HI
I am sorry, but I don't understand why it is shocking. Is something seriously wrong with it?
"FSF India does not have any plan to form local chapters. FSF India is not a mass based organisation."
Dont you think this one statement in itself is shocking.Being the leaders of the movemet/organisation you all should be guiding it rather than sabotaging it with this sort of a stand. Many enthusiasts like me work in this movement and try to bridge the digital divide and take technology (free softwares) to the people(masses). Reading the above statement shocked me. And also that FSF India does not have any plans to form local chapters. If FSF can start local bodies like FSF I, then FSF I should also start local chapters, whats stopping and more importantly why stopping??
This also is not clear to me. How is FSF India trying to divide the existing committee? What committee, as a matter of fact?
Well it was a typo. It should be community and not committee. Don't you think that adapting this sort of an approach will divide the community. If you dont think so, then going through the works of RMS and Eben Moglen would facilitate in the thinking process and help in understanding why I felt so.
Again, I fail to understand how FSF India is killing the movement. I have heard this being repeated often, but have not yet been able to understand. Can you please explain?
People who have worked in taking the Free Software Philosophy ,paradigm and technologies to the people would better understand why this sort of approach kills the movement.
And we already have FSUGs and GLUGs that are very active. What is the point in setting up another organisation?
I have neither asked nor mentioned anywhere to set up another organisation. What i have asked is why take a stand on not setting up of local chapters? I think there is a lot of difference in setting up another organisation and setting up of local chapters of an existing organisation (or company; use the appropriate term as per rules/regulations).
More people using Free Software and understanding its philosophy are objectives all of us are working for. But how does this reflect on the constitution of the Board of FSF India? The constitution should, I think, depend on the function.
Constitution reflects the objectives we work for. How is it that the constitution says one thing but the objectives of the very organisation that follows the same constitution be different. This is hypocrisy to the core.
FSF India's role is to ensure that the ideals of Free Software are not distorted, and to promote Free Software and its ideals. This requires that the people on the board are clear about the philosophy of Free Software. When a large section of the population does not have that clarity, it is not advisable to have an elected body which may or may not stick with the philosophy. I find major problems there.
As I tried to explain above, FSF India cannot be a democratic body precisely because its aim is not to reflect the aspirations of the public but to act as a touchstone for the philosophy of Free Software (which, I hope, you believe in), on the one hand, and to advocate Free Software and its philosophy, on the other. And remember, a member of the Board gets no authority on the FS community or on anything else. There is nothing attractive about being a member of the Board. The Foundation is not ruling over anything. It is not like a government.
Well i totally accept your point that one of the major objective of FSF-I is to advocate Free Software and its Philosophy, and i firmly belive in the same. Thats the very reason why i am shocked by the stand taken by the people who are supposed to be the leaders. I would like to know, is it possible to advocate the same in a vast country without having local chapters?
In fact, if you take the history of Free Software, it was RMS who started things and set up the GNU project, the GPL and the other licences. It was not done in consultation with the people. It was only in the case of GPL v3 that there were consultations with the community. Even there, the clauses were not decided on the basis of a vote. A lot of people the world over happen to think that all these are good for society, and so they support it.
And there is no aristocratic manner anywhere. All the members are available for discussion and anyone is welcome. There are no guards or protocols to be observed ;-)
Well if it is not a democratic organisation, then the way in which the board framed the responses and the way in which i acts and would act can not be democratic either.Since you have mentioned that it is not democratic, there is no point in discussion,as per your anti-democratic stand. Hence,i feel, it is aristocratic.
Hope you understand.
Best
V. Sasi Kumar Free Software Foundation of India http://swatantryam.blogspot.com
Hope i made my understanding clear.