This e-mail contained information published in error and is no longer available.
Dear Daniel,
after reading your email twice, I still can't make any sense of it, unless it's just a rant by intention. Especially I can read neither an application for membership from it, nor a resignation. Anyway, I'll focus on the one item that falls in my responsibility as the former financial officer:
Am 2018-08-27 um 13:19 schrieb Daniel Pocock:
People are asking how FSFE e.V. can raise[5] almost EUR 650,000 in one year and spend barely EUR 37,000 on producing merchandise.
I don't understand what exactly the question is: why FSFE didn't spend more on producing merchandise? Or why FSFE didn't spend less? Or what kind of merchandise we spent it on?
Could you, or the other people who are asking that, please be more specific about that question?
Thanks,
On 27/08/18 12:49, Reinhard Müller wrote:
Dear Daniel,
after reading your email twice, I still can't make any sense of it, unless it's just a rant by intention. Especially I can read neither an
Why minimizing other people's views with such disparaging comments?
Making comments like that, rather than trying to understand what other people are getting at, is just putting petrol on the fire.
application for membership from it, nor a resignation. Anyway, I'll
That makes me feel you didn't read the same email then. It is not a resignation, it is a call for the president's resignation.
focus on the one item that falls in my responsibility as the former financial officer:
Am 2018-08-27 um 13:19 schrieb Daniel Pocock:
People are asking how FSFE e.V. can raise[5] almost EUR 650,000 in one year and spend barely EUR 37,000 on producing merchandise.
I don't understand what exactly the question is: why FSFE didn't spend more on producing merchandise? Or why FSFE didn't spend less? Or what kind of merchandise we spent it on?
Could you, or the other people who are asking that, please be more specific about that question?
The public financial report[5] groups all expenditure into just 6 high-level categories
For an organization committed to transparency, a lot more detail could be provided there. Doing so would not only stop speculation but may actually encourage people to give more.
The budget circulated privately contains about 100 lines of data and I could learn a lot more from studying that, so I feel that either the whole thing should be made public or at least a bit more of the details, for example, total commitments to permanent staff, total long term commitments (leases, loan repayments), etc.
It would be good to publish some ratios, for example, the percentage of total revenue that funds permanent staff and percentage of funds from private vs corporate.
It would also be helpful to publish some comments about how the budget really works: for example, if one or two of the big sponsors pulled out, which area of expenditure would be cut? Would somebody be sacked, would a campaign be suspended? These things help understand how much the staff are subconsciously impacted by the corporate money.
Regards,
Daniel
Hi, Daniel!
Am 2018-08-29 um 22:56 schrieb Daniel Pocock:
Am 2018-08-27 um 13:19 schrieb Daniel Pocock:
People are asking how FSFE e.V. can raise[5] almost EUR 650,000 in one year and spend barely EUR 37,000 on producing merchandise.
I don't understand what exactly the question is: why FSFE didn't spend more on producing merchandise? Or why FSFE didn't spend less? Or what kind of merchandise we spent it on?
Could you, or the other people who are asking that, please be more specific about that question?
The public financial report[5] groups all expenditure into just 6 high-level categories
For an organization committed to transparency, a lot more detail could be provided there.
So when you wrote "People are asking how FSFE e.V. can raise almost EUR 650,000 in one year and spend barely EUR 37,000 on producing merchandise", you wanted to express that our public finance report should have more than 6 categories? Or did you now start a new topic and not answer my question? Sorry, but I have a hard time following your thoughts.
Some of the suggestions you made in your last email might be worth considering, did you ever consider to make them towards the people actually in charge of the financial reports?
Best,
On 29/08/18 22:14, Reinhard Müller wrote:
Some of the suggestions you made in your last email might be worth considering, did you ever consider to make them towards the people actually in charge of the financial reports?
Thanks for acknowledging that, that was the hope of my message and I'm sorry if putting this in with other topics made it harder to discuss.
If anybody else can point to examples of how other NGOs produce their P&L that would be very welcome too.
Regards,
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
I like to believe that your activities and communication are with good intention and you like to change things for the good. However, you should keep in mind that we are a organically grown organization with an established communication and community culture. And although we are in a process of change, the methods you use are currently maybe not the best approach to achieve your goals.
In any case it would be helpful if you could to stick to our rules of communication and try to be excellent to each other.
