Particularly in the FOSS support community, I believe there are many people who wholeheartedly support FOSS (and each of jtd's 4 listed points of agreement) yet whose stance as an organisation may be different, as Kenneth points out. On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thursday 06 Aug 2009 11:10:06 am jtd wrote: > > > -1. So we are back to the mixture as before, with 90% of the community > > > and practically all outside players outside fosscomm. > > > > We are not. There are no stats available whatsoever. We are just making > > assumptions based on our personal views. > > > > We agree that we require to be broad based. > > 1) Most insiders agree that Software Patents are to be opposed. > > 2) We agree that the government must be made to use FLOSS for > e-governance. > > 3) We agree that Open unencumbered standards are a must. > > 4) We agree that FLOSS must be used in ICT > > > > Given the last three (especially 3) , i dont see how we can reconcile to > a > > different stance on 1. > > you may not be able to. I may not be able to. But I can assure you a lot of > people are able to. Check the archives for a list. > This is absolutely not good advice at the moment. Someone has already requested (excuse me if it was you, in fact) that the archives be crosslinked to the real topics being discussed, rather than the subject line, as it is now. This I am witness to, after spending much time trying to discover what exactly you meant by your statement on patents (I still haven't found the reference in the archives). The fact that I can't remember who made the suggestion (though I must have seen that suggestion only last night or early this morning) may help you understand that trawling the archives is not a lighthearted task. Notice, this is a crucial discussion on software patents, but it is not at all obvious from the present subject line either. Simply changing the subject line won't help, as threads will get broken. > > > > So the CMP (in no particular order) for now Could be > > > > 1) Engage various ICT agencies for using FLOSS. > > 2) Engage the government for enforcing the use of FLOSS in e-Governance. > > 3) Engage the government in enforcing Open unencumbered standards and > avoid > > multiple standards in IT software and hardware. > > 4) As a corollary of the above two campaign against Software patents. > > forget no 4 - set up a separate body for no 4 > > 5) Enlist members who support one or more of the above. > > yes Please let us follow suggestion 5 wholeheartedly without quibbling on # 4. The two are not incompatible. Unless something in the NRC-FOSS charter absolutely forbids it, you may support 4 individually if you wish, if NRC-FOSS does not. If you abstain, everyone loses, of course. And just as you have expressed your dichotomy clearly again (I am ready to accept it is 'again', since I haven't found the first reference), so may any other listmember be constrained 'officially', yet be able to contribute personally. In your personal contributions, you are also free to add a disclaimer about your organisational stance. Finally, if it came to a public statement (CMP), I would hope that the putative fosscomm would have no objections to publishing individual (ie organisational member) dissents, just as individual members of court benches do regularly, and the position on that is well understood. I mention that only as a reference to precedents. > > > > > As an immediate requirement began formation of a formal body. > > Setup membership rules. > > Commence enrolment process. > > yes > > -- > regards > Kenneth Gonsalves > Associate > NRC-FOSS > http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ > _______________________________________________ > network mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in > -- Vickram http://communicall.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
