[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: Digression

[Taran Rampersad]

Georg C. F. Greve wrote:

> || On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:33:19 -0500
> || Taran Rampersad <cnd at knowprose.com> wrote: 
>
> tr> 2 years ago I emailed the FSF about whether there were plans to
> tr> start a 'chapter' in the Caribbean/Latin American region, and I
> tr> [...]
> tr> quite difficult to say if an allied organization's views of Free
> tr> Software are that of the Free Software Foundation.
>
>That was true 2 years ago, yes.
>
>Right now, discussions about FSF Latin America are ongoing and first
>steps should become visible this year.
>  
>
Bear in mind, please, that the Latin American region encompasses the
Caribbean as well (in terms of the UN, WSIS, and most references
available on the internet) - and that there are linguistic and cultural
differences throughout the region. This was the focus of CARDICIS
(http://www.cardicis.org ) which the FSF may find interesting. So for
logistics at the WSIS level and other lobbying activities, this should
probably be taken into account.

>Creating some Free Software organisation in the Caribbean region would
>still seem like a useful endeavour, though.
>
>  
>
Actually, there's a strongly pragmatic approach in the Caribbean and
something is building itself. It appears that it won't be distinctly
Free Software.

>So please be patient. If you feel the work is not happening fast
>enough, please feel encouraged to become active yourself or support
>the activities.
>  
>
Actually, I'm spending most of my time trying to work with local ICT
NGOs who feel somewhat alienated by the doctrinal approach mentioned in
this conversation. I'll make a broad statement and say that all the NGOs
have a proprietary software basis (to be expected), but that this is
shifting. The idea is to facilitate the shifting. At least, that's my
stance and I'm sticking to it.

> tr> Thank you in advance for clarification.
>
>I hope this helped you -- and maybe others -- clarifying matters a
>bit. Thanks for asking in a constructive way.
>  
>
I simply saw the same problem that I see in the region where I am
active. It's fortunate that the tools were available to make such
distinctions, and I am happy that they exist at this level and that they
are expanding.

The clarification certainly helped me, and I hope it did help others.
That there have been bad experiences with communication is always a
problem, but dealing with the stereotypes has more long term affects.
Perhaps the members of the CS Plenary will no longer associate feelings
of past experiences with present communication. And perhaps, too, the
FSF will understand better that the stereotypes exist.

As I mentioned in an editorial for Linux Gazette a few months ago, it's
an odd mix. Organizations have a tendency to have spokespeople and
committees; Software Libre is a bit more hands on for participants. In
fact, it's the best model for participation for eGovernance (and
eDemocracy, for that matter) that I can find - but with it, it must be
understood that while messengers have the same message, some messengers
do have association which meets the requirements of the present system
of participation.

Software Libre has much to offer, and much experience within community
and formal organizations. It's important that this not be tainted by
poor communication, and I think that this is the point where everyone
can agree. If not, then there certainly is a problem.

-- 
Taran Rampersad

cnd at knowprose.com

http://www.linuxgazette.com
http://www.a42.com
http://www.worldchanging.com
http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.easylum.net

"Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo