Could we get over this IT.COM thing ?

[Arun Sharma <adsharma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 03:57:24AM -0400, Biju Chacko wrote:

Biju,

The reason why this list is private is because Thaths envisioned it to
be similar to the Debian process. And my guess is that they kept it 
closed for a reason you pointed out earlier - endless politicking about
each and every word said on the list.

> *I* had very little idea of the scale of the problem until Saturday.
> However,  Arun, Thaths and KD as well as various others have been aware of
> this since *November* last year (last IT.COM).

I wish you wouldn't speak on this list about second hand accounts you
hear from Atul. I've never been involved in "managing" (or mismanaging)
the LI registration. I've neither been to IT.COM and nor have anything
to do with it. Don't drag my name into it unnecessarily. My only fault
has been to step up and reply to KK's mail.

Gosh! I have to answer critics who accuse me of doing Atul's bidding
on the list and people who accuse me of NOT doing pricesely that.

For whatever reason, Atul doesn't believe that LI-REG is going anywhere
and he doesn't believe in this process. You'll probably hear something
more public from him about this.

I don't feel very good about washing dirty laundry publicly - but looks
like you're picking up too much news from Atul. So I felt the need to
clarify.

> People have been formally asking for this process to be started since
> February. I am not sure why it has been delayed so long.

Ask, KD. KD, could you speak up please ?

> This is very kind but impractical for two reasons:
> 
> 1. the amount of money: Rs 10 lakhs is what PCQ was prepared to foot.
> 

I'm not very amused by this. If the amount was Rs 100, your reaction
would've been very different ?

> 2. The stalls are not available. PCQ booked this *last* year in the
> expectation that there would be a legal entity in one year's time.

I don't speak with PCQ. I was aware of the necessity, but I wasn't
aware of any deadlines.

> Don't hurry it up. I never asked that it be hurried up. Just that it be
> completed in the advertised four weeks. And that assurance be conveyed to
> PCQ.

Which is exactly what I told KK and Atul. But Atul was in no mood to listen.
He wanted it resolved "right now" and give him archives of the list, so
that he can verify the facts for himself. I refused. Looks like you
obliged ?

I've had enough of IT.COM. This is my last post on that topic. The only
thing I'm willing to discuss on this list is LI constitution, which
we should be discussing at this time according to our time table.

I'm still waiting for responses for the 5-6 proposals I put forth 
regarding what should the constitution address.

	-Arun