[WFS-India] Suggestion for re-modelling of the mailing list rules

[Indranil Das Gupta]

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 7:45 AM, A. Mani <a.mani.cms at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Indranil Das Gupta <indradg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 1) These are mailing list guidelines, not the group's mission / vision
>> statement. It should be concise and not expound on the philosophy.
>
> Women's issues will be part of discussions.
> They are not independent of technology and technology adoption.
> So making it a FOSS mailing list guideline is not all right and then
> the guidelines will be meaningless.
> And guidelines should in fact stress on these aspects.

Have the members come to an agreement on this aspect? If yes, then
please point to the specific IRC logs or specific email where this was
decided. Otherwise, it stands to reason that you are simply stating
your own personal opinion. Please clarify

>> 3) The segments about Illegal Activity, No stalking, Bigotry are at
>> present irrelevant - this is a m/l targeted at and managed primarily
>> by women, i do not see any overwhelming scope for these clauses at
>> present.
>
> No, keep all these. Guidelines should be clear on problems like these.
> Govts can close down our site on the basis of flimsy excuses.

The logic sounds like people prohibiting their daughters to go out
alone in the evening, because they could be sexually assaulted or
murdered.

Which public domain dataset on the govt invoking the IT Act (or
others) to shut down any technology mailing lists in the country are
you referring to? Which LInux / Free Software User Group member in the
country has been arrested on these grounds?

Do you have any data to share or is it only a personal 'what-if'
thought experiment?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment)

At the risk of being repetitive. WOMEN IN THIS COUNTRY ALWAYS HAD
RULES, RULES AND MORE RULES THRUST DOWN THEIR SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS,
*please* allow this forum and its infrastructure be different from all
that!

(Disclaimer: use of upper case equals shouting on the Internet, and in
this case my caps-lock key is functioning perfectly)

> We abandoned the goal of having a Simple + Detailed guideline, and
> your edited version 51 lacks simplicity and misses out on too much.

Please point to specific instances rather than making such
overwhelmingly sweeping statement.

> So the previous version should be expanded a bit and would be ideal .

Is not that going against your statement objective of 'simplicity'.
And please point of the publicly accessible document where this
'ideal' was discussed and agreed on by the group.

FWIW, I have shared my vision only after Aruna invited me to do so.
Whether it is to be adopted or not, in entirety or in parts, is
something that I would leave for the group to decide.

I would like to see answers to my questions rather than having some
more straw-man argument thrown around on the mailing
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

cheers
-idg

-- 
Indranil Das Gupta

Phone : +91-98300-20971
Blog    : http://indradg.randomink.org/blog
IRC      : indradg on irc://irc.freenode.net
Twitter : indradg

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Please exchange editable Office documents only in ODF Format. No other
format is acceptable. Support Open Standards.

For a free editor supporting ODF, please visit LibreOffice -
http://www.documentfoundation.org