On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Sundaram KR <[email protected]> wrote: > The problem arises when we start assuming things. The original email is > addressed to Mr. Baskar in his Linuxpert Systems mailing list; not the ilugc > mailing list. So when Baskar asks for help, one would normally assume he > wants help to conduct on behalf of LinuxPert Systems only, not this list. > There is nothing wrong in doing this, but clarity was missing.
I think I am going to call this one out. [1] The faculty member wrote to Baskar on his email address. I couldn't figure how it can be construed as "his Linuxpert Systems mailing list" [2] It is somewhat reasonable to formulate a hypothesis that Baskar's email is widely available because (a) he has been conducting these events and, (b) perhaps it is search engine friendly > Now, in Baskar's reply he says " ...cannot be handled by me or by my > company,...If anyone does, it will be 'on behalf of ILUG-C' only." > > -------- > > See? Our assumption was wrong. Why this restriction for anybody else to > conduct only on behalf of ilugc? On what basis is Baskar placing this > restriction on others in this list? I actually believe that Baskar's response "on behalf ..." is redundant. Person A writes to Person B, Person A writes to a wider forum and asks an interested individual to respond to him. Till this step, there is no indication that Person A desires to make a commercial enterprise out of it (even if Person A has a commercial business catering to a similar domain). It is often seen in daily life that people asking "let me know and, I'll introduce you to them". If you do have a specific question about the instance, it would perhaps been better to take it off list and receive assurances. -- sankarshan mukhopadhyay <https://twitter.com/#!/sankarshan> _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc ILUGC Mailing List Guidelines: http://ilugc.in/mailinglist-guidelines
