If someone threatens you, do you keep that a secret, or do you tell the world?

Why should ORA/CMP requuire that their threats not be publicly known? Do they consider their threats indefensible to the public eye? Apparently.

Web 2.0 is not important. In fact, it doesn’t even exist. It’s just a shorthand term that people use to describe up-to-date interactive web sites. That’s all.

Lots of folks like IT@Cork and O’Reilly have conferences about the web. People are upset because O’Reilly’s partners have demanded that IT@Cork change the name of their conference. They are claiming control of the use of the term Web 2.0 in the title of any live event. Many folks think that claim is silly and should be withdrawn.

This drew lots of attention, in part, due to O’Reilly having worked to associate Web 2.0 and themselves with concepts like openness and sharing, and because Tim O’Reilly and his company have always been highly respected for their insight and integrity. These actions seemed very out-of-line with all that.

That was my attempt at putting the Web 2.0 kerfuffle in a nutshell. Hopefully Karen’s veins are still intact.

What the fuck is Web 2.0 and why is it important?

Seriously, I’ve been trying to follow this cos it seems to be causing such a storm, but I truly don’t understand what it is, why you’re having a conference about it, why those O’Reilly people got so upset…..I’m just a bit whaaaaaa’?

Obviously I’m assuming it’s some computer/technology….yoke….but that’s as far as I got..all that computer stuff sends me into a coma, but seeing as it’s caused such a hullabullo, I wouldn’t mind knowing what it’s all about.

Can anyone fill me in? In non technical terms that won’t have me slitting my own wrists with boredom?

Thanks!

Ps: Tom, congratulations on the birth of Enrique, he’s a little dote. Also, I thought your apology was very dignified, well done.

Now that you and Tim have graciously put aside your points of contention, I would like to point out that I have noticed you have been using my name in your promotional material. I would like to point out that Shel israel is my name and I have been using it for more than 50 years. All rights …

Oh nevermind. I look forward to being part f this great conference you are producing. I just wish you could come up with a flashier name.

If only the over-reaching buzz-mark protectors had responded in such a way, rather
than: “Were sorry, although we have no need to be, due the following
reasons…” and “I apologize and ask that he apologize to me.” Things
may not have gotten so ugly. O’Reilly fans like me might feel less betrayed.
O’Reilly’s ham-fisted response is what really frothed up the storm.

I was disappointed in Tim’s response. My reply to Tim included the following
request: “Convince CMP to withdraw any claim other than your actual conference
title “Web 2.0 Conference.” Any other claim is very weak and clearly offensive to
many.”

Of course they also need to enforce their (now tarnished) buzz-mark sensibly, which
would certainly exclude hassling a non-profit conference with a clearly
differentiated title such as yours.

Best of luck to you and the IT@Cork Web 2.0 half day Conference.

This isn’t about you and Tim.

Absolutely Mike, I couldn’t agree more. In fact one of the reasons I posted this apology was because I realised I was being made an issue and this was distracting from the real issue (the trade marking of the term Web 2.0) so the quickest way to stop that happenning was to apologise and move on to discussing the main issue .

More to follow on the real issue!

Why people feel the need to resort to this sort of dustup in such a crude way is perhaps beyond me… but I do have some thoughts which may be useful to consider in trying to reduce the number of these occurrences in the future. It is not so much a solution as an exploration of the root causes, but in understanding them we might be able to make things a bit better all around.

1 - Power. People still want it and will want it for a while to come as we transition from a society of command and control hierarchies to one that is more chaordic and self-organizing with fewer elites and more of us in the middle, actually doing instead of pontificating - the machina behind the knowledge economy.

