I'm far to controversial to win any sort of political based election. But it is also this quality about me that helps motivate others into action. And this is the recognized fact of my nomination, helping to generate activity in this election.

I want and need the best person in this position in order to better focus and cause the needed changes. Changes we will all benefit from.

It's all in my ability to look past symptoms and identify the source of problems that gives me clear vision of needed change. My persistant drive to communicate this vision is what causes controversy. Friction between those who have become comfortable with tradition and don't want change (mostly the developer or industry side), and those who demand better but didn't know what until I came along and communicated what.

As my efforts create this friction, change happens. But only so long as those comfortable with tradition feel they can manipulate my efforts, so to retain control. But such control is not needed at all, for it only causes constraints on those who don't need it most of all, the end users.

It's all in profit incentive. The incentive is simply not right in the computer industry. Make no mistake, profit is important, but the current incentive inherently promotes win/lose, control over others mentality. In the Big picture win/lose is a loss for everyone. Win/lose suppresses the best, keeps the best from honestly moving forward where it should be.

It is this faulty incentive that sets the environment we all must live with or change it to something better.

The current incentive is of Intellectual Property Rights, more specifically the control of IP. But IP is NOT the real core or source of value. However, as things currently are, IP is the target and the door is wide open to get IP via. any and every way you can.

This "getting IP any and every way you can" promotes dishonesty. If for any one reason, it's because IP is not the source but only a product of the real core value or source. As such this "product" can be taken away from the source, via. any and every way.

It works like this: Those who focus on producing genuine IP don't have the time or desire to bother taking it from others (Why should they, when they know they can produce it themselves?) Those who have not the talent or desire to produce genuine IP, spend alot of time figuring out how to take it away from others.

It doesn't matter what you do, so long as you put alot of time into learning and applying it, you'll be very good at it.

So, as the incentive currently is in the computer industry, it's those, who have learned and practice taking IP away from others in any and every way possible, that move forward. Not the ones who generate IP and would produce alot more if only they had the resources they earned but did not receive.

Without question, it is this current incentive that generates such a non-productive environment that is top priority in needing to be changed.

WE HAVE THE "WHAT" and only need to deal with the "HOW DO WE CHANGE IT?"

Let's take a closer look at what the current incentive provides.

The Amiga Developer Community is far stronger in teamwork than the user community. The reason for this is simply because the developer community has all the incentive to do so. The user community has none. The best the user community can hope for is simply more to spend their money on. Something that in no way requires or provides incentive to apply teamwork on.


Given my drive to cause change and knowing this about the user community, it only stands to reason that there is no real chance of me winning any such election as the ICOA User Representive Election. A simple matter of who has teamwork and who doesn't.

With this in mind, what's the next best thing for me to do, so to continue causing needed changes to happen?

Simple! Get the best person possible in this position!

Why? Again a simple answer. Knowing that such a person will be biased in favor of the developer community, they will inherently make mistakes and I'll be there to point the mistakes out. By having the best person in this position, it'll be less likely for such errors to be non-focal point issues (i.e. poor communication or misspellings which anyone can point out but may have nothing to do with focal point issues.)

In other words: By having the best person in this position, there will be a much higher rate of focal point issues addressed. A much higher rate of achieving needed change.

In the process of changing the top priority issue of current IP incentive, this generator of constraints not needed by the end users, a user marketing plan will be required. Simply because there is no other way to establish the needed common foundation between the the developer community and user community, without such a teamwork incentive plan. Once this foundation is established then the door becomes open for correcting the faulty current IP incentive, to recognize and reward the real value and source of IP, the people who create genuine IP.

Without question, those who have the most to lose will be the ones to strongly resist such change but they will and have already lost. A simple matter of what they've done, causing the problems in the industry to exist in the first place and growing. Simply getting cornered and caught by the negitive effects of their practice. Simple physics of "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" and how this works when you try to cheat nature. To make the needed corrections will result in working with nature where such equal and opposite reaction is not only recognized but made use of, so to remove the possibility of any negitive effects.

Controversy is both an indicator and identifier of needed change. To remove the controversy is to remove the reasons for its existance. The only way to do this is to make the needed corrections.

I'm not a generator of controversy, just someone pointing to what is needed. The controversy simply comes up out of resistance to making such needed change. As just an end user, how was I to know in advance what resistance I'd be met with? How many other end users have been met with such resistance but gave up?

Tim Rue.