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.
I think FSF India statement is quite clear on the issue. FSF board members and RMS felt that there is no need to have regional chapters in India because all the chapters will come under a single constitution, unlike in Europe and Latin America. FSF Europe has regional chapters in each country.
I am sorry if we misguided my friend in any way. From 2001 FSF India had same stand on forming regional chapters. I dont understand how this becomes an issue suddenly.
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??
Having said the present position of FSF India on local chapters, I would like to request my friend to clearly state the reasons why FSF India/FSF should have regional chapters and how they should be organised. If you can convince the FSF India board that it is required, may be it will change its stand. I dont think it is a decision that can not be changed. So please work on a very clear and logical argument on this.
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.
As I mentioned already RMS was a key person in deciding against regional chapters in India. Are you suggesting that he should read his own writing ;) (just for fun, dont take it personal).
regrds, arun.
On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 10:34 +0530, vijay reddy wrote:
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.
I am not a perfect human being, and, maybe, my brain does not understand certain things. That is why I raised the question of why it is shocking, why it is wrong. Why don't you please answer the question?
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??
I am sorry, there is a big difference between FSFI and local chapters. FSFI was needed to handle matters that arise in India, which FSF cannot handle from Boston. But issues are largely similar in different parts of India, since it is, in general, the Government of India's policy that matters. That is not the case in Europe, for example, where FSF Europe has members from many countries. There are certainly local issues in India. That is why we work with FSUGs and GLUGs. And this arrangement has worked very well. But, if there is a strong reason for starting local chapters, we can certainly think about it. Otherwise, I see no reason to start such chapters when FSUGs and GLUGs are doing a good job.
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.
My question remains, even if you meant "community". How is FSF India trying to divide the community? It would be good if you can be more specific. For instance, what is the approach that is dividing the community? For your information, FSF India works closely with RMS and we do take his advice on a lot of matters. Maybe my thinking process is not working well. Can you please explain a little more clearly?
People who have worked in taking the Free SoftwarePhilosophy ,paradigm and technologies to the people would better understand why this sort of approach kills the movement.
I admit that I have not been able to work as closely as I would like to take the ideals of Free Software to the people. If you feel that you have done so, would you kindly explain what is the approach that is killing the movement and how it is killing? I have been associated with FSF India for the last few years and I have not seen this death happening. On the other hand, I see the movement growing. Maybe my lack of intelligence, but would you please be kind enough to enlighten me?
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 anywhereto set up another organisation. What i have asked is why take a stand on not setting up of local chapters?
When there are FSUGs, GLUGs, ILUGs, and so on that are co-operating with FSF India and doing a great job, won't that be sufficient? I don't understand how it becomes different if an FSFI chapter is also set up in these places. Won't it be the same people who will have to work there also? Maybe, being not very intelligent, I am not able to understand.
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).
Fine. But that still does not answer my question above. Bangalore, for instance, has a very active FSUG. How is establishing an FSFI chapter there going to benefit the movement? As I see it, it could, in fact, dampen the activity because the very same people will have to look after both, FSUG and FSFI chapter.
Constitution reflects the objectives we work for. How isit 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.
I think there is a difference between the "constitution" (a document) of an organisation and the "constitution" of a body such as the Board (how the body is constituted). I meant the latter, and not the former.
Well i totally accept your pointthat 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?
I think this has been happening for several years now. But if there are some new developments that makes it imperative to have local chapters, we can certainly think about it. But I feel that, as I said earlier, FSUGs, GLUGs, etc. are doing a wonderful job in this matter, and I don't see how an additional body can help.
Well if it is not a democratic organisation, then the wayin 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.
I think democracy is needed where people are ruled over by a body like a government. It could also be a co-operative society kind of organisation where a body takes decisions based on people's aspirations. FSF or FSF India are not organisations like that. Here no one is ruling over anyone. No one is running an organisation that is expected to meet people's aspirations. FSF was meant to advocate Free Software, and FSFI also does the same. FSFI works closely with RMS so that his guidance is always there to correct us if we make mistakes in the ideology. There we cannot be democratic and preach what the majority wants. That would simply dilute the ideology.
Best
-
Arun M -
V. Sasi Kumar -
vijay reddy