On 27.08.2018 13:19, Daniel Pocock wrote:
The notice of meeting for 2018 (attached)
This message was sent internally to all (temporary) members of FSFE. It is not allowed on FSFE mailing lists to forward private notes without prior consent of the original author.
If you like to make a point about something having been discussed in a private channel, you can paraphrase the content but you are not allowed to forward it to one of FSFE's public mailing lists that is even publicly archived [1] and therewith available for everyone with an Internet access.
Such an activity, I guess, is illegal in many jurisdictions as a potential invasion of privacy. Definitely it is forbidden on our lists.
For example, you previously wrote in a private GA discussion that my communications to fellows should be censored to ensure that communications maximize donations (your comment in February: "people might even stop to support us financially" if I write emails to the the people who I am mandated to represent). But that is nonsense: the role of a representative is not to maximize donations, my role is to ensure the money already given to you is being spent as well as possible. For trying to fulfil that role, you immediately set up an illegal conspiracy to stab me in the back, publishing an internal censorship policy for future communications and calling an extraordinary general meeting[4] on a Saturday while I was out in Kosovo doing real free software activities and voting on a motion tacked onto the end of the agenda to immediately terminate my membership without cause. It is never nice to write such strong words, but in a case like this, fellows deserve to know the ugly truth about FSFE Council's behaviour and as the elected representative I would be negligent if I didn't blow the lid on this. As the #MeToo movement has demonstrated, sometimes it is necessary to call out obnoxious behaviour to begin a process of reform.
You are using very offensive language here that is against our code of conduct:
"To foster tolerance, respect and hospitality in our community, we agree not to engage in discriminatory, disparaging or offensive speech or actions"
Please refrain from doing so.
Personally, I feel that my highest responsibility is to those who elected me and gave me a mandate and I do not wish to be in a position that puts me above the rest of the wider FSFE community
Then please consider your audience and as a representative of our community, I kindly ask you to help establish a friendly and peaceful environment for every participant.
Personally, in times of fake-news, populism and attention economy, this is something that I would love to see the Free Software community to excel: transparent, fact-based discussions with respect towards each other.
And I see the FSFE community is already taking part in this. So let us work together to keep it like this.
Best, Erik
[1] https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/
On 27/08/18 16:02, Erik Albers wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I like to believe that your activities and communication are with good intention and you like to change things for the good. However, you should keep in mind that we are a organically grown organization with an established communication and community culture. And although we are in a process of change, the methods you use are currently maybe not the best approach to achieve your goals.
In any case it would be helpful if you could to stick to our rules of communication and try to be excellent to each other.
When council included a motion in the agenda of the extraordinary general meeting calling for the immediate termination of my membership, that was not "being excellent to each other".
Council has unleashed this poison into the community and only the president can drag us out of that by resigning. Trying to shift the blame onto me won't make any difference. I have felt bad about this organization ever since I saw that motion in the notice of meeting. Any way you look at it, it is bullying and abusive behaviour.
On 27.08.2018 13:19, Daniel Pocock wrote:
The notice of meeting for 2018 (attached)
This message was sent internally to all (temporary) members of FSFE. It is not allowed on FSFE mailing lists to forward private notes without prior consent of the original author.
This looks like another attempt at censorship
How am I to communicate with the people who voted for me to represent them? Do I have to send documents through wikileaks instead of using the mailing list? Wouldn't that be absurd for an organization like FSFE?
The document in question is simply the invitation to our annual general meeting and I would encourage everybody to attend a meeting like that. I'm a member of many other groups and they all gain legitimacy by engaging as many people as possible in their annual meetings. What has FSFE got to hide and why?
If you like to make a point about something having been discussed in a private channel, you can paraphrase the content but you are not allowed to forward it to one of FSFE's public mailing lists that is even publicly archived [1] and therewith available for everyone with an Internet access.
Such an activity, I guess, is illegal in many jurisdictions as a potential invasion of privacy. Definitely it is forbidden on our lists.
Where is the private content in the notice of the meeting? Everything in the notice of meeting eventually appears in the minutes which are published on the FSFE web site.
Please stop trying to scare people with censorship, the FSFE community is not that gullible.
