(Forwarded to the list, after an agreement from Vaidik: My guess is that his reply was sent just to me by mistake. To emphasise, I personally do not see any major issues with going forward, following a long IRC chat with Vaidik.)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gora Mohanty <g...@mimirtech.com> Date: Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [ilugd] Freed.in 2011/12 - Time to work To: Vaidik Kapoor <kapoor.vai...@gmail.com> [...] On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Vaidik Kapoor <kapoor.vai...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 15 July 2011 22:30, Gora Mohanty <g...@mimirtech.com> wrote: > > It wasn't discussed that if we should have a new conference. But history of > Freed.in was discussed where it was made clear what Freed.in was all about. > Focus of Freed.in was different than the things that were discussed to be > focussed at now. So, it was proposed that the main focus should take care of > both, what Freed.in was focussed at and things that were discussed in the > meeting. > > Having a new conference all together isn't a bad idea. But, why is it that > we can't change the focus of Freed.in to an extent that the main focus > includes both, the philosophical angle and the developer's angle? Yes, of course, the focus of Freed.in can be changed, and has been in the past. Freed.in is definitely an event owned by its current set of stakeholders. However, you guys need to think seriously about whether to do a new event, or go with Freed.in. Freed.in does have at least some kind of a name, but also comes with some unavoidable baggage. The last time people tried to revive Freed.in along these lines, Ankur, Kinshuk, and Pratul had a strong argument as to why Freed.in should be revamped thus: Have you guys also thought enough about this? Since this is going to come up in the meeting, let me make the requirements clear: This is not something that anyone dreamt up, but was voted upon by ILUG-Delhi: * Freed.in is an event owned by ILUG-Delhi, and three office-holders are permanent members of the organising committee by virtue of their posts. The set of posts, and current office-holders are: - President: Kishore Bhargava - Vice-president: Andrew Lynn - General secretary: Gora Mohanty * The idea behind such a strong insistence on ownership was not that any of us wanted to be dictators-for-life, but that we did not want the event to be co-opted by people that did not believe in what Freed.in stood for. By all means, taking over the event is completely possible for like-minded people. * Do not like these rules: You still have another avenue. Let's have a GBM, have people stand for election, and overthrow the current set of office-holders. >> * I am also surprised at the fact that people seem to be ready to jump >> into a major event without any lead-up. IMHO, a good plan would have >> been to start with smaller, more-focused events, which let the organisers >> gauge interest in such a developer-oriented event, and gain experience >> in organising events. Why does it seem that this was not even discussed? > > It was discussed in the meeting, but briefly. Everyone said that it is not > feasible to have such focussed events as nobody takes responsibilities and > hence such events don't happen. However, it was suggested that there should > be one-day workshops/sessions on FOSS in colleges in Delhi/NCR region for > creating momentum and inviting participation of students. > > Apologies for having missing this point out. Satyakam added to the minutes > but he posted them on the IITDLUG mailing list. I will immediately add this > on the wiki. Hmm, my point would be that if we cannot organise a one-day event, what makes us think that we can do a major annual event. I will also agree that sustaining involvement throughout the year is something that Freed.in failed at, which is why I no longer see much point in an annual tamasha where people show up to party. >> * One point, re an item in the minutes: "Satyakam suggested >> that the reasons to have an event like Freed.in are different than >> the reasons that we are going to tell the prospective sponsors as >> sponsors are looking for benefits. Reasons like FOSS advocacy, >> etc. are not what they'll be interested in. " >> >> I find this attitude unbelievable for people purportedly interested >> in freedom and openness, and I would also hope that the above >> was not the actual attitude. However, if true, I for one am going >> to be vehemently against such an event. Not to mince words, the >> above is basically lying to sponsors to get money, and at least >> IMHO, it would be better if Freed.in died rather than it morph into >> such an event. > > I think I phrased the sentence incorrectly in the minutes. I am sorry for > that. What he meant by that was that we need to find the right reasons just > for sponsorship before approaching the sponsors. [...] Hmm, OK, but that was a big mis-statement, and I find it surprising that no one took an issue with the minutes till I responded almost a week after they were posted. Regards, Gora _______________________________________________ Ilugd mailing list Ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
