(I redirected to gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org. Who sent this to Lyris @ listserv.unc.edu? That server is broken, the list there is defunct. I have been trying to delete the list there for months, but the software is perpetually non-responsive) This will probably be my last response to Jon. Clearly, some people can't take "yes, go for it!" as an answer. Jon wants to tell other people how they should do things, but is unwilling to make things happen himself. He insists there is a "right" way of doing things, and belittles the efforts of those who don't fit his notions. My view is that Jon will not be content until all the people working on PG are ousted, in favor of his preferred organization, governance, fundraising, production rules, and collection guidelines. This is not going to happen anytime soon, and other than being critical of the status quo, Jon has contributed nothing towards making it happen anyway. Instead, Jon has repeatedly been offered the ability -- with support and encouragement -- to create the organization or content he so strongly desires. Some people can't take "yes" for an answer, or are not content with the ability to control their own domain without controlling others. A few more comments: On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 01:35:04PM -0700, Jon Noring wrote:
Greg Newby wrote:
I have only a few brief things to say about this. Jon, and other interested persons, are very much welcome to start their own projects, sub-projects or related activities to pursue this agenda, or other agendas. We (the messy ones) will provide encouragement and support.
We have pretty extensive wording on this philosophy and encouragement in the "FAQ" items Michael and I wrote, online at
I urge all the PG people reading this to read Michael Hart's statement of the principles of PG governance given in
http://www.gutenberg.org/about/faq1
(Notice the date of it from June, and edited in October, after much of the discussion about the organization and governance of PG. As far as I know, this was silently put up without any announcement to the group.)
Was this statement of principles run by the actual owners of PG, the thousands and thousands of volunteers who have donated their untold hours of time to further Project Gutenberg? Did they get a chance to discuss and approve of this statement?
There were announcements with requests for feedback in about 6 *months* of weekly & monthly newsletters, with advance copies going back to around May. There was a posting to the front page of gutenberg.org, for months and months. There were at least a few mentions on gutvol-d.
Or is PG a "benevolent" dictatorship, where the volunteers-at-large are not given any real say?
You know better.
So much for democracy and decentralization, where "less is more." (Orwell?)
I see PG primarily as a meritocracy. Always, the pattern is to enable, empower, support and encourage those who want to do things to further the mission - or related activities. The people who do the most are the most active in shaping policy and future direction. Your insinuation that there are central power brokers who are insulated from the many people who are contributing is inconsistent with how things -- *all* things -- get done.
Who owns Project Gutenberg, anyway? Until that is clarified, nothing can be resolved.
You know the answer to this, too. You are simply trying to stir up discontent and create an "us vs. them" atmosphere. For those who, unlike Jon, don't know: visit http://gutenberg.org/fundraising for a quick rundown. An even quicker rundown: - Michael created Project Gutenberg, and owns the trademarked name, "Project Gutenberg" - PGLAF was formed in 2001 as the legal entity that operates Project Gutenberg - PGLAF has four board members, including me. I'm also the CEO. - I am a volunteer for PGLAF, and have worked with PG since 1992. The extent to which Michael, or I, or PGLAF, has sway over the daily activities of PG is limited. Set direction: yes. Control some of the technologies: to some extent. Get people to do stuff: only as they agree & desire. The ability of Jon or anyone else to take leadership and make things happen is just as strong as mine, or anyone's. Flinging mud because so few people subscribe to your view of reality is certainly not going to create progress towards your goals.
Finally and most importantly, I utterly reject Jon's accusation that the lack of source matter or other metadata (or formatting, or anything else) makes the Project Gutenberg content of today or yesterday "corrupt."
Let me clarify (again) below, what I wrote in a separate message. You may still reject it, but PG's past carelessness and looseness leads to legitimate questions about the accuracy and acceptance of the pre-DP- era texts. "Corrupt" may be a strong word (and inaccurate), but not placing "textual integrity" as #1 (including the perception of textual integrity) is simply wrong. Note that perceptions are just as real as reality itself.
I take it PG's official position, then, is that PG will continue with the policy of not requiring the source information to be included in the metadata associated with each PG text? If this policy is to
Yes. There is very little that is required, and as the FAQs mentioned above say quite clearly, we intend to keep it that way.
continue, why? If this policy been changed, then that calls into question those texts where the pedigree is unknown.
Question them all you want. Or don't even read them. But if you want to fix them, get started, rather than talking about careless, inaccuracy, lack of textual integrity, etc. As I mentioned, I'm tired of saying "yes" to you, and then having you argue about it. You have all the freedom you could possibly want to do things your way. What you cannot have is control of the past or present of PG.
I'm pretty certain that the vast, overwhelming majority of PG volunteers who do take a position either way on this issue want the full source information to be included in the metadata.
As I said in the followup clarification:
"A clarification...
"Note that certainly any third-party can attempt to verify the authenticity of a PG text even if the source information is not known and no scans are given. However, not giving the source work (and not making the scans immediately available), the third-party has a much more difficult time in verifying the text.
You are envisioning frustrated scholars and others who care about such things. Those are not our target audience, and never have been. While it's likely that some such scholars have "turned off" to PG, I can tell you that there are close to zero requests for such pedigree information that come in on a monthly basis. In short, you are trying to portray your pet peeve as a universal truth, desired by all. First, again (and as stated in literally *every* PG header, for decades): we do not try to keep our books in accord with any particular print edition. We are not catering to scholars who care about particular dead trees sources. Second, I do not accept your idea that this is a major impediment to use and acceptance by scholars, or anyone else. This is pure speculation on your part (regardless of whether it's backed up by a few personal stories), and counter-indicated by the uses and support requests we hear about. Finally, and perhaps most importantly from your point of view, I'm still saying "yes," not "no." I will be perfectly happy, overjoyed even, to have better tracking of source information, richer markup, and available scans for more of our eBooks. I expect that part of our cataloging discussion outcomes will be better facilities for doing this -- as will the outcomes of the PGTEI markup. But as I keep saying, (a) the lack of pedigree, scans, etc. are not going to stop us from adding submitted eBooks; (b) people who want to retroactively work on existing eBooks are welcome to do so.
"PG, by identifying the source document, *and* providing scans, adds a lot of credibility (and greater usability) of the digitized texts it produces and distributes. This action effectively says: "We are proud of our work, and stand behind it fully. We even provide you, the user, with full information about its pedigree, and the original page scans are available for your use and easy verification."
Once again, you are belittling the efforts of everyone who created these works. Did you ever hear the story about flies, honey & vinegar?
"Of course, it also aids in copyright clearance having the original scans and full source information available. Scholars and researchers, too, will now find the collection to be sufficiently authoritative for their purposes, where now it is NOT. If PG wishes to become Big League, it has to begin playing Big League ball."
Your view of Big League ball for eBooks seems to include the following: - stating that all the work of past & current volunteers is crap. Or was it just "corrupt," or "careless?" Or "loose" and "messy?" - dictating that all new content from all sources must include pedigree information and scans, and may only remain true to the printed dead trees edition - only accept complete markup allowing for re-creation of the original printed word In my final words, I again encourage you to start your own effort to make such things happen. Use the PG mailing lists & newsletter to solicit like-minded participants. Work with DP to spin off your own projects there, or your own independent DP-like effort. Play in the big league. Cater to scholars. Include only the works you think pass muster. Build your own constituency. Meanwhile, you might want to review the documents in http://gutenberg.org/about and see again why your efforts to belittle past efforts or pursue your agenda to restrict current activities are rejected. -- Greg