I have learnt the FSFE is abolishing their community representatives in their board (remember the Linux Foundation?????) You should apply to become voting member of the FSFE, to change this. All you need an e-mail to mk@fsfe.org and say that you apply. Please do it now! Copy me/list if you have done it, so we see who applies. I wil apply after FOSDEM.
Regards, Cornelia
Sorry, I'm rather new here.
What does any of this entail?
Do you have any link to documentation explaining what you're talking about? Can fellows (or whatever we are called now) become voting members? Or is there any other requirement? Or is this open to anyone?
Thank you Federico
Il 31 gennaio 2018 23:39:58 CET, "Cornelia S." cornelia.sulzbach@protonmail.com ha scritto:
I have learnt the FSFE is abolishing their community representatives in their board (remember the Linux Foundation?????) You should apply to become voting member of the FSFE, to change this. All you need an e-mail to mk@fsfe.org and say that you apply. Please do it now! Copy me/list if you have done it, so we see who applies. I wil apply after FOSDEM.
Regards, Cornelia
On 31/01/18 23:39, Cornelia S. wrote:
I have learnt the FSFE is abolishing their community representatives in their board (remember the Linux Foundation?????) You should apply to become voting member of the FSFE, to change this. All you need an e-mail to mk@fsfe.org mailto:mk@fsfe.org and say that you apply. Please do it now! Copy me/list if you have done it, so we see who applies. I wil apply after FOSDEM.
Are you referring to this process?
Hi, all!
Am 2018-01-31 um 23:39 schrieb Cornelia S.:
All you need an e-mail to mk@fsfe.org and say that you apply.
Daniel has already supplied a pointer to the web page giving some background information about the GA, its role in FSFE, and the expectations held towards its members. There are plans to improve that page in the near future, so the call to apply for membership right now comes a little premature, but yes, membership in the GA (the group that forms the legal backbone of FSFE) always was and is open to everybody with a strong and long-term commitment and involvement in FSFE.
I wil apply after FOSDEM.
Talking about FOSDEM - FSFE as usual has a booth there, and as usual, you are invited to stop by, say hello, buy a T-shirt, talk with us, and find out which of the countless options to get involved in FSFE's work suits you best :-)
Thanks,
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 00:25, reinhard@fsfe.org said:
Daniel has already supplied a pointer to the web page giving some background information about the GA, its role in FSFE, and the
To make thinks a bit more clear. Many members of the FSFE e.V., which happens to be plain standard German Eingetragener Verein (e.V.), use the term GA to refer to the members of that Verein. The term GA was used as an abbreviation for General Assembly / General Meeting / Mitgliederversammlung but it is nothing else than the members of the Verein, that is the Verein itself.
This might have been introduced along with the fellowship to paper a bit over the fact that the fellows had no legal rights within the Verein - in contrast to the members, now called the GA. Later the constitution was changed to allow an external group (the fellowship) to elect up to two temporary members of the Verein. Due to various reasons candidates for this "fellowship seats" were not in good supply and thus the idea is now to drop this failed concept of improved participation.
Anyway, the Vorsitzende (uncommonly termed "president") of the FSFE e.V. has had always the right to accept new membership applications which will only need to be confirmed at the next general meeting (of the members). For the first 15 years this was handled very strict and basically impossible for a wider audience to be accepted as a member. This seemed to have changed over the last 2 or 3 years when employees and very active people were granted membership quickly.
I personally see a lot of problems that employees of the FSFE are also members _and_ that they make up a large part of the membership. Thus I support the call for new members (as I always did in internal discussions over the last 17 years) but for organization issues I would also ask not to rush this. Sending an applications to the president is of course fine but please don't get upset if it takes some time to setup the FSFE for a larger base of members.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner (founding member, not paid, and mostly inactive these days)
Hi Werner,
Werner Koch wk@gnupg.org writes:
I personally see a lot of problems that employees of the FSFE are also members _and_ that they make up a large part of the membership.
