In the email, you mention "To define a new members list, I am requesting a
response to this message, sharing the name of the project contact, project,
and URL. " This information was already requested as part of the original
questionaires sent out August 14th, 2006, so it seems to be redundant to ask
for the same information again for those projects who have already responded
both to the original request (the questionaire of August 14th), and the
"update" request sent out November 24th.
Do organizations who have already provided this information via the
questionaire also need to provide a response to this message? Also, will
Schoolforge membership continue to be open for non-software producing
entities who are providing "free / open resources"?
Thank you,
Michael Viron
President & CEO, General Education Online, A Schoolforge Founding Member
President & CEO, International Education Resources, A General Education
Online Organization
_____
From: owner-schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Justin
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 5:25 PM
To: schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [school-discuss] Updated Coalition Procedures - Members sign up
here
The intent of asking for information here is to ensure that members have had
an opportunity to review the updated procedures, and for clarity as to what
the source of the members list will be.
On 12/4/06, Michael Viron <mviron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All,
I must again mention something regarding the narrow definition of "FLOSS" on
the website which seems to indicate that "free / open resources" are not
welcome as members of schoolforge. This is in direct contradiction to the
founding principles which allowed for those projects that provide web-based
open resources which may or may not include providing a copy of the
underlying "software" that powers the site.
Also, this email also mentions providing information to define a "new
members list", which I thought was the purpose of the original questionaire
sent out on August 14th. The request also seems to conflict with the other
message entitled "Member Responses" which also asks for similar information,
and with the email of November 24th (asking for members to review the
information originally provided).
Can you please clarify the intent of asking for information on the projects
under this email also?
Thank you,
Michael Viron
President & CEO, General Education Online, A Schoolforge Founding Member
President & CEO, International Education Resources, A General Education
Online Organization
_____
From: owner-schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
owner-schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Justin
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:27 PM
To: schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [school-discuss] Updated Coalition Procedures - Members sign up
here
The SchoolForge coalition procedures have been updated, please take a look
at http://www.schoolforge.net/coalitionprocedures
<http://www.schoolforge.net/coalitionprocedures> .
An important aspect of this update is aligning SchoolForge with efforts at
Schoolforge-UK, through embracing the definition of FLOSS (
<http://www.schoolforge.org.uk/index.php/FLOSS>
http://www.schoolforge.org.uk/index.php/FLOSS ) that has served them well as
they have clearly established themselves as the grass roots organisation to
deal with over using Free/Open Source Software in schools and colleges.
A couple comments..
"Management of the coalition website itself will be the responsibility of
one of the member groups, which might be its contribution to the coalition."
For this, I will eventually get http://visioninit.com
<http://visioninit.com/> going as a member group that focuses on assisting
FLOSS projects on user interface, graphics design, technical and
promotional aspects. For now, I'm going to focus on SchoolForge and getting
the systems in place there.
To define a new members list, I am requesting a response to this message,
sharing the name of the project contact, project, and URL. (To share more
details or to discuss various project efforts, please use the thread
entitled "Member responses" (which should have been titled questionnaire
responses))
Thanks,
Justin