[fosscomm] DEADLINE for FOSSCOM position on Draft Policy: 10.00 AM July July 9th.

prabir prabirp at gmail.com
Wed Jul 8 23:14:06 PDT 2009


2009/7/9 V. Sasi Kumar <sasi.fsf at gmail.com>
>
> On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 23:06 +0530, prabir wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> Prabir, I agree with you, to an extent, that a person's political
> convictions should not make a difference to FOSSCOMM. At the same time,
> I think all of us would want FOSSCOMM to remain politically neutral,
> unaffiliated to any political party. This is needed because the
> objective of the FOSS community is to promote the ideals of FOSS and
> this may need the support of parties across the political spectrum. I
> also agree that every person has some kind of political convictions. But
> if the person who represents FOSSCOMM is a known activist of a
> particular political party, that could become a handicap when we need to
> seek help from other political parties. It could potentially even lead
> to FOSSCOMM being branded as an arm of a political party, which will be
> a handicap. I think we should follow the norm of not having a political
> activist leading us or representing us, irrespective of the party to
> which (s)he belongs. This could also mean that we may have to say no to
> very capable people.

I have taken myself out already, so suggest that we move on to the
real issues of our position and how to campaign on it.
I do believe that representation is an important issue and should be
done by consensus. I am a little surprised at the reaction of the
representation being confined to only politics, and my politics at
that!

The position "politically neutral" FOSSCOMM should not mean no
position. And any position that FOSSCOMM takes has political
implications.I presume that Sasi  means "politically neutral" in this
context no affiliation to any political party. However, if it means
that people who are with political parties should not be in FOSSCOMM,
let us state that up front and then some of us can decide on FOSSCOMM.
We can certainly be supportive from outside if that is the opinion in
the group and if it helps unify FOSSCOMM better.

With that, can we end this issue "why no Prabir" for the time being,
before it gets personal and bitter!
>
> > By the way, I do not know Andrew's political affliation, if any!
>
> That, precisely, is the advantage that Andrew has -- that no one knows
> about his political affiliation.
>
I do think that for the sake of "unity", let us have a
"non-controversial non-affiliated" figure like Andrew to "represent"
all of us, in spite of all problems that people have regarding
"representation". The more important issue here too is whether we
agree that we can be represented on the issue of open standards by a
person or a group of persons. It appears that the consensus is yes,
provided we agree on the name. So can we take this consensus forward.

> Best
> --
> V. Sasi Kumar
> Free Software Foundation of India
> Please visit http://swatantryam.blogspot.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> network mailing list
> network at lists.fosscom.in
> http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in



More information about the network mailing list