My bio
I was born in Athens, Greece, 1970. Studied Civil Engineering at the National Technical University of Athens, 1988-1994, and Computer Science at the University of Manchester, UK, 1999-2000. I am currently employed as technical/administrative staff at the Division of Water Resources, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens. I am interested in philosophy, notably epistemology and society, and I hope to find some time to do a PhD in Water Resource Management in the Information Age. (If you wonder what water has to do with the information age and epistemology, you can ask me.)
My life in FFII
I've been in the FFII (I think my status is "supporter", I really never learned to use aktiv because I was never interested, but if I can't convince the assembly that I'm an active member I could never be a member anyway) since 2003. I just went to Brussels in August 2003 for a demo, right before the first reading. I then stuck. I became considerably active in around May 2004, when the adoption of the B item triggered the regrouping of the Greek antiswpat group (practically the Greek FFII, that is), which had been founded by Dimitris Glezos. I went to Brussels in December 2004 for the restart motion, Strasbourg early May for lobbying, and from 30 May to 9 July my home was Brussels. I am mostly known for the organising of two dinners and a breakfast for MEPs (I'm also helping with a MEP lunch we are offering on the 29th of this month, just before the General Assembly), for the authorship of two short-lived newsletters, "What's Hot" and "Challenges and Strategy", and for my work on the FFII information system; my latest proposal is http://en.ffii.org/, whose complete presentation can be found at http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/private/polis-parl/2005-October/001184.html (or http://www.itia.ntua.gr/~anthony/tmp/001184.html if you are not a member of polis-parl or are too bored to log in).
My strengths
I consider my main strength to be the ability to see with the eyes of my user, and to understand what my audience needs. Frequently, when I'm writing texts, I catch myself halting the moment I type in certain words: "Oh, wait; the reader might not know what a 'rapporteur' is;" "Oops, the reader of this email, i.e., the MEP assistant, doesn't remember what FFII is, and I've about 2 seconds to attract their attention" (that's about how much they spend reading an email). For this reason, I write good invitations, I think I can make good followup calls, and I think I can write good FAQs and understand what a web visitor wants to find and how I can help him find it. I have the potential to write good press releases, but press releases like the ones written by Jonas require huge amounts of knowledge that I don't have. (Hartmut also writes great, greatest of all, I think, but sometimes he sucks in the final packaging. He's a very special case so I'd never seriously compare myself to him.)
Maybe these strengths don't have to do with being a member of the board so much, except for establishing a good communication link between the board and the rest of the community. Whether I'm good in decision making, I don't know. I think I'm fair at considering many possibilities and viewing problems from many viewpoints, but I think I'm not particularly daring. I don't really know.
My weaknesses
If you need careful planning, I'm the person you must talk to. But I suck at working under stress. During the last one or two weeks before the vote, I had reduced myself to doing mechanical work like helping others, offering them refreshments to ease their huge effort, keeping track of things, and so on. Certainly not counterproductive, but I was absolutely unable to take any great initiative or be creative. Another problem with me is that I am a great occlumens; I am amazed at how much I identify with Severus Snape in some aspects. If you aren't a Harry Potter fan, let me rephrase it the way Erik once did: my user interface has too much protection. Getting over this problem is a life project for me, and lobbying has been a great school in that.
My candidancy and position on the presidency
I never considered being in the board until Erik told me, last July, that he briefly discussed this possibility with Hartmut. A few months later, Erik proposed that I should be candidate for the position of the secretary, to which several people agreed. I feel honoured that friends have proposed that I should be in the board of the organization that has the potential to become the planet's most respected authority in digital IP issues, and I wouldn't say no if that would help the FFII.
To understand my position on the presidency issue, you should first read my post, "Hartmut and the conspiracy of Erik", in the bxl mailing list. I think that, until now, we've got two very specific options and a vague one. The specific ones are:
- Keep Hartmut at the presidency, and keep running FFII as it is being run now. FFII becomes a renewing organisation, where most people will be coming and going after a few years. FFII will never grow beyond what it is now. On the contrary, it might shrink. There is, however, no reason why it couldn't be effective. It has proven extremely effective until now, despite all its problems.
- Jonas at the presidency, Hartmut out of the board. The effectiveness of this solution will depend on finding the correct balance between the board and Hartmut, and this will depend on both the board and Hartmut.
The vague option is keep Hartmut at the presidency but find a way to diminish the hartmutic problems. This would certainly be the preferred option, but the way has not been found. There are discussions and ideas however.
For the reasons explained by Jonas in his candidancy paper, I thought about withdrawing my candidancy unless Jonas is elected as president (i.e. I wouldn't want to be decorative). On second thoughts, I decided that it wouldn't be responsible to take Jonas's word, and that I would have the obligation to actually verify that my function is purely decorative, and resign after exhausting other possibilities. So I'm a candidate anyway. (I haven't been able to follow everything, so I don't know yet why exactly Jonas changed his decision about not being a candidate unless elected president.)
Unless the vague option becomes concrete, we'll have to choose between (1) and (2). I honestly don't know which one is better, but that is up to the voters.
