--- Evan Leibovitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Personally, I would see resorting to charity status > as a failure of our > primary goals of advancing the use of Linux and open > source.) I agree *big* *time* with the above statement. The parable of a wise friend comes to mind: "If the meek shall inherit the earth, who'll drive all the big trucks?". I view Linux as a fleet of big, powerful trucks with a huge option list that has more added everyday. We have to let people know its open to Jill and Joe Everybody, with a huge cadre of serious people (with strong arms, so to speak) that scrutinize each other's work to ensure maintenance, reliability, and *Standardisation*. This is not a charity. > Someone needs to provide: > > - Position papers to present to the CRTC and > parliamentary committees on > issues that affect open source users, such as the > punitive tax on > blank media that assumes that all CD burning > exists to illegally > reproduce copyrighted material; Time to throw my hat into the ring *here*... Although I came in to the fray from another industry, it was one that was very heavy on compliance. I have written submissions in the past to grant my company both National and International air carrier license. With these submissions, I had to keep in mind that there would be a possibility for protest from a much larger commercial enterprise, bent on the eradication of possible competitors. I was successful in having the licences and operational specifications that matched the above competitor. In order to get those, I had to write, and at least compile, a number of documents, and have them in place to be worthy of the above level of service: - Company Operations Manual - Tariff Manuals (International was a tough one!) - Standard Operatiing Procedures Manual - Company Training Manuals - Maintenance Control Manual - course curricula, policies, procedures, emergency measures, and related examinations appended to the above. Some of these surely do not apply. However, a firm infrastructure and foundation of *established* written procedures will go a long way in this endeavour. I'm not trying to restrict freedom, but, If we want to become *The* Standard, we must show a standard. Then we advertise it .... > - Public speakers capable of traveling to hearings > and eloquently > advancing the case for open source to > tech-ignorant Any ToastMasters amoungst us? (and possibly > tech-hostile) politicians and mandarins; "A Canticle For Liebowitz" or the "Road Warrior" scenario is a real possibility now. > - Publicity and advertising resources and info that > LUGs can use when > working with their local media outlets; > > - A constant and effective counterpoint to > Microsoft's heavily-funded > FUD campaigns (and to a lesser extent Sun's > scattered anti-Linux efforts); > > - Lobbyists who will meet and keep contact with MPs > (and MPPs and MLAs etc.) > charged with technical issues, be it Ministers or > Deputy Ministers or > Shadow Ministers or committee chairs or relevant > committees of political > parties or whatever; My feelings are to tread carefully here. Lobbyists and their political counterparts can be sometimes hoist by their own petard. At the same time, the whistleblowers can be muzzled. Advocacy includes leadership by example. I won't get into the 7 laws of learning here, but I'm heavy on the law of primacy. I'm not at all ashamed to let people know (brag) that my system (Linux) is POSIX complient. You may insert the obvious herein. Apologies to those who may find this a bit preachy. Just some thoughts from a small fellow that ran with, and sometimes ahead of, the big dogs; in spite of their FUD. -jim __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
