<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2008/11/29 renuka prasad <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:renukaprasadb@gmail.com" target="_blank">renukaprasadb@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Vikram Vincent <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vincentvikram@gmail.com" target="_blank">vincentvikram@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><snip><br>Let us take things objectively to analyse, debate and come to some sort of an understanding.<br>
<br>Democracy, transparency and openness are considered the pillars of the free software movement. We talk about free(or open) standards, free knowledge, etc.. and then we hear "Democracy? That is only for theory."<br>
How can one ensure democratisation of knowledge if one is undemocratic?<br>
</blockquote></div><snip><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br></blockquote></div></div><br>
</blockquote></div><br>One reason why I promote Debian is because of its politics. It is democratic in its own way. There is an eligibility criteria to be met before being given developer status. Then the corresponding elections for position of Debian leader. Fixed period of functioning. Distribution of responsibilities. Procedure to recall a leader if the majority feel that that functionary is not fit.<br clear="all">
<br>Now in the FSF-I we have people who claim to be my leader.<br>-- <br>Vikram Vincent<br>+919448810822<br><a href="http://swatantra.org/" target="_blank">http://swatantra.org/</a><br>