, which establishes an
> expectation (however infrequently it came to fruition in past) that members
> may receive election-related postal mail.
> > I think that's enough for now.
> > 73,Brennan Price, N4QXSecretary, AMSAT
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sent via AMSAT-BB@?????.???. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> > to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
> Opinions expressed
> > are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
> AMSAT-NA.
> > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
> program!
> > Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> >
> >
>
--
Bruce Perens - CEO at stealth startup. I'll tell you what it is eventually
:-)
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb@?????.???.
AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide
without requiring membership. Opinions expressed
are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 15, Issue 258
*****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