2 - Rebellion. Just like kids who throw a temper tantrum to get their way and teenagers who refuse to listen to their parents, people often act out and go all “Jerry Springer” against authority symbols to show that they do have power - even when the “systems” of the world seem to favor the elite and keep down the regular Joe or Joy. BTW, in speaking with Elisa from Blogher yesterday I realized that there were not many (or perhaps any) women’s voices on this issue - hmmmmm

3 - Instinct. People instinctively react to a situation which touches them in some way - more so when it makes them angry. We don’t know how to deal with this very well, so the natural instinct is to lash out rather than to be present and carefully consider the situation before responding. Personally, I used to write emails when I was angry all the time back in the mid 90’s until I had a terrible experience that caused deep pain and regret - as a result, I never write an email when angry any more and usually wait at least a day.

3a - It is easier to call someone an asshole than to lay out a well reasoned argument that accurately describes why we “feel someone is being an asshole”.

3b - Many people really don’t have the time to do so properly either, it’s not just because they are inconsiderate though it can be perceived this way.

4 - Truth Telling. This is one of the biggest issues arising from the Blogosphere IMHO - that many people are Blogging because they want social justice and want to hear more of the truth that they believe they are not getting from some traditional media sources (often rightly so). The seemingly hypocritical nature of the situation stirred people to Tom’s defence (mostly rightly so). We need to encourage more of this despite the negative turn in this case - most importantly from my perspective is we need for the people who may have said something against Tim et al to perhaps reconsider what they said and retract their calls for a boycott or whatever it was. (I am still doing my Web 2.1 event though because I can’t afford to go to that other event and most folks I know working in the trenches can’t either)

5 - Group Think. It is such a double edge sword. On one hand I am excited to see so many people engaged in the discussion, on the other the pile-on that it created was somewhat non-productive. We need to hear all points of view in the discussion perhaps, including those folks who thought threatening a boycott might work (it may have helped but I think Tim’s response was driven by his personal consciousness and resoning rather than threats). Personally I think the wellspring of creative responses was quite amazing (I like Salim’s Monty Python reference best still). When people find a point of view that they can relate to, they should be allowed to jump in with their agreement and whatever point of view they have, but it can create a sort of group think supporting crazy ideas, which is why we need other respected leaders to step into the conversation to provide balance and perspective. We had a few of them do so, but not enough. We also need more people in the middle to step up and express their views as well - the silent majority is going to let the 2 extremes destroy us unless more people feel comfortable expressing themselves honestly.

6 - Perceptions. While many people perceived Tim to be at the heart of this, anyone who knew him at all would have understood that this is what happens when your small business becomes large and you need to hire other’s to protect the interest of the business (note: I don’t know him though we have met and did not get a return email when trying to align our causes last year). So by the association of the two entitites CMP and O’Reilly (as clearly referenced in the original C&D letter) and by Tim’s very public personality as the face of the company, Tim was perceived to be at fault. The reality is that he was RESPONSIBLE for the problem though not the cause and was clearly able to step in and do the right thing resolving the matter.

7 - Conversation - It is always better to be talking with someone rather than talking about someone. This is one of the many reasons why I am doing the BrainJams thing - trying to get more people in more conversations with people they normally would not be speaking withl. To see how much more alike we all are instead of being able to just look at the “book’s cover” and make snap judgements about people not being like us at all. I had a disagreement with someone last year about some ideas I felt were poached without giving proper credit and I did not know how to handle it - thankfully Mitch gave me the advice of trying to talk with them directly rather than publicly making my claim. While this person was formal but somewhat rude and arrogant in their response and I did not get the matter resolved to my satisfaction - on reflection I realized that I did not need the resolution I sought anyway - that it was not important really, so I was able to move on and just learn from the lesson. Bottom line, direct conversation with consideration and respect is always the best course of action.

I have some more to add, but will do so later since there is a busy day ahead. I need to pull out one of my journal entries I wrote from the Art of Hosting retreat that Berkana held in order to go deeper. The good news in this for me is that it proves the need for the suite of tools I have been imagining and trying to build for the last 18 months - conversations like this on the Web are not properly served through the current UI of Blogs, Comments, Trackbacks, etc. - it is too unwieldy for most average people and won’t really catch on until we get a more holistic and easily usable solution.

I am cross posting this to the BrainJams site if anyone wants to discuss this situation from this angle any further…