On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:31 AM, justin joseph <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 8:50 PM, renuka prasad <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Comet Media Foundation > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > Especially to talk of consequences if some one commits for something and > does > not ahere, this being mostly voluntarily work people can get stuck up > with a 1000 > personal issues and make go to outer space, who cares! nodes come in and go > out > and that was the fundamental idea behing FOSCOMM if am not wrong. > What you say makes so much sense, but that does not constitute an endorsement for irresponsibility, merely for the recognition that being absent for personal reasons (whatever) should not end up being a federal crime. However, in this case, FOSSCOMM (broadly) proposes an offer to take care of schoolteacher training. If this was being done by a commercial organisation, then (in theory) it would accept any liabilities for non-performance, so that base would be covered. I mean things like the costs of schoolteachers showing up, and finding the instructors/facilitators absent, so the entire money goes down the drain. In practice, of course, it would probably actually lead to recriminations and threats of legal civil recourse, rather than any fine or penalty, so it is not as though the alternatives are really very different. I don't think the MS-Mah MoU mentions any compensation for performance failure, but it may be in the fine print of the final agreement (it may also be built in by law or practice to any agreement with the government, in which case there won't be any reason to specifically mention it). Still, that should not be an excuse, when ethics is at the core of this exercise. If I recast what Chandita and Renuka may have meant is, if either an organisation or individuals volunteer or commit in return for some money or recognition by way of compensation to undertake x, y or z activity, and if that becomes impossible on the due date, we need to have a process in place to ensure substitutes are available. My reason for proposing this: how FOSSCOMM deals with such absences or performance failures is an internal FOSSCOMM matter, and not any concern of the client (ie, the State Education Department, in this case, but the same applies generally to future service offerings). As far as the client is concerned, FOSSCOMM offers to make available such-and-such services, whether a, b or z member organisations or individuals are the actual designated providers. Therefore, for any specific activity, FOSSCOMM needs to have fallbacks in place, which in most cases will be substitute personnel. Incidentally, since this aspect of the discussion is really about money (in terms of potential liabilities), although some reference has also been made to reputation and credibility, should we have some specific compensation to FOSSCOMM built in? It is very clear how that can be justified, because of the huge monetary savings, both upfront and annually, but should this line of argument be part of the offer? I would like to discuss this on Sunday, as I don't think we have mentioned it earlier. I would also like to know what models are followed in Karnataka and Kerala, and the feedback (with respect to payments, I mean). Now, as long as we are talking about compensating the client for non-performance on our part, how about the opposite? What if we put together the infrastructure for some training module, and the schoolteachers do not show up due to some lapse on the part of the government? Who will pay? -- Vickram http://communicall.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