Would you care to elaborate a little bit on this point? I am curious about it.
Happy hacking! Florian
On 01/02/18 17:16, Florian Snow wrote:
Hi Werner,
Werner Koch wk@gnupg.org writes:
I personally see a lot of problems that employees of the FSFE are also members _and_ that they make up a large part of the membership.
Would you care to elaborate a little bit on this point? I am curious about it.
It is quite simple to explain:
- the funds from fellowship/supporters pay the salaries and other major expenses (over 50% of the budget comes from fellowship/supporter donations)
- but the fellowship/supporters only have 2 votes in the GA (and none after the change), although some GA members are also fellowship/supporter members too
Disclaimer: I am an FSFE employee.
# Daniel Pocock [2018-02-01 18:16 +0100]:
On 01/02/18 17:16, Florian Snow wrote:
Werner Koch wk@gnupg.org writes:
I personally see a lot of problems that employees of the FSFE are also members _and_ that they make up a large part of the membership.
Would you care to elaborate a little bit on this point? I am curious about it.
It is quite simple to explain:
- the funds from fellowship/supporters pay the salaries and other major
expenses (over 50% of the budget comes from fellowship/supporter donations)
Ok, so people working and caring for the FSFE have no right to contribute to the organisation's mid- and long-term strategy? Do you want to keep out input from people working day-to-day for the FSFE? Do you see a threat in them being members?
Please keep in mind that there's no automatism for employees to become GA members. They have to apply and convince the GA of their motivation just like any other person.
- but the fellowship/supporters only have 2 votes in the GA (and none
after the change), although some GA members are also fellowship/supporter members too
The current system has many more flaws, for example that the Fellowship representatives don't represent the non-paying volunteers, and that the voter turnout often is below 20%. That's why we discuss better solutions to grant membership to interested people but this process needs time. So as many others wrote here: no need to rush things. If procedures for becoming a member change (this is still not decided), they will be more open and transparent.
Best, Max
On 01/02/18 20:14, Max Mehl wrote:
Disclaimer: I am an FSFE employee.
# Daniel Pocock [2018-02-01 18:16 +0100]:
On 01/02/18 17:16, Florian Snow wrote:
Werner Koch wk@gnupg.org writes:
I personally see a lot of problems that employees of the FSFE are also members _and_ that they make up a large part of the membership.
Would you care to elaborate a little bit on this point? I am curious about it.
It is quite simple to explain:
- the funds from fellowship/supporters pay the salaries and other major
expenses (over 50% of the budget comes from fellowship/supporter donations)
Ok, so people working and caring for the FSFE have no right to contribute to the organisation's mid- and long-term strategy? Do you want to keep out input from people working day-to-day for the FSFE? Do you see a threat in them being members?
I never said that. Staff do have a role but it has to be balanced with the financial supporters and volunteers, that is all. I'm not calling for a coup or something like that.
Please keep in mind that there's no automatism for employees to become GA members. They have to apply and convince the GA of their motivation just like any other person.
- but the fellowship/supporters only have 2 votes in the GA (and none
after the change), although some GA members are also fellowship/supporter members too
The current system has many more flaws, for example that the Fellowship representatives don't represent the non-paying volunteers, and that the
I completely agree with finding a way to give volunteers more representation at the highest levels of decision making in FSFE.
voter turnout often is below 20%. That's why we discuss better solutions to grant membership to interested people but this process needs time. So as many others wrote here: no need to rush things. If procedures for becoming a member change (this is still not decided), they will be more open and transparent.
Best, Max
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro writes:
It is quite simple to explain:
- the funds from fellowship/supporters pay the salaries and other major
expenses (over 50% of the budget comes from fellowship/supporter donations)
- but the fellowship/supporters only have 2 votes in the GA (and none
after the change), although some GA members are also fellowship/supporter members too
I am not sure if a financial contribution alone warrants a voice in the GA. What about other donors, such as Google: Should they get a vote in the GA? Don't get me wrong: I want the community to have a say in what direction the FSFE moves in, but I am not sure that financial contribution is the right criterion. That is something I would like to define more clearly and then I see a good way forward to remove the Fellowship seats and tell the community as a whole, not just financial contributors how they can gain more influence within our organization.
