Hi SM,
On 04/17/2017 03:04 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
>
> I went back to read what you wrote [1]. I confused your comment about
> "earlier rules" and what was mentioned before the beginning of the
> presentation.
>
The mention about the "earlier rules" was due to the fact that I do not
attended the beginning of the hackathon. I do not know whether the two
part jury was already mentioned to the participants or was it the only
time when I heard about it before the presentations.
>
> One of the organizations you are affiliated with was mentioned as a
> "sponsor" during the speech. You are saying that you wrote the post as
> a tech event hopping enthusiast. I understand that you usually attend
> tech-related events. I would like to encourage you to look beyond what
> you have doing up to now by analyzing how the "sponsor" aspect could be
> turned into an issue.
>
LUGM rather collaborated with the organizers instead of sponsoring. In
fact, if I'm not mistaken, LUGM was thanked for their "help" in the
closing speech without being mentioned as an sponsor.
I do agree with you though that the term "sponsor" could be turned into
an issue. Thanks for pointing to that. I'll discuss it within the group.
>
> That is known as double standards. :-)
>
Oh, come on. That is too much of extrapolation. I agreed that they call
a Tor-blocking button a feature, but I didn't agree government uses such
a feature. The discussion that we had was having a captcha rather than a
"block feature" is a better way to address an issue of undesired traffic.
Regards,
--
Ish Sookun
I drink coffee and manage Linux servers for lexpress.mu.
Received on Mon Apr 17 2017 - 11:34:43 PST