Rosa Maria Torres wrote:
>Anyway my question with respect to all these subjects is: what we are
>making bad not to be seated in the places where make the previous
>decisions to these agreements? Why we spoke and we spoke of incidence in
>public policies and we did not manage to affect? In what we are being
>mistaken? How we can advance in that sense? I am afraid that it is a
>question that does not have a simple answer.
Actually, this may have a simple answer because the problem is fairly
simple.
The simple answer, I think, is that we are not trying to fix some of the
problems ourselves. Consider that when we complain to a government about
not having a language supported by software. So the government looks for
software solutions. They don't know anyone developing FLOS in their area,
but they do know that corporation with lots of money for
marketing. So they go to this corporation for help, saying "We need this
solved". This corporation sees long term business and a public relations
victory, so they do it - and in doing it they sign an agreement with the
corporation.
That's not really a problem. That's just a bad process, and it's because
we're not properly identifying the problems.
Perhaps what we need to do is, when approaching governments and other
agencies with problems, have solutions or potential solutions available
with FLOS. Instead of people saying "Microsoft Office doesn't support xyz",
people should be saying "People who speak xyz cannot use the software
available. If we fund our own people to do it, we can create jobs". This
approach probably works best during election years.
This sounds horrible, but there is good news. It's changing, and even if
it is changing slowly - it is changing. Of course, we need to change
with it. Many aggressively fight when a few kind words are more
effective. Some say kind words when they should aggressively fight. The
proper balance must be found, and to find the balance we have to have
discussion with agencies and governments, and when we have that
discussion we should not agressively fight or just say kind words - we
should approach with a position, and stand for the position. But during
this process, the balance shifts and we have to pay attention.
Many - even on the WSIS PCT list - were talking about making lots of
noise about the UNESCO signing with Microsoft. But to what effect?
Picture UNESCO in a castle, surrounded by a moat, and we decide to shout at
them over the moat. That's how effective protest is. But if we get
them to come out side and discuss things, then we have the ability to
affect more.
And if UNESCO does not wish to discuss - then we certainly learned
something about UNESCO.
Taran Rampersad
Este archivo fue generado por hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Jan 4 10:02:49 2005 AST