hidden innovation (un)nation
By: aporia pidgeon
Category: TINAC, WHiSPeRiNG, aporia green, eMeRGeNT, social enterprise
‘liminality and a liminoid … ?’ – iNFRiNGeD – STOP – ‘betwixt and between activity 7′ – iNFRiNGeD – STOP – ‘where has aporia pidgeon come from?’ – iNFRinGeD – STOP – ‘visible unconference + invisible conference = unroundtable … ?’ – iNFRiNGeD – STOP – ‘currenting thoughts through shaping projects-in-practice’ – iNFRiNGeD – STOP – ‘community enhanced support for education and research?’ – iNFRiNGeD – STOP – ‘coining “emergenomics”: recognising dynamic (un)clustering’ – iNFRiNGeD – STOP – ‘ANNOUNCEMENT: easter elgg hunt atop aporia green’ - iNFRiNGeD – CeNSoReD – (UN)STOP – (uN)SToP - (un)stop – ( . ) . – >
[...] I regret to have to inform you of [...] staff misconduct that is giving rise to my having to now formally pursue the [...]’s complaints procedure herewith, inter alia to make best efforts to minimise mounting costs and damages related to my person, my intellectual property, my project [...], my company [...], and the multiple communities I have been contributing to pro bono as we speak.
Given the complexity of the specific [...] staff actions as related to their misconduct, it is my understanding that inviting this complaint to be jointly considered by a network of fellow community members may serve to help expedite proceedings and/or support peer review of specialist matters/terminology arising in the process. This informal group includes members who have interacted with me/[...] directly on related [...]-oriented issues, to varying degrees, on various occasions, over the past 24 months.
By way of summary documentation relating to this complaint, please find attached four PDF appendices, labelled A-D respectively, as follows:
* Appendix A – Copy thread of email correspondence dated between Saturday 15th to Thursday 20th March, 2008 in reverse chronology
* Appendix B – Text file of [...] Programme Manager’s weblog post #1309, including a series of ensuing commentary dated between Monday 17th to Thursday 20th March culminating in my public response (appearing on this page as comment #[...])
* Appendix C – Text file of my weblog post #1313 as offered by way of creatively moving on together from what I had observed as missed understandings on the part of said [...] staff as at the time of posting
* Appendix D – Copy thread of email correspondence dated between Friday 21st (Good Friday) to Saturday 22nd March.
The associated [...] staff actions that have since been taken has involved removing my rights of access and authorship to my own public works, and infringing copyright in intellectual property owned by myself and my company by way of modifying the meta-data associated with my originally authored content together with its express codification in order to remain publicly accessible at all times. Further, these [...] staff have been passing off their own damaging manipulations of my intellectual property as if they are [...]’s in a manner that continues to remain publicly visible to anyone happening upon the [...] website. In particular, the kernal of my own work comprises meta-data expressly associated with ensuring public visability – a stance taken very seriously in terms of my own and my company’s open development ethic. These [...] staff have essentially modified this meta-data so that it is no longer codified as such, resulting in either gross malformations of my intellectual works and their derivatives either appearing in the public domain, or not appearing at all, including 30 files comprising prior art (subject to remaining in the public domain) and original scholarly descriptive data and meta-data.
The terms and conditions of the [...] site expressly state that:
Copyright
We claim no intellectual property rights over any material you provide to the [...] service
So with whose permission and on whose authority (if any) have these [...] staff been taking the action that they have been taking, and continue to take, over this [...] period? And how can the consequences of such actions, and the implications for on ongoing responsibilities with regards to impending remedial action, be adequately addressed?
Notwithstanding, in terms of immediate technical remedial action, I would hope that my intellectual property can be restored to its original state within the public domain without any further delay, together with its associated rights of ongoing authorship, and that said [...] staffs malformed modifications (which are currently being passed off as if [...]’s) be accounted for, and all related instances of underlying database(s), be preserved in their entirety for potential forensic analysis, in accordance with standard preservation orders ordinarily applicable in such cases. Similarly, I would hope that any historical back ups/archives relating to the [...] database and data supporting our extended [...] community platform can be preserved for the purposes of the same. From here on in, and in the interests of clarity, no further unauthorised copies should be held (nor with held) by any [...] staff without an explicit licensing agreement being put in place between myself/[...] and the [...] at our earliest opportunity.
In broader terms, I would hope that a specialist working group can be convened at the earliest opportunity – possibly comprising the members cc’d on this present communication – in order to take positive steps towards addressing the multiplicity of costs, benefits, risks to innovation, and a plethora of associated materials arising out of having experienced this complex (though potentially not so uncommon) institutional scenario together first hand, with a view to initially working towards a shared understanding of the same, and then sharing those understandings with others attempting to engage with associated “practices-in-transition” in due course. A number of the materials I had been generating by way of seeking to openly share know-how through commonalities of lived experience relate precisely to this field of endeavour, and I trust that some good can still come of such efforts, for all parties concerned.
At any event, I reserve all rights generally, and await kind acknowledgment of receipt [...]
