[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]

Re: Please read

On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 06:20:33AM -0400, Biju Chacko wrote:


> Arun has written to PCQ (our sponsors) informing them that this list has
> decided that LI will not be participating in IT.COM.

Who told you this ? I wish you had read my response to PCQ. I'm attaching
it to this mail for your review. Please let me know if you think this
is an unfair characterization of the traffic on this list. I'm also
attaching your mail on the issue and my reading of your mail is that 
you agree with my statement made to KK. Let me know if this is not the 

In any case, if you felt that you needed to make the discussion on this
list public, it'd have been polite to inform the list that you wish to
make the discussion public and perhaps people would've agreed.

Could we put this IT.COM issue aside and move on ?

--- Begin Message ---
--- Raghavendra Bhat <ragu@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> What has IT.com to do anything about this discussion of
> GNU/Linux in India ?  Anyway, we are not going to keep
> IT.com in mind when we discuss things Linux.........
> no deadlines like this one !!

You are right. IT.com is a Bangalore-specific issue. I am not demanding a
deadline. I am merely suggesting that, as with any other task with a
specific objective, we ought have a calendar by which we can judge the
progress. My gut-feeling is that an open-ended discussion will remain just
that - a discussion.

> We should only accept reasonable deadlines if not none.
> GNU/Linux has evolved with no deadlines kept in sight.

Well, it is merely a suggestion. If you feel that some kind of target is not
reasonable, by all means, let us not have them.


FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Please respect the privacy of this list.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 03:18:21PM +0530, Krishna Kumar wrote:


> Atul,
> While it is great to know that the Bangalore LUG is doing so well,
> I have explained to you that PCQ cannot sponsor a single LUG, for
> reasons shown below.  The sponsorship has to go to a national body,
> not a regional one.

We're aware of these issues. We have formed a semi-closed mailing list,
with representation from almost all the ILUGs and a time bound discussion
is currently taking place to figure out the constituion, mode of functioning 

We may not be done before IT.COM happens. The general consensus has been
to stick to the published timetable rather than hurry things up for
the sake of IT.COM.

I hope you realize the complexities involved in evolving a consensus.
Thank you for your patience!


--- End Message ---