For example, you previously wrote in a private GA discussion that my communications to fellows should be censored to ensure that communications maximize donations (your comment in February: "people might even stop to support us financially" if I write emails to the the people who I am mandated to represent). But that is nonsense: the role of a representative is not to maximize donations, my role is to ensure the money already given to you is being spent as well as possible. For trying to fulfil that role, you immediately set up an illegal conspiracy to stab me in the back, publishing an internal censorship policy for future communications and calling an extraordinary general meeting[4] on a Saturday while I was out in Kosovo doing real free software activities and voting on a motion tacked onto the end of the agenda to immediately terminate my membership without cause. It is never nice to write such strong words, but in a case like this, fellows deserve to know the ugly truth about FSFE Council's behaviour and as the elected representative I would be negligent if I didn't blow the lid on this. As the #MeToo movement has demonstrated, sometimes it is necessary to call out obnoxious behaviour to begin a process of reform.
You are using very offensive language here that is against our code of conduct:
"To foster tolerance, respect and hospitality in our community, we agree not to engage in discriminatory, disparaging or offensive speech or actions"
Please refrain from doing so.
This looks like another attempt at censorship, this time trying to use the code of conduct as justification.
Personally, I feel that my highest responsibility is to those who elected me and gave me a mandate and I do not wish to be in a position that puts me above the rest of the wider FSFE community
Then please consider your audience and as a representative of our community, I kindly ask you to help establish a friendly and peaceful environment for every participant.
Personally, in times of fake-news, populism and attention economy, this is something that I would love to see the Free Software community to excel: transparent, fact-based discussions with respect towards each other.
Fact: 265 members voted[1] in the fellowship election last year
Fact: 9 people meeting in the office in Berlin, including a significant number of staff, abolished the elections for this year
Fact: there were 1532 registered fellows[2] at the time of the election
Fact: I feel betrayed, both as the representative and also as an ordinary fellow who didn't get to vote again this year.
Fact: you can't tell me and other fellows how to feel
But facts aren't everything. The book Animal Farm is a work of fiction but I think it would make great reading for anybody who wants to understand why an organization with 1532 members/fellows only sends the notice of annual general meeting to 29 people.
Regards,
Daniel
1. https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_29119d29f759bbf8
Hi Daniel,
Am Dienstag 28 August 2018 09:25:08 schrieb Daniel Pocock:
When council included a motion in the agenda of the extraordinary general meeting calling for the immediate termination of my membership, that was not "being excellent to each other".
any organisation(+) reserves the right to exclude members that heavily obstruct the way it works. There is a point where this has to be done just so that people can go seperate ways.
(+) <<A theoretical excursus: We are talking about a non-governmental organisation (NGO). As opposed to a country or a "state" were there are things like citizenship which is a form of mandatory "membership". A term like "demos" needs this mandatory "membership" and so does a "democracy". In conclusions this also means that any NGO cannot be "democratic" in a narrow sense.>>
It seems some people were asking the question if you were obstructing the FSFE from the inside for example with numerous motions that were hard to understand and never had a chance to pass because you were not able to convince others about them. Putting this to an explicit vote in May gave you security that you could stay in the FSFE for good. Otherwise if it had been time to end the relationship, maybe it is better to part ways for both parties. This may hurt your feelings, but it may also protect you from getting deeper into a bad relationship. The good part about an NGO is: You can leave and join a different one.
Council has unleashed this poison into the community and only the president can drag us out of that by resigning.
It would be unhelpful for a president that is supported by the majority of e.V. members to resign. Matthias is doing very good work for Free Software and FSFE, in my eyes.
How am I to communicate with the people who voted for me to represent them? Do I have to send documents through wikileaks instead of using the mailing list? Wouldn't that be absurd for an organization like FSFE?
It is a matter of privacy and about understanding each other. Without context a statement can be missunderstood easily. It makes sense that within FSFE we educate each other, so we must be able to say and write "temporary" opinions just to get them corrected. Of course our internal invitation to e.V. members is internal, so we can have an effective internal meeting. There are many other occasions that are open to the public. Maybe it helps if you imagine sending an invitation to three friends for a meeting and someone makes this a social media invitation public for all. To me it would be rude.
The document in question is simply the invitation to our annual general meeting and I would encourage everybody to attend a meeting like that.
We don't, it is an internal meeting, we need work to get done. To participate you need to have a lot of context, something that cannot be provided on the spot. We took a great effort to help you have and understand this context (as we do with all new members to the e.V.).
I'm a member of many other groups and they all gain legitimacy by engaging as many people as possible in their annual meetings.
(I doubt it, most organisations have internal meetings, even public political parties. But this is beside the point I guess.)
What has FSFE got to hide and why?
At the core (and simplified): FSFE has to maintain a way to work constructively.