[...] Thank you for your note [...] – you’re right that there has been confusion as to what the formal [...] complaints procedure is on the part of the recepients of the original complaint [...], but no confusion on my part: I clearly began my communication with the paragraph:
[--]
I regret to have to inform you of [...] staff misconduct that is giving rise to my having to now formally pursue the [...]’s complaints procedure herewith, inter alia to make best efforts to minimise mounting costs and damages related to my person, my intellectual property, my project ([...]), my company ([...]), and the multiple communities I have been contributing to pro bono as we speak.
[--]
Therefore, as far as I am aware, I have made a formal complaint, and I have not at any stage, thus far, withdrawn my formal complaint, which is still in process from me, my project, my company, and my communities’ perspective.
Ceratinly, I appreciate your necessary impartiality – I also handled complaints for a public body in one of my past roles, along with High Court proceedings relating to complex IPR infringement issues. My concern is that persons are looking to me for advise as to process, whereas I am no longer sitting available on the same side of the fence (so to speak)
Your kind name appears along the bottom of the webpage publicly detailing the [...]’s complaint procedure with regards to any questions, and so this is why I had been asking [...] to contact you. I do not know if internal [...] guidelines for [...] staff attempting to handle a formal complaint may be pointing to some other person.
This confusion across the community has then been undersatndably compounded by the fact that we are trying to work with a very hierarchical constitutional complaints procedure with members who are no longer in the habit of expecting to work and govern themselves in this way – a technological phenomenon maybe, but exasperated by the 24/7, 360 degree, distributed nature of email correspondence.
In the days where I would expect to write a formal letter to [...], wait up to three working days for a letter confirming acknowledgment, and then expect to wait up to 20 working days for a full explanation, the formality of the process, and my formal non-involvement at intervening stages during that process, were fairly clear cut. Nevertheless, these are the cycles that I am defaulting to, because I expect these are the cycles against which currently stand, and so do not expect to hear from [...] formally in reply until she at least returns from leave, and at latest by 22nd April 2008.
At the same time, given the nature of the complaint with regards to IPR infringement, it is a requirement that I pursue formal complaints procedure in an effort to minimise costs and damages, without prejudice to any possible legal proceedings related to the same, save as to the award of costs at its conclusion. So, for example, if an offer of settlement prior to legal proceedings turns out to be more than what is ultimately awarded by the court, then costs of legal proceedings are bourne by the party who had unnecessarily (in hindsight) taken the matter that far.
So, alongside the formal complaints procedure, community members are seeking to broker informal ways of resolving matters, and it may be that we are able to find a way that results in my withdrawing of my formal complaint. But it is necessarily in that direction because of the danger that evidence will be destroyed (which also adds to costs and damages) if, for example, a preservation of evidence order is not taken seriously nor complied with. The alternative would be to obtain a preservation order, but then that would initiate legal proceedings and render the [...] complaints procedure no longer applicable (if I have understood the options correctly)
So, catch 22s all round – and much to learn – but if I may possibly request that some training on the [...] complaints procedure be arranged for [...] staff at the earliest possible opportunity, and indeed that training be offered to community members on their relevant complaints procedure (whether pro bono, or contracted for [...]-funded project, or other), and also [...] staff grievance procedures, and also [...] staff whistleblowing procedures, so that individuals can satify themselves as to which channels (if any) to pursue whilst this formal complaint is in progress. The problem being that I have tended to be the member that other members turned to for such support, and this can no longer be the case for the time being at least.
I hope it has been okay for me to consult you as to process in this manner. If I should actually be directing this email to someone else, please do advise.
Further to my email requesting clarity on due process [...] I received a mobile text message yesterday that contains the phrase “… if you want to live … ”
I have transcribed and annotated the ensuing exchange of text messages as far as possible and attach a copy of the same herewith for your kind and urgent attention (Appendix F)
Not sure which internal [...] channel threats like this go through, and so am leaving it in your hands.
Have also been informed by members that there seems to be a “glitch” in the [...] email system, and attachments to [...] based email addresses may not all have gotten through. As such, I will be sending a hard copy of this message marked for your attention by recorded mail today, to reach you first thing on Monday 31 March, 2008. I will also include hard copies of all appendices sent to date in case [...] finds that she does not have them available in her email inbox on her return.
Am copying [...] on this message accordingly.
[...] visualising “visualising” ‹ › [...]
[...] The Haldane Principle and its (missed) understanding is a case in point. In order for the Bills that pass through both Houses to be researched by the Parliamentary Library and Research Clerks of each House, before individual Members and/or Peers have a chance to take their own politically informed stances on the same, it is critical that the research produced by said Parliamentary Clerks is as scholarly impartial as humanly possible. If the Haldane distinction between “research work of general use” and “research work supervised by administrative departments” is not appreciated, we run the constant risk that public funding may be administrated in ways that systematically support only the incumbent administration’s body politic without any known cause for redress. Over time, the corpus of publicly funded research available for Parliamentary Clerks to draw upon, with a due eye for scholarly impartiality, begins to contract [...]
[...] half a pound of tuppenny rice
half a pound of treacle
that’s the way (un)funding goes
PoP! goes the weasel [...]