Happy hacking! Florian
On 02/05/2018 12:06 PM, Florian Snow wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro writes:
It is quite simple to explain:
- the funds from fellowship/supporters pay the salaries and other major
expenses (over 50% of the budget comes from fellowship/supporter donations)
- but the fellowship/supporters only have 2 votes in the GA (and none
after the change), although some GA members are also fellowship/supporter members too
I am not sure if a financial contribution alone warrants a voice in the GA. What about other donors, such as Google: Should they get a vote in the GA? Don't get me wrong: I want the community to have a say in what direction the FSFE moves in, but I am not sure that financial contribution is the right criterion. That is something I would like to define more clearly and then I see a good way forward to remove the Fellowship seats and tell the community as a whole, not just financial contributors how they can gain more influence within our organization.
Of course Google could not have a voice in the GA - they're a proprietary software company and by definition are not committed to the values of free software.
Regarding supporters/Fellows, I guess the point is whether the annual support should be considered "membership dues" or not. I.e., supporting an association financially doesn't by default give you any influence. If you join it, however, become a member and pay membership dues, that makes you a member.
So I think the point Daniel has been raising is this: Could supporters/fellows, before joining, have received the erroneous impression that their payments constitute membership dues for membership in the FSFE? Or, should they constitute such membership dues.
As I stated earlier I don't have the answer for that but found the arrangement a bit complicated when I became a Fellow back in 2011.
Best Carsten
Hi Carsten,
So I think the point Daniel has been raising is this: Could supporters/fellows, before joining, have received the erroneous impression that their payments constitute membership dues for membership in the FSFE? Or, should they constitute such membership dues.
I think this is indeed the point. :-) From my perspective though, even if someone had erroneously believed that paying a supporter contribution made them a member of the FSFE e.V., it doesn't mean they automatically become one if we recognize this.
At most, they would be able to claim restitution for false representation. It does not affect the status of our supporters in any way, and for anyone to join as a formal member, they would still need to apply, regardless of past contributions.
Hi Carsten,
Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk writes:
Of course Google could not have a voice in the GA - they're a proprietary software company and by definition are not committed to the values of free software.
To make this clear: I am not advocating for companies getting a voice, but what you are describing is not clear from Daniel's proposition. If financial contribution equals the right to vote for a representative in the GA, then I am not sure how it would be justified to exclude some financial contributions from that right.
So I think the point Daniel has been raising is this: Could supporters/fellows, before joining, have received the erroneous impression that their payments constitute membership dues for membership in the FSFE? Or, should they constitute such membership dues.
Those are separate questions posed in two different threads. In this one, Daniel asked people to give him feedback at FOSDEM and to apply for membership, in the other email thread, he asked the question you described. I think those are separate ideas.
Happy hacking! Florian
On 05/02/18 13:09, Florian Snow wrote:
Hi Carsten,
Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk writes:
Of course Google could not have a voice in the GA - they're a proprietary software company and by definition are not committed to the values of free software.
To make this clear: I am not advocating for companies getting a voice, but what you are describing is not clear from Daniel's proposition. If financial contribution equals the right to vote for a representative in the GA, then I am not sure how it would be justified to exclude some financial contributions from that right.
There are many points related to that:
- some non-profits do accept corporate members, with or without voting rights
- some non-profits allow donors to give to specific campaigns: so a corporate could "vote" for the Public Money Public Code campaign by making a donation that is only for that campaign. FSFE could choose to reject the donation if that condition is not acceptable. Nonetheless, each campaign could include an admin overhead cost that helps keep the lights on in the office, so corporates could not avoid contributing to essential operational costs.