I feel betrayed, both as the representative and also as an ordinary fellow who didn't get to vote again this year.
Fact: you can't tell me and other fellows how to feel
But facts aren't everything.
I do respect your feelings and kindly ask you to respect the feelings of others in the FSFE. As one of the founding members I feel it to be my duty to keep FSFE together as an organisation that can do work towards Free Software (and a better society as a result).
Unfortunately I feel that many of your inputs over the last months have been overly bureaucratic and in cases unrespectful about other people within FSFE and their work. So it maybe better if you would leave FSFE.
Best Regards, Bernhard
This e-mail contained information published in error and is no longer available.
On 08/28/2018 10:43 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
It was attempted in a very underhanded and juvenile manner, an administrative motion tacked onto the last page of a 9 page notice (attached), reading "The current Fellowship representatives' membership ends immediately after the this extraordinary General Assembly." Some people didn't even notice it was buried in the document, some people felt it wasn't intended to be noticed. When I asked council to explain it before the meeting, they gave no explanation or response.
In cricket terms, this is underarm bowling but then it just isn't cricket, is it? It isn't sportsmanlike.
I remember there was some discussion on this about this at the time.
In the end, the motion you quote was one of three motions to be voted on, and it was not adopted - meaning that you're still a Fellowship representative and your membership wasn't terminated at all.
This course of events would suggest, to me at any rate, that there was never any intention of adopting the third motion in point 6, and that it was probably included for clarity ("these are the options").
Frankly, I don't see any reason to assume bad faith on anyone's part regarding that point.
That said, I don't really have a lot to contribute to this discussion. The relationship between the FSFE and the Fellowship has been the subject of intense discussion for years, it was something we discussed a lot when I was coordinating the local group in Aarhus, for instance. At the time, this confusion was logical for a number of reasons, one of them being that the FSFE seemed to be at once a meritocratic volunteer-driven grassroots organization (the network of local groups, volunteers manning booths at events, handing out flyers, giving talks on free software), an association with paid membership (i.e., the Fellowship - with the added confusion that many if not most volunteers were Fellows, while very many Fellows were also volunteers), and a formal organization run by a limited number of people, the GA (most of whom were also Fellows and volunteers, I believe).
This arrangement hasn't always been easy to understand, and some people, who were both Fellows and local group coordinators, have expressed frustration that they were both paying and volunteering quite a lot, yet were not considered part of the formal organization and had no easy path in that direction either.
The GA has been trying to remedy this situation by declaring a more open membership process.
Daniel Pocock has been trying to address the same situation by insisting on openness and transparency; as Paul said, and as I hinted above, echoing concerns which have previously been voiced by quite a number of other people.
Both things would seem to point in the right direction - however, somewhere along the line, communication has gone awry. That's why I don't really feel like participating in this discussion as it is now. People should try to settle the personal matters off-list, and once matters have cooled down, we could return to discussing the best ways of furthering the cause of free software in Europe.
Best Carsten
Hi Daniel,
On 28.08.2018 09:25, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 27/08/18 16:02, Erik Albers wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I like to believe that your activities and communication are with good intention and you like to change things for the good. However, you should keep in mind that we are a organically grown organization with an established communication and community culture. And although we are in a process of change, the methods you use are currently maybe not the best approach to achieve your goals.
In any case it would be helpful if you could to stick to our rules of communication and try to be excellent to each other.
When council included a motion in the agenda of the extraordinary general meeting calling for the immediate termination of my membership, that was not "being excellent to each other".
"being excellent to each other" does not mean that people should not argue or insist on different opinions. But they should do so with a respectful communication towards each other.
Council has unleashed this poison into the community and only the president can drag us out of that by resigning. Trying to shift the blame onto me won't make any difference. I have felt bad about this organization ever since I saw that motion in the notice of meeting. Any way you look at it, it is bullying and abusive behaviour.
I am feeling sorry for you that you feel so bad since then but this seems to be a personal problem.
1) the motion you are referring to was changed after your first criticism and so is nothing to refer to. 2) it was one motion out of three to decide on. so why not telling the whole story and also cite the other two motions? 3) most important: the vast majority of the FSFE members voted for another motion. A motion to keep you in office for the whole 2 year-term!
Everybody can read this in the offical minutes:
"The current Fellowship representatives' membership ends as soon as the constitutional change is successfully registered, or 2 years after their election, whichever comes later."
