The mail below disturbed me immensely and I was debating whether to write a response at all, or just leave it alone and move on.
Move on I may, but I felt I needed to put down a viewpoint. What I am hearing are the following: 1) This discussion group is unimportant and "decisions" are by The Managing committee”. Surprising comment since the everyday vitality of CAF seems to manifest itself in the e-groups and not only at the Century Club meetings. Also a way of saying… keep talking if u want...I will hear and decide according to my own rules. 2) That there is such an archaic view point and unfortunately biased view on everything "technological and new" manifested in comments that seem to suggest a) That we are not blogging site. b) We are not here to promote other “blogging” sites. Comments like these give me an impression of viewpoints so fixed and dated and just not in keeping with a changing world and changing people. Sounds like desperate attempts at keeping things to the familiar so as to protect ones own turf. While the real solutions in the new world out there is collaboration/ exchanges of ideas /coming together of different groups. c) And the last, but probably not least... The kind of bravado statements of "if u don’t like the CAF way, go elsewhere" For many of these, the justification is things like a "we are registered society with rules", “managing committee which will decide”. And of course that “CAF has a particular kind of way of working/ engaging with the estates and that is the only way” By extension of logic if you disagree with the other holy cows, it also I suppose means. “Find some other platform” These holy cows being a) CAF will not take a position...That is the CAF way b) Everything which is World Bank is bad and anti- citizen c) Anything to do with BATF or Abide is anti democracy and anti citizen Reminds me of an old adage ...”physician, heal thyself”. It is now getting increasingly clear that there are different views on how CAF should go forward.Which itself is good because I do not believe anything can stay status quo for any length of time. So I think unless there is a real appreciation of this and not always fallback to the academic argument of charter of CAF...I do not think (in my view) we will go forward as an inclusive organization. I believe one of the root issues is the “CAF does not take a position”. While I believe it is a noble and academically interesting direction, I do believe there are some inherent contradictions and effectiveness issues in following that statement or belief. Enuf said. Vijayan Menon On Jan 12, 11:02 pm, Mathew <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear All, > > There are well-meaning gentlemen in this Google group, who appear > dissatisfied with the functioning of CAF. Some of them want CAF to > adopt their views. Some want CAF to espouse specific agendas. Perhaps, > they make these statements under the mistaken notion that this Google > group could decide matters pertaining to CAF. > > May I draw their attention to the fact CAF is a registered Society > under the Societies Registration Act, Google or other Internet groups > are not the forums where decisions pertaining to the Society’s > functioning are taken. Decisions of this Society are taken by its > managing committee and / or general body. Members are requested to > take up issues of their concern with these appropriate bodies. > > The methodology that CAF adopts for taking up issues with other > stakeholders have been explained several times previously, and there > is no need to repeat the same here. Suffice it to say that members are > free to anchor programs of their choice, with the stipulation that > differing views are provided adequate space in their programs. Those > who are dissatisfied with CAF or its methodology or the fact it is not > endorsing their views or taking up causes, as per their wishes, are > welcome to move to other organizations that would be more amenable to > their preferences. This would be the better option rather than staying > on and making public statements of their “disappointment” with CAF’s > functioning. > > Further, may I suggest that while CAF may work in close cooperation > with any organization, on programs where there is identity of purpose, > CAF is not a forum meant to promote other Web or Blogging sites. I > therefore request members from to refrain from attempting to > constantly draw attention to such sites or suggest that CAF > discussions should be carried on, in or through, such Internet > spaces. > > Regards, > > Mathew --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Citizens' Action Forum" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/citizens-action-forum?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
