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

Re: Thoughts about constitution


----- Original Message -----
From: Gurunandan R. Bhat <grbhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <li-reg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [LI-Reg] Thoughts about constitution

> On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Sudhakar Chandra wrote:
> > But one major problem would be the interaction between the local,
> > informal ILUG and the national, formal LI.
> I agree. Usually national bodies (the IETE, is one example that comes to
> mind) enable affiliation on a per programme basis rather than on a
> permanent one. For example, I imagine the folowing scenario: LI
> organises/participates in a national event, calls for affiliates/partners
> from among the LUGS and puts out an announcement on LIG. Some join, other
> dont. Individuals whose LUGs are not affiliates to a particular program,
> also participate but as individuals. This way nobody is left out.

Sounds good, but....

[1] Abt relationship between LI and the local LUGs... how does LI recognise a local LUG?

I suppose all the LUGs conforming to the ILUG-<locality> namespace could get automatical recognition with LI.

[2] If we are talking about a loose structure wrt LI and local LUGs as suggested, who/how to constitute the "governing
body" of LI ?

Already certain less-than-properly-informed individuals (given the earlier closed nature of LI-REG, I don't want to read
anything else in his response) are claiming this panel (li-reg) to be "self-appointed". While Arun and Thaths have seen
that the lack of info is rectified, unless the nature of representation in the LI governing body from the different
ILUGs is *very, very* clearly laid-out there is a likely chance of misinterpretation of actions taken by the body.

[3] How about something like a overall membership of the LUGs with LI and an event-specific interactive mode of

As long as LI governing body is constituted with representations from ILUGs registered with it and works accroding to
democratic principles, I *fail* to see how/what can fan ppl's fear of  LI swamping the LUGs. Case in hand -- ILUG-BLR
acting as proxy for LI for the proposed participation in IT.COM 2000, where was no confusion in the voting process or
doubts about its results, unlike as in the case of distribution of brochures by "certain commercial interests" in last
year's IT.COM. Everything is transparent.

[4] Even before we have any formal body in place there is talk of ppl wanting out or saying that they would not be part
of the process/proposed structure. In this situation it is not too far-fetch to imagine what can happen if a local LUG
membership forks... What should be the status of any breakaway faction vis a vis the existing one wrt to LI?

[5] I agree with Arun that having a weighted representation on LI based directly on the number of members in each LUG is
a difficult proposition, and one that is open to abuse/misuse and doubts/suspicions. Likewise Nikk's post on LIG that a
300 member LUG != 6 member LUG can't be wished away. I somewhat liked the idea of weightage/membership classification of
LI --> LUGs based on Arun's latter suggestion -- metro, non-metro, towns and villages.

> > Also keep in mind that if ILUG-C does not register itself as a formal
> > body, some "rougue" (for lack of a better word) ILUG-C might be
> > registered by someone wanting to make a quick buck / have free PR.

Simple! We protect our own! We remain alert! We police our own neighbourhoods. And with LI and rest of the Linux-Indian
community behind us we can form a to-be-reckoned-with pressure-group to keep the "wolves" at bay :)

 > The need to "make a quick buck/have free PR" is a commonplace human
> characteristic, and it would be unrealistic to hope that mere registration
> will reduce free riders.

Very true, if you can't beat them, you join them... if you are concerned that your organisation namespace might be
facing a threat from "for-profit" interests, stake out the territory before they do.

Besides as long as the LUGs conform to the ILUG namespace, there is very little that the free-loaders can really
achieve. Think about it... what can a "for-profit" entity achieve by registering ILUG-Chennai... we have far too much
representation among the IT industry, media and user-base for the "rogues" to extract anything but notoriety and get
their names dragged through the mud for the attempt. If anything they will hurt themselves by such an attempt then us.

> > A few others have complained about the Linux India booth at last
> > year's IT.com also having flyers from a certain commercial Linux
> > interest.
> were atleast six others. And the matter was discussed and agreed upon by
> all who coordinated the pavillion.

IIRC, *that* fact was not known to many people. Even I had a bit of concern abt this issue last year, till (prolly?)
Thaths explained the background to me. IMHO, it would have helped if that info was in the public domain -- lack-of-info
+ niggling-doubts + word-of-mouth = a-very-dangerous-combination that can hurt LI.

> clear-cut sponsorship/advertsing guidelines in LI events, worked out
> through consensus can serve to reduce this kind of distrust.

As well as some sort of "code-of-conduct" for the volunteer participants.

> > Honestly, all this distrust makes me want to throw my hands up and throw
> > away all this.
> It makes me want to get LI registered quickly ;)

Amen! ;)

However Utopian it may sound, our guiding principle in all these matter should be to rise above our individual personal,
regional-interests and work for the much larger interest of Linux in India as a whole.