[fosscomm] FOSSCOMM APEX COMMITTEE
use.info at gmail.com
Fri Jul 17 23:07:59 PDT 2009
2009/7/18 Raj Mathur <raju at linux-delhi.org>
> On Friday 17 Jul 2009, Anivar Aravind wrote:
> > [snip]
> > An alliance /network need to build from Base rules. Not from the top
> > or on the basis on immediate action items. No one here is objecting
> > Andrew lynn's intervention as foss supporter / JNU Professor or In
> > Individual Capacity., That we all do in our individual capacities. We
> > all know fosscomm not yet formalised its structure and that process
> > need to be initiated from Ground rules/principles and membership
> > criteria
> > So lets start from that instead of Representation/ Apex Commiteee
> > Discussions .
> There are discussions and meetings that are held in camera and which the
> participants may not want disclosed to the whole world. For instance,
> if Prof Lynn is given some information about the progress of the Open
> Standards issue in confidence by a committee member, on a personal
> basis, there is no way he (Andrew) can share it with this list. On the
> other hand, the information may be crucial enough to warrant immediate
> action. In these circumstances Andrew only has 3 choices:
> 1. Do nothing and let the window lapse.
> 2. Do something on a personal basis, which may or may not be the
> appropriate response.
> 3. Share the information with a select peer group in confidence and
> enable the peer group to provide the necessary response.
> I'm afraid that openness is only possible up to a point when dealing
> with external, possibly hostile entities, so I second Prof Lynn's call
> for a Working Group to tackle confidential activities that may be
> required for progress in the Open Standards case. Note: "Apex
> Committee" is a misnomer -- these people aren't in any way special or
> better than the rest of us worker ants -- they are just more qualified
> to tackle this particular issue and keep confidential information just
> that: confidential. (They will also have to work harder than the rest
> of us, but that's their problem ;-)
> If such a Working Group is formed, I'd insist on regular (say weekly)
> reports from them on their activities, or whatever can be revealed about
> their activities without breaching friendly confidences and tipping off
> inimical entities.
> -- Raj
> Raj Mathur raju at kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/
> GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F
> PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves
What you are saying in essence is that The Free and Open Source Software
Community be a Closed Cabal with Limited Disclosure when it comes to its own
functioning, and sit on a moral high horse regarding
closed proprietary systems?
Have confidence in openness and transparency... it is powerful, and more
important, it works!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the network