Taran, Thinking about Don's comments in disaster management (a field I know *nothing* about, so feel free to shoot me down on this) I'm inclined to think that public image / press / etc becomes an important factor. If this is a closed process, it is open to criticism only in being a closed process...possibly not something that's going to be dragged out into the media every time something happens. However, if this is not a closed process, then you will constantly have reporters digging through the formala, publishing statements after tragedies saying "If the house had been painted green, the firemen would have charged into the blaze to save the woman" ...condemning rescue workers who act within the constraints of the model. This happens anyway, because our media is sensationalist, but if it were linked to a model, a rule-book that says specifically when and how to assess risk, then the result would be an attack on that model itself, no matter what the model was. This would eventually force police forces, fire departments, and other rescue workers to abandon the model completely, because public relations is a *very* big part of their jobs.
I remember seeing an article recently that talked about a person who was in an accident and crawled to the doors of the emergency room, where they died because the ER staff were waiting for an ambulance to come and move the victim indoors. The article was extremely sensationalist, stating that the ER staff didn't budge to help the person because it wasn't in their contract. What do I know about ER's? Nothing, except that they made me wait 6 hours in one before giving me three stitches, once. But the "contract" these employees were held to, and the fact that they upheld it, was targeted in this article. If this were a disaster management model, it would crucified in the same way. And police forces and firefighters may have more to lose in PR than an emergency room. Just my $0.02... Dave. ------------------- Dave A. Chakrabarti Projects Coordinator CTCNet Chicago [EMAIL PROTECTED] (708) 919 1026 ------------------- Taran Rampersad wrote: > Don Cameron wrote: >> Taran Rampersad asks: >> >> >>> Perhaps you could tell us who insisted that some of your code be >>> >> proprietary? >> Hi Taran, >> >> Great to hear from you again and I hope you are well - May I focus on >> your >> query separately to the main thread because the question is legitimate >> however I think something of a tangent... Just to offer mild >> correction, I >> did not state that anyone "insisted that some of my code be proprietary", >> what I in fact wrote was: "The formulae was itself proprietary and >> used with >> the permission of the authors. It was a condition placed on me that the >> formulae not be reverse-engineered" - a not-so-subtle difference as >> I'm sure >> you will agree :-) >> >> The reasons for this, in fact the reasons for any code being made >> proprietary are just as demonstrative of the freedoms we all enjoy as >> OSS. >> We all have the freedom to disclose (OSS), we all have the freedom to >> with-hold (proprietary). I will never tell you about the pillow-talk >> between >> myself and my wife late at night :-) This is my freedom to with-hold; my >> freedom for proprietary content. A basic human right. >> OK, the example is a bit over the top... Nonetheless the point is >> valid. > It certainly is both over the top - which makes it valid. So leaving the > door open for that is important - I don't disagree. Personally, the last > thing I want is a committee deciding what I am too fragile to know > about, but then again - my perspective is over the top. And of course, > that makes it valid as well. > > Secret formulas like this bother me because they are secret. I've done > triage. I've had to make those decisions. I'm not sure that any formula > would cover the scope of what needs to be done, and I'm a firm believer > in transparency and addressing issues... so in your example, while I > understand the point related to people becoming upset about the decision > making algorithm... I find it just a bit more disturbing. Especially > when it comes to human lives. My problem isn't that it is what it is, my > problem is that I don't have any visibility into what it actually is. > > It's quite similar to profiling. It's done. The public whines about it > now and then. But in general, even the people who this works against > don't say much. So, yes, I see your point, but I believe that people are > strong enough to bear visibility into such things - and if they aren't, > they can become so. Understanding how such things happen is an important > part of growth, I think. So without the proprietary/FOSS comparison, I > look at the underlying issue and see a group of people deciding what > they don't want others to know. > > I think people have a right to know. In general, in Emergency Rooms and > in other settings (including a recent death in the family), I've found > people are only as weak as we make them. I don't like weak people. I > like strong, well informed people and I'd rather have a few vocal > interest groups giving the politicians fodder than a secret decision > making process. But that's just me. > _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