- in businesses, it is normal for votes at the AGM to be based on financial shareholding, a shareholder with more shares gets more votes. In some countries I think non-profits can choose that model too. It is complicated when mixing the votes of volunteers with the votes of financial donors though so this would be unlikely in FSFE.
- the German laws for non-profits (this was mentioned on another list) allow donors to specify that their donation or ongoing contributions be used for capital purposes. So any fellow/supporter can write an email to contact@fsfe.org and declare that all or a percentage of their donations are for investment / capital reserves and that money can't be spent on operating expenses or campaigns. This might be very relevant for people leaving a bequest to FSFE who want the money to have a long-term impact and not be spent on one campaign.
So there are many ways that people can "direct" or influence the the organization's activities without having annual elections or fellowship representatives. I think it is worthwhile to put a process in place to explore all these things. Is it possible that giving people more choices and more control may increase the amount they are willing to donate?
Regards,
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro writes:
- in businesses, it is normal for votes at the AGM to be based on
financial shareholding, a shareholder with more shares gets more votes. In some countries I think non-profits can choose that model too. It is complicated when mixing the votes of volunteers with the votes of financial donors though so this would be unlikely in FSFE.
What part do you think would be difficult? Are you saying giving non-paying volunteers a way to influence the GA is unlikely or excluding some financial contributors from having influence would be difficult?
Happy hacking! Florian
Hi,
Am 2018-02-05 um 14:58 schrieb Daniel Pocock:
- the German laws for non-profits (this was mentioned on another list)
allow donors to specify that their donation or ongoing contributions be used for capital purposes. So any fellow/supporter can write an email to contact@fsfe.org and declare that all or a percentage of their donations are for investment / capital reserves and that money can't be spent on operating expenses or campaigns.
you misunderstood this:
A donor can indicate that her donation *may* be used to build up a capital reserve, and unless she does so, the donation has to be used "immediately" (which in generally accepted interpretation of the law translates to "not later than in the fiscal year following the donation) for constitutional purposes.
A donor can not *require* a donation to be held as a capital reserve, and it would be unlogical if this was possible, because it would mean that the recipient of the donation does not have the power of disposal over the donated amount.
In practice, asking for donations for building up a capital reserve is done in specific cases, for example to accumulate the required capital for a larger investment (think of a football club wanting to renovate the sports stadium in 5 years).
I hope this makes it clearer.
Thanks,
On 05/02/18 18:01, Reinhard Müller wrote:
Hi,
Am 2018-02-05 um 14:58 schrieb Daniel Pocock:
- the German laws for non-profits (this was mentioned on another list)
allow donors to specify that their donation or ongoing contributions be used for capital purposes. So any fellow/supporter can write an email to contact@fsfe.org and declare that all or a percentage of their donations are for investment / capital reserves and that money can't be spent on operating expenses or campaigns.
you misunderstood this:
A donor can indicate that her donation *may* be used to build up a capital reserve, and unless she does so, the donation has to be used "immediately" (which in generally accepted interpretation of the law translates to "not later than in the fiscal year following the donation) for constitutional purposes.
A donor can not *require* a donation to be held as a capital reserve, and it would be unlogical if this was possible, because it would mean that the recipient of the donation does not have the power of disposal over the donated amount.
In practice, asking for donations for building up a capital reserve is done in specific cases, for example to accumulate the required capital for a larger investment (think of a football club wanting to renovate the sports stadium in 5 years).
I hope this makes it clearer.
Thanks for clarifying that
Somebody could still require the donation to be used for capital reserve in various ways though: in a will, when leaving a bequest, they can simply write that if the money is not accepted with this condition then it goes to some other beneficiary. The executor of the will would then ask FSFE to confirm it will be used for capital purposes. e.g. somebody could write "I give 50% of my estate to my wife, 33% to my children, EUR 25,000 to FSFE for the purpose of capital investment and anything remaining goes to my cat". The executor of the will would contact FSFE and if the condition was not accepted by council, the EUR 25,000 would go to the cat.
