I like the idea of making it "our time...etc" it helps humanize and personalize it, it's not worth someone else's time, we don't sit around waiting for _someone_ to do something about it.
Regarding principle 9, I don't think it has the same meaning. The original meaning I take out of it is that we acknowledge that corporations can also bring good to the internet, they're not all evil, so long as they are balanced properly. The rewrite seems to place corporate and public benefit _equally_ "Commercial involvement brings many benefits; a balance between commercial goals and public benefit is critical." is only 111 chars and pretty much preserves the piece, any reason it wasn't proposed? How about "Balancing commercial goals with public benefit is critical to the development of the Internet." (94) ? On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:46 PM, David Flanagan <[email protected]>wrote: > I didn't know that this update was going on, or I would have chimed in > earlier! Here are my thoughts: > > > On 9/16/13 6:21 PM, Smartin wrote: > >> Proposed #6: The Internet depends on interoperability, innovation and >> decentralized participation worldwide. (95) >> > Nice and concise! > > > Proposed #9: A balance between commercial involvement and public benefit >> is critical to the health of the Internet. (102) >> > I don't like this because "involvement" and "benefit" are neither parallel > nor orthogonally opposed to each other. How about this: > > The Internet depends on commerce, but private profit must be balanced by > public benefit. (88) > > > Other changes: >> Principle #1 - Replace the dash with a semi-colon. >> > Looks like you mean a regular colon. > > > Principle # 3 – Replace “individual human beings” with “individuals” >> Principle # 5 – Replace “it” with “online” >> Principle #10 – Replace “Magnifying” with “Increasing” >> Proposed Revision as of 09/16/13: >> 1. The Internet is integral to modern life: education, communication, >> collaboration, business, entertainment and society. (118) >> 2. The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and >> accessible. (80) >> 3. The Internet should enrich the lives of individuals. (52) >> 4. Security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and can not be >> treated as optional. (88) >> > We have "must" in #2, "should" in #3 and "can" in #4. And then "must" > again in #5. > > I say make them all "must". This is a manifesto, after all! The repetition > will sound good. > > Failing that, I'd argue for upgrading "can not" in #4 to "must not" in > honor of the NSA. > > 5. Individuals must have the ability to shape the Internet and their >> own experiences online. (89) >> > Now that we have the webmaker initiative, it would be great if we could > work the word "make" into this principle. Maybe "make the Internet and > shape their own experiences online"? > > 6. The Internet depends on interoperability, innovation and >> decentralized participation worldwide. (95) >> 7. Free and open source software promotes the development of the >> Internet as a public resource. (93) >> 8. Transparent community-based processes promote participation, >> accountability and trust. (88) >> 9. A balance between commercial involvement and public benefit is >> critical to the health of the Internet. (102) >> > I proposed an alternative to this one above. > > 10. Increasing the public benefit aspects of the Internet is an >> important goal worthy of time, attention and commitment. (116) >> > > This final principle is really the kicker: its the one that is saying why > it is that mozillians do what they do. We should really get this one right. > But as it stands, it is long and kind of clunky. "Increasing" is vague. > "Aspects" adds nothing. And having to say that something is an "important > goal" means that we haven't really made the case for its importance. How > about: > > Enhancing and protecting the public benefits of the Internet is worth our > time, attention and commitment. (105) > > Or: > > Enhancing and protecting the public benefits of the Internet requires our > time, attention and commitment. (105) > > I really like the idea of bringing Mozillians directly into this last > principle by using a word like "our" here. > > David > > > ______________________________**_________________ >> governance mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance> >> > > ______________________________**_________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance> > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
