On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 13:22, Vickram Crishna <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sanjeev > > While Narendra's (and followup mails in this thread) may not be excellently > drafted from a legal or even a social perspective, the sentiment was clear, > and all discussions that nitpick on the shortcomings in wording and avoid > focusing on the sentiment itself are to my mind argumentative and not > helpful. I have no doubt that Dr Ambedkar found exactly the same problem > when he steered the Constitution, and in my conversations with Vic Hayes, he > certainly faced exactly the same challenges when steering the drafting of > the WiFi standard (now a family of standards). > No comments on this, sir. > > Why should we (people who care about FOSS usage) care about openness in > government? Lincoln said it best, I think, while reducing the discussion on > democratic governance to a few hundred words: "a government by the people, > of the people and for the people". Our government has not learned this truth > (nor has the US government, but it is miles ahead of us, let us be frank). > In today's news, I see that Anna Hazare has demanded the proceedings of the > drafting committee be videorecorded: this technology was not meaningfully > usable (although available, in a sense) during the drafting of the > Constitution, but it certainly is today. Mr Hazare may not be very uptodate > on tech matters, or else I have no doubt he would endorse Narendra's > sentiment: that all aspects relating to the Bill be conducted in an open, > transparent and accessible manner. Any fears about the constitution of a > drafting committee in which nobody is accountable (and only a handful have > been any elected in any representative capacity, none for this post) will be > minimised if not entirely laid to rest by such an action. > Exactly my view. So we should say "transparent and open", not "allow 16mm film"; the second phrasing may lose relevance. > > 1. The website must be compatible with internationally accepted standards > for openness and accessibility, as endorsed from time to time for use, and > avoid the use of proprietary formats that force users into purchasing or > accepting restrictive proprietary conditions. > Yes, Clear. > > 2. Transaction methods for payments made under the provisions of this Bill > must allow for the widest variety of methods legally enforceable for > commercial transactions available and in use from time to time, including > both physical and virtual transfers. The Rules under this Act must focus on > enabling the highest degree of convenience for persons wishing to take > advantage of the provisions of this Act, and draft Rules must be > transparently available for discussion concurrent with the drafting of the > Bill, in order to ensure its rapid applicability once it passes into law. > Clear, as well. I think we are in accord now. I was objecting to listing, in an Act that will last some time, today's "open" choices. -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
