[Linux-aus] Re: NNIC Public Meeting - Adelaide

[Janet Hawtin]

On 10/4/06, Bret Busby <bret at busby.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Janet Hawtin wrote:
>
> > Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 12:55:15 +0930
> > From: Janet Hawtin <lucychili at gmail.com>
> > To: Doug Jacquier <dj at cisa.asn.au>, Linux Australia <linux-aus at linux.org.au>
> > Subject: [Linux-aus] Re: NNIC Public Meeting - Adelaide
> >
> > I actually emailed you initially but the message bounced.
> > I used the asn at cisa.asn.au address which returned a pending
> > error for a few days then did not send.
> >
> >> As the facilitator of that meeting, I am stunned. What you have posted is
> >> inaccurate, misleading, and downright insulting.
> >
>
> This is getting confusing.
>
> Was the message from Doug Jacquier, to which the above posting is a
> response, posted to the Linux Australia list?
>
> I cannot find the message from Doug Jacquier, in what I have received
> from the list.

I was getting private correspondence during this process and have
tried to be responsible about posting things which people indicated
that they wanted public.

I posted Doug's responses to my post with my subsequest responses.
The rest of the message was a copy of the posts you have and a blog
post I've removed.

Ive posted both CISA and ACS since this message to tell them
that Ive taken the blog post down.

Ive done this because I did not want to keep a website page focused on
this stage of this issue, I am hoping that having had this discussion
that it will be more apparent to both groups that the impacts of
exclusion and accreditation and debates about who is authorised to
determine who should be trusted are expensive for our overall profile
as a sector. ie It is a divisive way to function.

I am hoping that as a result both groups will think about the
collateral costs of this approach and will consider approaches which
focus more on empowering and improving skills for volunteers and their
host organisations.

I am happy to send the message I sent if it is something people want to see.
I feel strongly on this issue but also want to avoid making the debate
an obstacle in itself in the hope that it has served its purpose and
that we are all aware of the risks of these approaches. For me now it
is a matter of seeing what happens next
although I appreciate that other people will have comments to make
about the accreditation processes which are not covered in the thread
so far.

Janet