Schneier envisions an active ecosystem where a robust field of technologists grounded by
public-interest principles are sought by academics and universities, tech companies, public-interest
organizations, political think tanks, and policy officials seeking to hire these technologists to inform
their work.
This failure of HR is what I have mentioned a number of times on this blog, Bruce, and it's somewhat ironic that the hiring process you're following to find a strategist isn't approaching things differently. I felt the same way when I applied for a job at the EFF; I was actually so disappointed in the experience that I stopped donating to them. As a member of their board, you should be using your role there to improve their approach, too.
You may think you need a dedicated strategist to work things out, but I say you really just need to engage with people more. Either on this blog (to the extent you can intersect the discussion with security), or start another blog as an offshoot of your public-interest tech site. Those of us with an interest in the subject would be eager to discuss these topics, rather than pouring their thoughts into an involved RFC that few people will read.
@1&1~=Umm
When you read their RFP's you would find almost the same thing as section 3.1. (which by the way would probably fail in an EU Court).
Meh. It's essentially a standard disclaimer that anyone should expect to see with an application process of this type. If you don't like it, don't participate. I mean, most jobs are so poorly presented that it's clear that it isn't even worth writing a cover letter to go with my resume. When it comes to public-interest jobs, I have absolutely no problem if along the way someone will "use without limitation any or all of the ideas" I present in order to make the world a better place. But then neither am I going to do a lot of work to dump them out fully formed ahead of time in an RFP . . .
e2a2b5de58602e6b4b24c173b7aaa1d714ea95e968c81f4ca37d93d3f25ac7f3