Dear All,
Please refer Vijayan's mail 2709 of 18 Jan 2009 [Disappointed with CAF]. Vijayan has taken offence to my statement that this Google group is not competent to decide matters pertaining to CAF. He says that he is disturbed by my mail clarifying this position. My assertion is merely an explanation of the factual position. Vijayan seems to imply that this is my way of saying that all decisions in CAF are taken by me. This is his presumption. This is far from the truth. He also makes it appear that it is his understanding that I have said that this group is unimportant. Where have I said that? He has imputed many other views or attitudes that I have not even remotely thought of. Why does anyone want to give such twists? If CAF is to take any course of action or a position on an issue, only either its General Body or its Managing Committee could do so, for decisions within their competence, and as per our byelaws. This is so, not because I have any axe to grind, but because CAF is subject to the laws applicable to registered Societies. It has been explained many a time that CAF is not organized to take positions on issues, but merely to promote its objectives, [Transparency & Accountability of governments and people's participation in governance – NOT 'blah, blah, blah'] the ultimate objective being good governance. Hence, any action that furthers this is welcome. All members have the freedom to proceed with initiatives pursuant to this goal, with the stipulation of all-inclusivity. This Google group is NOT representative of CAF's membership. CAF has many members, in fact a very large number, who are NOT members of this Google group. Further, there are members of this Google group who are NOT members of CAF. It would be nice if Vijayan could spell out how he would like to use this Google group to take decisions on matters pertaining to CAF. What decisions would he like it to take? How would the decisions be made? How would these be implemented? This group was NOT started, as a blogging group. It was meant merely as one of the means of communication between members. It was intended to elicit views and convey information on actions contemplated, CAF programs, and to seek volunteers and other assistance. Regards, Mathew On 1/18/09, 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