Donors/supporters could make similar requests to FSFE in any other circumstances too: if the organization rejects the condition, the donor doesn't send the money.
Regards,
Daniel
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 08:39:54 +0000 Daniel Pocock wrote:
Somebody could still require the donation to be used for capital reserve in various ways though: in a will, when leaving a bequest, they can simply write that if the money is not accepted with this condition then it goes to some other beneficiary. The executor of the will would then ask FSFE to confirm it will be used for capital purposes. e.g. somebody could write "I give 50% of my estate to my wife, 33% to my children, EUR 25,000 to FSFE for the purpose of capital investment and anything remaining goes to my cat". The executor of the will would contact FSFE and if the condition was not accepted by council, the EUR 25,000 would go to the cat.
Donors/supporters could make similar requests to FSFE in any other circumstances too: if the organization rejects the condition, the donor doesn't send the money.
That's quite off-topic, but I wonder how this would work in practice. Let's assume that someone would give money only to FSFE if we agree to use it as a capital reserve. When could FSFE start using the money? After 1 week, 1 month, 1 year, 10 years... When was the requirement fulfilled and FSFE can use the money?
Same if for example the requirement is that the money has to be used for "Public money, public code". What happens if the campaign is over and there is still some money left? Do we need to give it back? Does the money has to stay on a bank account forever?
I don't know about the legal situation. But I see a lot of problems and uncertainty if it would be possible to enforce such rules.
Cheers, Björn
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 14:58, daniel@pocock.pro said:
- the German laws for non-profits (this was mentioned on another list)
There is no specific law in Germany for non-profits. You have to distinguish between all the possible legal forms for an association. The FSFE is a German eingetragener Verein which has only very few legal requirements so that the Verein can will define its rules in its constitution.
A charitable Verein is a bit more restricted as a general Verein. For example it is not allowed to issue a receipt for donations received for an exchange. Demanding a fixed purpose for a donation would may be such an exchange.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
Hi Cornelia,
Thank you for starting a discussion on an important topic!
"Cornelia S." cornelia.sulzbach@protonmail.com writes:
I have learnt the FSFE is abolishing their community representatives in their board (remember the Linux Foundation?????)
Yes, that is something that the GA discussed at their last meeting (I was not there because I was not a member at the time)[0]. The Fellowship seats are one measure to grow the membership base because the elected people often stay in the GA after the end of their term. There is a conflict between what is ideal for an election and what is ideal for growing the GA, though. In an election, ideally, there are multiple people who are qualified for the position. In terms of growing the membership, an election is not the ideal tool, though, because it means multiple qualified people compete for one position and several people that really should become part of the GA do not in the end.
All you need an e-mail to mk@fsfe.org and say that you apply.
Yes, this process has been there for a long time and it does grow the membership slightly. I actually joined through this process recently. Matthias discusses applications with the GA and if the GA agrees, people are admitted until their actual confirmation (or potential rejection, but that is unlikely with the discussion beforehand) at the following GA meeting. One problem with that process is that it does not scale well.
Another problem with that system is that it has no mechanism to increase diversity. For all these reasons, the GA is looking into better ways to increase membership and as part of that process, we are want to abolish the Fellowship seats. Another way of looking at it is this: What good is an election if the candidate who loses the election can just apply to become a GA member right after the election?
Please do it now!
I understand your worries about losing representation. The path to membership through some form of application will always be there, though, so there is no rush. The GA always has the power to admit new members and from my understanding of German law (the FSFE is a German e.V.), there is no way to take away that kind of power from the GA. The GA will always be able to vote on anything within the scope of an e.V.
Also, I promise that I will vote against any motion to remove the Fellowship seats as long as we do not at the same time take steps to have a decent replacement system in place. I feel very strongly about this and if you had not written this email, I would have not made a public statement about my intention to vote this way, but I would have voted that way anyway.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
Happy hacking! Florian