defending FOSS was Re: [Linux-aus] [Fwd: Re: [xxxxxxx] FW: Re: S.A. Parliament - Ubuntu Matter of Interest]

[Janet Hawtin]

On 12/5/06, Brenda Aynsley <bpa at iss.net.au> wrote:
> David Lloyd wrote:
> >
> > So, reading between the lines, it's your colleagues who made those
> > rather amusing assertions? I've heard various bits and pieces about the
> > ACS in the past and they've surpised me.
> >
> > I'm becoming less surpised.
>
> I dont think this sort of response does anything positive david. And
> you're right they are rather amusing assertions. :)
>
> However this is two people out of 13000 ACS members, so whatever you
> have 'heard about the acs' can neither be confirmed nor denied on the
> basis of 2 people's opinions I would suggest.  The fact that they are
> willing to share an opinion, however misguided, gives me reason to hope
> that their views can be changed and their education continue.  After all
> that's a big part of defining a professional - a willingness to continue
> to learn throughout one's career.

Surely then 13000 - 2 ACS members will have improved the education of
the two who posted?

If the view is not representative then there are others in ACS who are
wiser and surely should be responding with something closer to fact?

Perhaps you could forward a best of breed response within the parallel
ACS thread  which would then show that the issue has been dealt with
and we can move on?

If the view *is* representative or being encouraged and there is no
internal counter-dialogue to help with the education of the posters
then the education and professional improvement role of the ACS is not
what it could be at this time, or on this topic?

ie If it is just 2 people who don't know any better surely their posts
have generated the same kind of response internally. (2 people are
Muppets and ACS is a professional educational group which can fix
that?)

If LA and OSIA are being asked to respond then it does give the
impression that there is a dearth of quality responses within the
organisation. (Culture of partisan Muppetness leading to rewarding of
inaccurate drivel as a kind of 'educational improvement'.) In which
case the group would have a momentum in a direction which would be
unlikely to be checked by factual responses and would not be likely to
recognise input by non members.

ACS has a great tradition, Kim has been talking to me about the ACS of
CSIRAC days, but if the above posts are not easliy sorted internally
then it does feel as if it has been derailed in some ways and I do
hope that in terms of providing value for members it is able to
refocus in a more technology neutral way to effectively support
adaptable and informed folks who can use the best tool for the job.
That is surely closer to an IT group in the public interest?

I appreciate your efforts I just dont see how this thread helps in either case.

Janet