[fosscomm] Help required to form FOSSCOM as analternate Industry and Civil Society body to NASSCOM
pravi.a at gmail.com
Fri Jul 10 17:31:16 PDT 2009
2009/7/10 Mohit Singh <gmohitsingh at gmail.com>:
> Is it so? I think there lies the seed of the approach we are entrapped in!
> We want to be 'different' and not 'better'!
> This reminds me of the 'MAGGI Hot and Sweet Tomato Ketchup Ad - Its
> different'. Kindly state the 'difference' and how is it 'better' than
I thought you know the difference between Free Software development
and proprietary development.
In Free Software development leaders are selected from those who work
on it. But in proprietary software world, leaders decide what to work
> Kindly imagine a meeting of Ministry of IT officials with IT industry.
> NASSCOM and MAIT send their 'representatives' - who will represent FOSSCOMM
If we have people who already worked on the issues being discussed, we
will send them, if we decide.
> Or FOSSCOMM is supposed to be present as BIGG BROTHER / BIGG BOSS, who is
> present but not visible?
We may send a representative if we have people who can present our
ideas on that particular topic.
> Oh! I do believe that I did not mention the need for the leadership to
> follow Stalin, Castro and Saddam.
> I compared the scenario with that of 1940 because FOSSCOMM has to be intact
> like Hindustan sans partition.
Why? Then you are missing the whole point here. Just take the example
of NASCOM here, and how they 'represented' industry without consulting
with their own members. Do you want all members to rally behind the
decision? or Do you want differing members to come out and present
their opposition? Like what Red Hat and Sun did. You cannot
realistically expect every member to agree on every issue and having a
representative would not solve this issue.
> I told this and I am speaking again - the Redmond Codelifter has started
> doing 'Open Source' and Oracle is ready with 'Shared Source'. They can send
> their representatives to FOSSCOMM anytime now.
That is a vlid concern and we need to pick up the discussion from
where Anivar left and talk about membership.
> Are we ready to face this situation? If yes, kindly state our policy for the
Lets start from Anivar's suggestion about finalizing principles and
membership following a bottom up approach as opposed to a top down -
representative first, positions later approach.
Anivar: "Lets start from deciding working principles, membership
criteria for individuals & organisations , building working groups on
topics etc before selecting a representatives."
Lets start here http://fosscomm.in/Principles
Are we in total agreement on principles? Once we have that agreement
lets take it to the membership criteria.
<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)
Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now!
More information about the network