To the same lot for whom the World Bank is the devil incarnate, its words are gospel when it comes to charges against the other-wise highly respected WIPRO. Muralidhar Rao
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Vijay Menon <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
