[fosscomm] DEADLINE for FOSSCOM position on Draft Policy: 10.00 AM July July 9th.
prabirp at gmail.com
Wed Jul 8 10:36:10 PDT 2009
I must say the flurry of emails and responses on the issue of open standards
is impressive. It does show that there is a real interest in working
together, whatever the views people may have about the form. I am flagging
three issues below:
1) Consensus on the position on Open standards policy. I really think this
is where everybody seems to have agreed and can distill out a common
position from with what Jaijit has put up in the wiki. I suggest that Guru
takes the initiative to derive a common position. This can then be
circulated for organisations to sign on, pending a consensus on
organisational forms. Guru can then send it to the three parties -- MIT,
2) There is a partial consesensus that we can be a loose network (not legal
and without any defined structure) at present. However, this should work
only on issues that we have a consensus on within the network. In this
case, if we agree via wiki above on open standards, then that is one issue
on which the network has a consensus and we can -- if people agree -- call
this a FOSSCOMM position. This does not mean that the network or any body on
behalf of the network can speak on any other matter or represent
herself/himself as speaking on behalf of FOSSCOMM.
3) The even thornier matter of representation. Let us be clear that nobody
or organisation can represent FOSSCOMM as a whole. There is no agreement on
this. Only if there is a specific agreement on the issue within the body as
in 2 above (Consensus) can we -- again through consensus -- agree that
somebody or organisation reresents us if this is required. This should be
done on an issue to issue and occasion to occasion basis. At present, as we
have a consensus on open standards, and it is required to talk to the
Government on our behalf. we can have somebody represent us (of course
subject to limits stated here).
On the names for representing us on this issue of open standards. I have an
observation to make first on Jaijit's proposal suggesting that I represent
FOSSCOMM on this issue. Must confess that I do not think I know enough on
this and am quite happy to propose the alternative as Prof. Andrew Lynn from
JNU on this. However, the argument of my being with CPIM and therefore not
"eligible", as Arun puts it, is completely extranneous -- political
affliation should neither be a criterion for nor against in FOSSCOMM. The
only test in FOSSCOMM should be what is the stand of the organisation or the
individual on specific FOSSCOMM issues. Politics, caste, religion, language,
ethnicity, etc., are not the basis of FOSSCOMM -- these are all exclusionary
or divisive principles. By the way, I do not know Andrew's political
affliation, if any[?]!
By the way Sunil, the World Social Forum is a much better example then Al
Quaeda for organisational form!
2009/7/8 Anivar Aravind <anivar.aravind at gmail.com>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Jaijit Bhattacharya <jaijit at dms.iitd.ac.in
> > wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> As discussed, I have uploaded the first rough draft of FOSSCOM's position
>> on the Draft Policy on Standards for e-Governance, Ver 2.0.
>> The draft position is at http://fosscomm.in/OpenStandards#preview.
>> PLEASE DO PUT IN YOUR CHANGES/ COMMENTS by 10.00 AM July July 9th
> Since we have time till 15th July to respond, Open it for 2-3 days for
> FOSSCOMM member organisations endorsements.
>> Prabir: Could you please help us take this forward as I will be traveling
>> network mailing list
>> network at lists.fosscom.in
> "The resources of the world are for us all to share. Let us affirm our
> faith in that common cause" - Dr. Ilina Sen
> network mailing list
> network at lists.fosscom.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 453 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the network