blog

I got a free T-shirt in the mail recently. It is a very nice, forest green, American Apparel shirt, with the line “Code is Poetry” on the front – and the WordPress logo on the back.

The shirt arrived because I responded to a Twitter message from Matt Mullenweg about a month ago, which said simply, “For people who want t-shirts: email me address, t-shirt size, and gender.” I love WordPress, use it exclusively to develop websites, and as such, have great respect for its founder (Matt Mullenweg). I had no idea what his Twitter message was about – but I wanted a WordPress shirt, so I went for it!

The shirt also came with two pencils, several stickers, and an official-looking certificate, proclaiming that I, Karl Fundenberger, am one of the Three Most Important People in WordPress, and that I am entitled to a lifetime of free WordPress, to be used at my discretion for life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the four freedoms of the GPL.

I had no idea what this was about! Surely I couldn’t be one of the most important people in WordPress. I have been using WP for about five years now and have set up dozens of blogs – but I have never written an official theme or plugin. I haven’t saved WordPress from demise or promoted it to millions of people. There must be something more to this, I thought.

Naturally, I went online. I first found this photo of a very similar assortment; green shirt, stickers, pencils, and certificate. Fortunately, the photographer linked to an interview with Matt Mullenweg and Chris Pearson.

First, a note on the GPL. WordPress is software released under the GPL (the GNU General Public License), which guarantees that it can be distributed and modified for free. It also requires that any theme or plugin developed for WordPress must carry the GPL. You can sell themes or plugins, or give them away – but you must guarantee your users the freedom to modify and distribute your themes and plugins.

Chris Pearson has a theme called Thesis, which is not a GPL theme. It violates the license of the software it is built upon.

Mullenweg called him out on this. He asked him to change the theme. Pearson refused.

Bad call, Chris Pearson. WordPress is wildly successful, largely due to the fact that it is GPL software. There is a huge community of people working to make WordPress better, all the time!

In the interview, Pearson says he could change the theme to GPL, and it might not even affect his business. But he just doesn’t like the GPL. At one point, he claims he is “one of the three most important people in WordPress,” despite the fact that Thesis accounts for only a tiny fraction of global WordPress downloads and traffic.

The certificate I received in the mail is a very clever jab at Chris Pearson. It’s not true, per se, but it’s still pretty empowering to see my name on a document with Matt Mullenweg’s signature on it. I may not be one of the most important developers or users of WordPress, but the community at large, respecting and taking advantage of its license, is what makes WordPress possible.

Mullenweg is letting users know that Thesis violates the GPL, and asking them to try out other premium themes; offering them suggestions, and even offering to buy them a copy of a theme if they promise to switch away from Thesis. For a free software that practically “sells” itself on features and usability, this is a fantastic marketing campaign. For one, I’m even prouder to be a die-hard WordPress user. I am proud to know that Matt Mullenweg will stand up for his software and for the GPL. And I am so glad I have never even considered using the Thesis theme.

Chris Pearson, you’re looking pretty foolish right now.

For more, read Mullenweg’s blog.

Network Neutrality is a complicated issue. At its core, however, proponents suggest legislation requiring that Internet access providers not give priority to any traffic on the net, and serve packets on a first-come, first-served basis. Opponents of Network Neutrality say that smart networks give priority to certain kinds of traffic, i.e. faster connections for government, mail, health, etc., and slower traffic for peer-to-peer transactions, downloading, etc.

In terms of transportation, those who choose to move faster take toll roads and use air travel. Those who do not are left to their own devices; foot travel, bicycle, transit, and freeways. Exceptions exist for emergency services. Police, ambulance, and fire may all exceed legal speed limits.

There are many natural comparisons one can draw between roads and Internet infrastructure. However, the biggest difference is that Internet infrastructure is typically owned by private companies, whereas most roads are owned by taxpayers. Roads exist to serve the greater good, and since nearly everyone uses them, their cost is shared. In the same way, the Internet serves a greater good; the spread of information, independent news, and funny videos.

For being mostly privately owned, it’s amazing the Internet is still as neutral as it is! What if all of our roads were privately owned? Would they be in better or worse shape? Would rural access roads even exist!? So far, all of these telecommunications companies have played nice, building networks and using technology that works together. And the Internet works in such a way that small businesses can contribute, too.

But now, where a handful of companies serve millions of customers at once, limiting access could affect a great deal of people. A tiered system of access could make conducting business more expensive for industries depending on high speed Internet, and impossible to afford for small businesses or the proprietors of small websites. But would that be a smart move for an ISP?

Some argue that network neutrality legislation is unnecessary, and I am inclined to agree with them. What would be the point of limiting access to a tool whose power derives from its universality? Anyone limiting access limits the scope of the tool.

