{Longish post}
On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 09:50, Raj Mathur wrote:
> Mairu> I forgot to mention in the previous mail, that the
> Mairu> sub-domain, http://creative.linux-delhi.org is not
> Mairu> available anymore. (for some reason)
>
> It's not available because the gentleman who was hosting creative dot
> decided to unilaterally put a company logo and his own name on the
> front page, and changed the software administrator password to deny
> Vivek Khurana access to the site. Vivek, BTW, is the designer,
> implementer and maintainer of the site.
> The only message I get from this is that the gentleman is question is
> willing to let LUG interests suffer unless he gets his own way in
> whatever small kingdom he has built up. You could have a different
> interpretation, I'd be glad to hear it.
There is nothing hidden for Raj to circuitously address me as gentleman
concerned. Easy to drop it but since I am the gentleman in question I
state:
1. When the initial hosting idea was put across to me I had requested
that my company logo link be put at the bottom. There was no claim of
ownership ever demanded all the link should have said "site hosted
by...." Project leaders acceptance was implied.
2. This is a practise for many a FLOSS site and indeed even for LUG-D
and does not in any way compromise on content or opinions at the site.
Nor did I demand any such rights of intervention.
3. At the moment such courtesy link was denied I decided to withdraw my
hosting offer.
4. Right through the project and the moment I withdrew hosting no status
report was ever shared with the community nor the fact that the site was
live or was going to be announced as such.
5. VK's announcement was in fact post my decision to stop hosting as I
was conveyed verbally that "community" had objections to my company's
courtesy link. Stoppage decision was taken in my role as commercial
enterprise. As a LUG-D member I have nothing to comment upon but say
that a potential bridge for larger adoption and involvement is being
lost for Linux
6. A larger matter of how decision of a few individuals becomes
community decision needs to be looked at and in interest of LUG-D's
future plans resolved openly. Such cross purposes working should not
become a spoiler in community work..
7. For that matter the links appearing on LUG-D site today about
LDD....who decided to allow them and why? If my company hosts the next
LUG-D meeting should the report not even acknowledge the fact that
meeting was organised courtesy XYZ? The sponsor of LDD get
acknowledgement of their supporting the cause of Linux. Why it becomes a
bad policy when I demand similar courtesy?
Understand that I am all for such courtesy links as the LUG-D benefits.
They help expand the resources and knowledge of our common purpose AND
importantly does not go against the grain of Linux philosophy.
8. Such matters need to be openly discussed and not personalised. I am
actually sorry for brief bursts earlier in the thread but it does seem
that larger interests get side tracked.
Opinions welcome so that all become aware of how the "internal" workings
of LUG-D happen.
--
Sudev Barar
Learning Linux
_______________________________________________
ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi
http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
