On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 02:05 +0530, Saurabh Nanda wrote: > Hi Gora, > > I have attended only one Freed (it was called Freedel at that point) > and the focus seems to have shifted quite a bit since that time (open > source s/w focused event to a more "social revolution" kind of event). > Therefore, please read my comments in that context -- most of them may > be emanating from the fact that the new direction doesn't fit my > notion of the event.
Small point of order. I am sure that you understand this, but the event is by no means limited to me, or to the small set of people currently involved in planning it. Instead, it will be what the community wants it to be. So, by all means, such comments are welcome. We were actually a little worried by the lack of response to such a dramatic change in the focus of Freed, and a constructive discussion would be much appreciated. I am a little pressed this morning, so here is a brief reply. Please note that these remarks are solely in an individual capacity. > 1. How does a focus on the "Knowledge Ecosystem" tie in with open > source software? It surely ties in with open standards (and file > formats), but not necessarily with free/open source software. [...] Similar concerns were expressed by other people in Freed.in. To my mind, the aim is only to be more inclusive of other areas where the ideals shared by the free software movement might be fruitfully shared. To me, the "freedom" in "free software" is more interesting than the "software" part. Also, while future directions remain to be seen, my idea of remaining in touch with FOSS is that any efforts will always be centred around projects with a significant ICT component. > 2. The term "Knowledge Ecosystem" can mean different things to > different people. I've read the document carefully, it does not define > what "knowledge ecosystem" means to the organizers of the event in > clear concise terms. I think that's important. Also, knowledge can > impact lots of aspects of our lives. It would be good to list a few of > them, which Freed is planning to focus upon. From the tone of the > document, education and government seemed to be the primary focus, but > again, helps to be explicit. The document is deliberately vague because we want participants to define what the knowledge ecosystem means in the context of Freed.in. There are a few example areas outlined at the bottom of the document, and yes, education, and formulation of government policy are interest areas. > 3. What does section 1.3 mean? How do you plan to achieve the tangible > goals listed out in this section through Freed.in? Wouldn't achieving > these goals require a lot more sustained effort than a 3 day event? > Section 2.4 answers this question partially, but I'm still a bit > skeptical. Also, from a document writing perspective, portions of the > text of section 2.4 should be contained in section 1.3 to make things > more obvious. Freed.in 2008 is intended to be: (i) a planning conclave to more clearly define the areas we should focus on, and to lay out a roadmap, and (ii) a showcase for current projects in this area. Yes, the document rambles, and a more concise version has been prepared, and will be circulated soon as an invitation to participate. > 4. Pardon me, but IMHO, most of section 3.1 offers nothing concrete to > the user. It simply adds to the sense of vagueness. It should probably > be removed and replaced by a succinct definition of the term > "Knowledge Ecosystem" and be moved to somewhere in section 1 itself. Please be as critical as you would like to be. I disagree in that I feel that government policy in terms of mandating open standards, and the role of government as a disseminator of content are central to making the knowledge ecosystem work. Also, economic development is what is driving the Indian and Chinese governments in particular to invest heavily in education, and I also feel that the soft aspects of globalisation, such as bringing Internet access to more and more parts of the world, will strongly impact any future system of creating, and sharing knowledge. > 5. This might be my ignorance, but what role do open source licenses > (as defined by OSI) play in creating and sharing knowledge? (Also, the > link to OSI http://opensource.org opens a website wildly different > from http://www.opensource.org!) In short, the various kinds of licences from OSI allow people to share their work on the terms that they wish to, while remaining "open". It is important that there be well-established licenses allowing sharing under different conditions, rather than everyone rolling their own. > As an overall comment, the document needs to be more specific. > Probably you're expecting community feedback to flesh out the details. > But in my opinion, the overall vagueness (and too many buzzwords) > hampered my in offering any useful feedback. I agree that the document meanders too much, and sometimes offers platitudes instead of concrete action. To a certain extent, this is deliberate, in that we do not yet know what the concrete steps should be, and do not want to restrict people's thinking. A straitjacket might offer some initial form, but is too restrictive in the long run. > Making the document shorter and adding a one line "mantra" (v/s a > mission and vision statement) about Freed should help people > understand the overall context. And get the ideas flowing. The one-line mantra is "Knowledge shall set you free". A more concise document should be available by the end of this week, and it is a Wiki after all. So, have at it, hack away the crud, and reshape it into what you think it should look like. Thanks again for your input. Regards, Gora _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22/23, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
