On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:02 AM, K. Subramaniam <[email protected]> wrote: > > I made some small changes in the wording in a few places. I feel some more > changes are needed in the objectives listed under phase II and the part > relating to building a ICT-enabled teacher community. Mainly I feel it > should be toned down, for example, deleting "building network of teachers > across the state" and "creating repository". I think we should restrict the > draft to what we can assuredly deliver. The technical things are ok, they > are deliverable. But the other points, we need to be cautious in what we > promise. > > I think we should also trim the list of institutions. I would say that at > the moment it can be restricted to FSF, HBCSE, IIT and Comet media - the > organizations represented in the meeting with the secretary. Participation > from other institutions is more than welcome (fervently hoped for!), but > they need to come forward with a clear commitment. >
I think the representation from User groups is very important. This is a very important role for them. That way the teachers will also be integrated with the whole community of users and developers. Therefore, I suggest atleast the Mumbai and Pune user groups part of this. While Terrence can be a Rep for the GLUG Mumbai, we haven't heard any committment from Pune. Any one from Pune and other parts of Maharastra, please reply soon. Nagarjuna _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
