[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ossig] [OSSIG] Proposal for the formation of an OSSIndustry Association
ok, i am going to start asking the dumb questions, as i am confused.
1. proposed organisation is supposed to be commercial, i.e. make money?
yes / no.
2. structure of proposed organisation is still open ? maybe company,
society or co-op, or combination, subject to discussion.
3. activities of proposed organisation is still open ? maybe tenders,
training, sales, and service, clearing exchange, etc, subject to
discussion on viability.
4. dinesh is going to give us an insight on oss-pip ? yes / no.
5. imran is going to give us an insight on the national oss policy ? yes
6. somebody is going to tell us all of a global business opportunity
that we will make us all financially independent in 5 years time ? yes /
no. ooppss.... sounds like amway direct selling.
before attending the meeting re-read the original thread
if you are a user (just like confused me), then you can represent the
'irate customers'. that's why i have already forewarned everyone that i
am going to ask stupid questions. typical of irate customers.
Raja Iskandar Shah
----- Original Message -----
From: Dinesh Nair <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 11:43 am
Subject: Re: [ossig] [OSSIG] Proposal for the formation of an OSS
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Molly Cheah wrote:
> > about lack of representation of individual os programmers at
> meetings...> Here's the chance to form that representative body.
> Those who had made
> > such complaints should now take the lead and attend this meeting at
> > least.
> if you need to insinuate, at least get your facts right. i
> lamented the
> lack of representation of OSS developers at the national oss policy
> brainstorming session, and it was valid in that context as there
> was no
> one at that session who represented the OSS developer.
> in the larger national space, mncc which represents the ICT
> professionalis playing that role, and the ossig under the mncc
> handles oss individuals
> (developers or otherwise). my lament was addressed by the oss policy
> secretariat and mncc (and the oss developer/individual) was then
> subsequently represented (by nan phin) in the national oss steering
> committee, and thus satisfied my earlier rant at the brainstorming
> session, as clarified by imran in a private email to me.
> so please, if you have to refer to something i said, do quote the
> contextin which i said it for otherwise you're liable for giving a
> it brings us back to the one thing i've been asking all along,
> which no
> one seems to be able to answer: what is the purpose/role of this new
> organization ?
> as i have stated, if it is to represent individuals and/or do rah, rah
> opensource type evangelism, then it's a duplication of effort as
> the mncc
> ossig exists for that. imo, any initative to assist/help/work for OSS
> individuals should be done under the banner of the mncc ossig.
> since the
> mncc ossig already exists, i am thus not in favour of yet another
> organization like this being formed. if you think that the mncc
> ossig is
> not doing enough/the right thing for oss individuals, then by all
> meanslet's see what we can do, but still under this banner.
> if it is to be a trade federation/lobby groucommercial entities,
> then i am interested/game in being involved for there
> is a gap in addressing this space in malaysia.
> tze meng's original post on the subject captured what i was
> interested in,
> see http://www.mncc.com.my/ossig/lists/general/2004-06/msg00025.html
> i have been going under the notion that the goals/ideas/concepts as
> expressed there are still valid, and the implementation of whether
> it's a
> coop/company/society are just implementation issues which we can
> brainstorm about before coming to an optimum and equitable model.
> so once again, what are we creating ?
> and please, before you accuse me of not leading by example, i
> conceived,lobbied and formed what was formerly known as osspip two
> years ago. my
> solution to the funding problem was to raise venture capital, and
> i spent
> the subequent 12 months convincing venture capitalists and the
> powers-that-be that oss was worth investing in, all on my own time and
> part of the plan for the osspip structure, which i have elaborated
> in this
> list many times in the past, has been to fund open source
> developers, give
> them equity in their own companies building their own technologies
> and to
> provide an umbrella from which they are then able to market their
> technologies to large enterprise customers, something which
> they're unable
> to do on their own as small companies.
> this goal came at a personal cost to me. to achieve this goal, i
> had to
> resign my position as director of technology of worldcare asia pte ltd
> (and worldcare malaysia sdn bhd) as well as forego a huge capital
> appreciation on my equity in aforementioned companies. for the
> past 12
> months, i have been working exclusively for the osspip goal. i
> have no
> regrets at having done what i did, so i'm not complaining.
> now, are any of you willing to commit something like that for the
> tradefederation/lobby grouproblem goes away. if you aren't, then
> you're going to need funding to
> make sure this works.
> Regards, /\_/\ "All dogs go to heaven."
> email@example.com (0 0) http://www.alphaque.com/
> ==========================+| for a in past present future; do
> | for b in clients employers associates relatives neighbours
> pets; do |
> | echo "The opinions here in no way reflect the opinions of my
> $a $b." |
> | done; done
> To unsubscribe: send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
> with "unsubscribe ossig" in the body of the message
fn:Raja Iskandar Shah
org:RISC Niaga Enterprise;