The problem of Mr. Brownback’s answer to my query is not that he opposes network neutrality. It’s that he pits Online Content Providers against Access Providers. These are not competitors, and in fact, have been working together since the start of this technology. I pay for Internet access to publish a blog, just like I’d pay for ink and paper if I wanted to print a magazine. The Internet exists because people use it as a means to an end – to publish, communicate, and share. It is not the proprietary invention of a corporation or individual. Any regulation of the Internet should weigh in favor of its users and content makers.

But Mr. Brownback’s letter begs the question that should be asked of our lawmakers: what is the most important part of the Internet – the content, or the cables?

Pay close attention to the parts I set in bold.

———————————————-

Dear Mr. Fundenberger:

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding Internet neutrality. There is no better guide for making tough decisions than hearing from the people whom I serve.

Broadband Internet availability is changing the face of American communications. Such high speed access to the Internet spurs increased investment, choice, and innovation in the telecommunications marketplace. Broadband deployment also transforms the quality of life for all Americans – for instance, with broadband capability, rural consumers will be able to access long-distance learning, on-demand entertainment, and tele-medicine for the first time.

As you may know, several groups have sought legislation to regulate or even prohibit fees that may be sought by broadband companies from content providers for the high-speed transmission of content over the Internet. I believe that this so-called ‘network neutrality’ legislation would be anything but neutral, punishing broadband access providers for innovation and competition. In fact, it is due to the absence of heavy-handed government regulation that the Internet has grown and innovated freely and rapidly.

Moreover, broadband access providers — our nation’s telephone, cable television, and wireless companies — are spending billions of dollars to deploy broadband, and have plans to spend billions more on the next generation of broadband networks. These investments include new technologies that will greatly improve everyone’s Internet experience, further empowering our ability to use it for entertainment, political, religious, and educational purposes. Given the investment by broadband providers in creating and maintaining Internet infrastructure, it is reasonable for them to request that content providers pay their fair share for the services they use.

Innovation and competition, unmarred by excessive government regulation, have created a vibrant Internet for all Americans. In this context, network neutrality would penalize broadband access providers for making major improvements to the Internet and would reward online content providers who demand regulation in order to tip the scales of Internet competition in their favor. Rest assured that as this issue continues to be addressed in the Senate, I will keep your thoughts in mind.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

Sincerely,

Sam Brownback
United States Senator

A scarf is a handmade symbol of love. One person makes a scarf for another. It’s a gift of time, thoughtfulness, and dedication.

The combination of time, thoughtfulness, and dedication is a gift that could lift Topeka State Hospital out of dilapidation.

I’ve grown up visiting these grounds, exploring the fields, and admiring and photographing the buildings. Biddle is a particular favorite of mine. Its architecture is less prominent than that of Center Building, but it is a much larger building. It is built of red brick; solid, unchanging. Its grand windows bathe the interior halls in light.

What a fantastic place this could be: a learning center, full of classrooms; a retreat center, with conference halls and individual suites; even a busy office building on a magnificent campus.

Unfortunately, it hasn’t been maintained. This sturdy, 75-year-old mammoth has been all but abandoned.

It is an infantesimal step to tie a scarf around a tree in front of the building. It’s not a gift of money, or construction, or renovation labor. But it is a small gift of love. I love these buildings, and it pains my heart to see them waste.

www.rethinktopeka.com

By Tim Hrenchir. Republished from the Topeka Capital-Journal

In designing future street projects, the city staff should integrate and implement “Complete Streets” concepts targeted at making roadways safe and accessible for everyone, including bicyclists and pedestrians, the Topeka City Council decided Tuesday night.

The council voted 8-1 to approve a resolution sponsored by Councilman Larry Wolgast that changed city policy by directing the staff to make that move to the extent financially feasible. The measure also made it the city’s goal to adequately finance the policy’s implementation.

The outcome of Tuesday’s vote “shows we are progressive and moving forward,” Wolgast told the council.

“The important point is that our transportation plan will be designed not for moving vehicles as quickly as possible, but by taking into consideration all who use streets,” he said.

Councilman Jack Woelfel, the sole dissenter, said he wasn’t opposed to Complete Streets concepts but didn’t fully understand them. Woelfel also said he thought the proposal left too many unanswered questions and wasn’t specific enough, particularly about finances.

Wolgast told council members how a consultant brought to Topeka as part of the Heartland Visioning process earlier this year explained how cities nationwide were working to implement Complete Streets concepts.

“The Complete Streets policy will direct city planners and engineers to consistently design with all users in mind, including drivers, public transportation riders, pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as older people, children and people with disabilities,” he said.

The council heard support for Wolgast’s proposal expressed Tuesday by six speakers, including representatives of the Community Resources Council and the Greater Topeka Chamber of Commerce.

Another advocate, Karl Fundenberger, told the council thousands die crossing roadways nationally each year due to poor design features.

He said: “Streets are not for moving cars. They’re for moving people.”

Joseph Ledbetter, who also addressed the council on the matter, asked members to make sure that money from a half-cent sales tax that took effect Oct. 1 doesn’t help pay for Complete Streets improvements.

City manager Norton Bonaparte said that won’t happen. He noted that the council earlier this month approved capital improvement plans calling for the city to borrow $100,000 through general obligation bonds in each of the next five years to pay to incorporate Complete Streets design elements into projects the city carries out using revenue from the half-cent tax.

The council also approved a 2010 legislative agenda consisting of eight provisions that include asking for the continued operation of the Kansas Neurological Institute, which a state commission has recommended closing, and supporting “continued development of the Capitol complex and state operations in downtown Topeka.”

Three other provisions of the approved agenda were targeted at helping the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority.

Council members voted 8-1 to approve that agenda. Councilman John Alcala dissented, saying he thought it had been “overloaded” with too many issues.

Also, Mayor Bill Bunten cast a vote as the city’s governing body:

• Voted 10-0 to approve Alcala’s motion to defer action on a proposed zoning change regarding property at 1236 S.W. Garfield Ave. Alcala said the deferral would give the city attorney’s office time to provide the council an opinion on the extent of participation in voting and discussion on the matter that should be permitted for Councilwoman Deborah Swank, who previously spoke about it before the Topeka Planning Commission.

• Voted 10-0 to amend the city’s zoning code to clarify that only fences within parks may exceed the city’s 4-foot height requirement in a front yard.

Here’s the plan:

Feel free to add to it if there’s something missing!

I’m at Kansas City Startup Weekend. It’s Sunday. We’re down to the wire, but we’re doing well. Presentations start in less than four hours.

Startup Weekend is a convergence of developers, designers, and doers.  Friday night, people pitch ideas for online services that could be created.  The most popular ideas are picked, teams are formed, and the work starts.  The overarching idea rules the process, so the web developers do the heavy lifting to create the product.  Along the way, business plans and interface designs are drafted and developed.  At the end of 48 hours, 10 or 15 teams will present their ideas and product demonstrations in front of Angel Investors, the media, and the public.

The most attractive pitch I saw on Friday night was a service to connect bicycle messengers to available work.  Surely, people have messages and parcels that need to be delivered – but Kansas City (and many cities) have no bike delivery services.  Why not create a network for them?

I got together with five other dudes, and we set to work. We came up with TreadEx.org.

It’s a dispatching service for bike messengers.  Basically, we cut out the middle man.   Messengers create profiles, and “check in” when they’re available for hire.

Senders visit the site, and click the “send a package now” button.

The site sends a text message to the first available messenger, asking them to accept the mission.  Once they accept, the site sends them a phone number.

Within minutes, the customer receives a call from the messenger, and the two of them will work out the details of pickup, delivery, and pricing.

It’s simple, and it cuts out the middle man.

TreadEx. A dispatching service for bike messengers.

I am very proud of our product! I designed the look and feel of the site.  Devin designed the logo (look familiar?), and Ryan did the Ruby on Rails backend.

Joshua is working on Act2Go – a phone-banking application for smart phones.

Startup Weekend was stimulating and exciting, and I hope to attend another one.

It is an art collective with a progressive agenda.  And it is one of the most exciting things about life in Topeka right now.

http://www.chordsandoil.org/

Saturday was our public debut.  Three weeks of intensive planning and collaboration led to a fantastic success.

More than 250 people experienced original visual art, poetry, film and music at the Upstage Gallery.

But what is Chords & Oil?

It started in Chad’s basement.  Or maybe it started in Sam and Michelle’s living room. I’m not really sure.  We realized that instead of hanging out and complaining about the city’s lack of things to do, we could collaborate and create things to do.  So we put on an art/music show at Tavio’s house in January. We had a dance night at Bosco’s. We had a pot-luck dinner meeting at Chad’s house. And then we had a founding meeting to elect officers. I’m Promotions and Communications Chair, or Proms & Comms for short.

We want to do public art. We want to do illicit art. We want to change and challenge public perception of art. We want to move beyond art into the realm of education. We want to grow and cultivate the community to share ideas and communicate better.

Heartland Visioning has been very supportive. They are thrilled that we’re young and active in this city. Most of us are young professionals or students, and I feel like we’ve suddenly all realized that there is no point in working or creating if you’re not contributing to something bigger.