Framing language
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| mvermeer May 21, 2006 5:29 PM EDT |
One thing that none of the commentators so far have remarked upon, is the use of 'framing'. Note the word 'dictating'. Nobody wants to be dictated to. Dictators give democratic people the shivers. Dictating is bad. Right? What is lost is, that what MA is doing, is simple rational customer behaviour. When you go to the shop, you make a shopping list. If you go buy a costly item, you make a requirements checklist. What the Commonwealth of MA is doing is just that -- collectively, on behalf of its citizens. As for requiring adherence to open standards, IMHO also requiring open source would have been a defensible position: you want to run a democratic government's operation on software that's on your side, software you can trust. But -- MA tactically chose a more conservative approach. Well, at least the writer isn't guilty of calling it 'regulation'. We've seen that too in the past... |
| grouch May 21, 2006 6:07 PM EDT |
mvermeer: >"As for requiring adherence to open standards, IMHO also requiring open source would have been a defensible position: you want to run a democratic government's operation on software that's on your side, software you can trust. But -- MA tactically chose a more conservative approach." I agree. Every government should be able to disclose the source of software it uses to the citizens who foot the bill and whose data that government is entrusted to handle. For those few exceptions where making the source publicly visible might compromise the safety of people or the ability of the government to do its task in that area, the source should still be completely reviewable by appropriate representatives of the citizens. |
| dinotrac May 21, 2006 7:09 PM EDT |
And did you notice this new phrase: "Open Source Standards"? What the heck is an open source standard? Other than "license blessing" by the FSF and OSI, I'm not aware of a context in which the phrase could have meaning. It's a formulation clearly intended to obscure the truth. |
| grouch May 21, 2006 7:21 PM EDT |
dinotrac: Thanks, I missed that little gem! Jeez, they're sneaky. They've been trying to obscure the truth since their campaign in MA, with "technology", "policy", etc. (http://edge-op.org/grouch/Yates-refute.html) The one you point out seems aimed to make the reader think any open standard is limited to open source implementations, excluding all the poor, picked-on businesses that don't do open source. What a crock. |
| dinotrac May 21, 2006 7:30 PM EDT |
grouch: Yes. Those damned open-source standards!! All I can say is, where would the internet be if everybody had to use open-source standards like tcp/ip, http, html, etc? |
| dcparris May 21, 2006 7:34 PM EDT |
mvermeer:
> One thing that none of the commentators so far have remarked upon, is the use of 'framing'. Actually, I haven't missed it completely. I'm considering a follow-up article to address this very issue. My immediate concern was addressing the misleading statements. That said, I do appreciate your commenting on this point - it's an important one. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!