[Fsf-friends] Statement of FSF India board on recent incidents

[vijay reddy]

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.


-- 
Vijay Chandra