[fosscomm] Help required to form FOSSCOM as analternate Industry and Civil Society body to NASSCOM
anivar.aravind at gmail.com
Sat Jul 11 04:15:24 PDT 2009
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Nagarjuna G.<nagarjun at gnowledge.org> wrote:
> On Friday 10 Jul 2009 4:30:34 pm Anivar Aravind wrote:
>> With all respect to Andrew & you, I have an issue here. Andrew
>> was cc'ed in all recent conversations on this list when his name
>> is mentioned. It is not an issue that need to be settled or
>> granted offlist through personal Conversation.
>> Sorry to say you set a wrong procedure here. and I strongly oppose
>> this mode of communication /decision making in a FOSS Forum.
>> Fosscomm representation is a not a grant. it must come through the
>> trust acquired through the prior work
> At the outset, let me support of Anivar's principle: As much as
> possible we should all try to maximize the electronic means of
> communication, on matters related to FOSSCOMM so that FOSSCOMM can
> demonstrate to the rest of the organizations that transparency is
> important than even democracy. Having said this, I do not think Guru
> did an act that needs a strong condemnation.
> I do not see any problem in this. If you insist no communication
> except email will be the means of communication, I do not think that
> is appropriate. As I said, we should maximize that means of
> communication. As a hacker you and me feel confortable and used to
> working in this style. Are you expecting that only hackers can bring
> in all the change you want to see? Are you going to undermine all
> other social means of communication as useless. I do not want to
> endorse such a narrow approach. In another thread I had already
> expressed why I do not want to take this appraoch.
As I explained on other mail, it is problematic not because of
technical matters . I already raise my points on my reply to guru's
> However, as much as possible we should all attempt to work in the
> collaborative space, so that all deliberations happen and get
> recorded. In fact, Guru wondered why Andrew was not replying, and
> took initiative to call and find out what his opinion is. Instead of
> thanking him for what he did, you objected strongly. The fact that
> reported back to the list regarding the communication.
Santhosh raised this issue very well by highlighting the nominations
for each. Please follow that
>> I feel this is a problem of thinking topdown instead of being
>> bottom up.
Representation First & Granting it without participation/taking
responsibility is anyway setting a power position over peers. i was
responding to that
> we should neither be topdown nor bottom up. the message FOSS
> gives us is to repsect all the peers as equal. Let us do p2p.
p2p is fine. whatever u call it. but dont forget to seed equitably &
make your tracker public. And the question is how peers will be
listed/identified and how the trackers for each topic (like open
standards) will be the challenge , lets select it from seeders
contribute their maximum to those tags. and we can make a working
group with them (sorry for politics/structure discussion on p2p
> us will be representing for different tasks at different periods for
> FOSSCOMM, each of us have an equal role to play. Let us make this
> mode of formation a feature of FOSSCOMM. We are not looking for a
> leader here, as Raj in another message clearly articulated. We
> one representative, preferably from Delhi who can attend to calls in
> days notice at times.
> Andrew is an active FOSS supporter and is currently the president of
> user's group in Delhi, and is willing to represent as well apart from
> the user's group. freed.in events were difficult to imagine without
> his support. Our FOSS friends in Delhi group already gaven him the
> role to represent. We should also respect their decision.
Do you have any issue with the person most of the people suggested?
I feel a need to recognize that trust.
>> I hope our friends will not repeat the wrong procedures (may be in
>> a good spririt) till that point
> you are denying almost the entire population of India to be excluded
> from playing a role in FOSSCOMM. as you know people who work like us
> are minority in any country. If our culture remains an entry ticket,
> then we will be excluding many, which I think is not desirable.
branding a structure/process democracy concern for a newly forming
network/alliance/coalition as "technical issue/hacker concern" is not
fine. I hope u understood my point
"The resources of the world are for us all to share. Let us affirm our
faith in that common cause" - Dr. Ilina Sen
More information about the network