(https://fsfe.org/about/legal/minutes/minutes-2018-05-26.en.pdf, p. 9)
this vote is the result of a weighing in the reasons that speak against keeping "the institution of a fellowship representative" and the benefits to keep you as a person inside the GA.
Unintelligible, you feel personally attacked since then although people voted to keep you in.
For example, you previously wrote in a private GA discussion that my communications to fellows should be censored to ensure that communications maximize donations (your comment in February: "people might even stop to support us financially" if I write emails to the the people who I am mandated to represent). But that is nonsense: the role of a representative is not to maximize donations, my role is to ensure the money already given to you is being spent as well as possible. For trying to fulfil that role, you immediately set up an illegal conspiracy to stab me in the back, publishing an internal censorship policy for future communications and calling an extraordinary general meeting[4] on a Saturday while I was out in Kosovo doing real free software activities and voting on a motion tacked onto the end of the agenda to immediately terminate my membership without cause. It is never nice to write such strong words, but in a case like this, fellows deserve to know the ugly truth about FSFE Council's behaviour and as the elected representative I would be negligent if I didn't blow the lid on this. As the #MeToo movement has demonstrated, sometimes it is necessary to call out obnoxious behaviour to begin a process of reform.
You are using very offensive language here that is against our code of conduct:
"To foster tolerance, respect and hospitality in our community, we agree not to engage in discriminatory, disparaging or offensive speech or actions"
Please refrain from doing so.
This looks like another attempt at censorship, this time trying to use the code of conduct as justification.
No, it is not. If you trespass our community rules and I kindly ask you to stop it, this is not censorship! Just as it is not intolerant if someone does not tolerate offending behaviour.
Actually, speaking up and making myself target of your aggressive language unfortunately becomes more and more an act of courage. Your offensive language has a chilling effect on our discussions and I represent a silent majority who simply feels threaten to object your messages.
Best, Erik
# Erik Albers [2018-08-29 11:22 +0200]:
- most important: the vast majority of the FSFE members voted for another motion. A motion to keep you in office for the whole 2 year-term!
Everybody can read this in the offical minutes:
"The current Fellowship representatives' membership ends as soon as the constitutional change is successfully registered, or 2 years after their election, whichever comes later."
It is noteworthy that this was the least restrictive option the GA has voted for. It also allows the second representative, Mirko, to stay longer than his 2-years term. So I cannot really understand the riot Daniel is trying to start here based on this option. The GA did not "stab you in the back". But I start to think that you are actually doing everything in your power to provoke GA members by poisoning the FSFE's discussion culture...
This looks like another attempt at censorship, this time trying to use the code of conduct as justification.
No, it is not. If you trespass our community rules and I kindly ask you to stop it, this is not censorship! Just as it is not intolerant if someone does not tolerate offending behaviour.
Actually, speaking up and making myself target of your aggressive language unfortunately becomes more and more an act of courage. Your offensive language has a chilling effect on our discussions and I represent a silent majority who simply feels threaten to object your messages.
Thank you for saying that, Erik. I personally feel the same. It makes me want to avoid reading and participating in any conversation on this list. That's the opposite of what any of us should strive for.
Best, Max
On 29/08/18 15:46, Max Mehl wrote:
# Erik Albers [2018-08-29 11:22 +0200]:
- most important: the vast majority of the FSFE members voted for another motion. A motion to keep you in office for the whole 2 year-term!
Everybody can read this in the offical minutes:
"The current Fellowship representatives' membership ends as soon as the constitutional change is successfully registered, or 2 years after their election, whichever comes later."
It is noteworthy that this was the least restrictive option the GA has voted for. It also allows the second representative, Mirko, to stay longer than his 2-years term. So I cannot really understand the riot Daniel is trying to start here based on this option. The GA did not "stab you in the back". But I start to think that you are actually doing everything in your power to provoke GA members by poisoning the FSFE's discussion culture...
You mix up a few issues there
Mirko's term had already expired before the meeting (it expires on the anniversary of election) so the motion couldn't extend his term.
Mirko is not a member any more. He now has to apply for membership like any other member of the community by sending a request to mk@fsfe.org and asking for "membership in passing (provisional membership)", as Erik encouraged people to do in the blog post in May. People who want to vote at the annual general meeting in Berlin on 7 October should probably do that quite quickly now.
The failure to realize earlier that Mirko's membership had already lapsed means that his vote and any proxies he carried were incorrectly recorded in the minutes[1] of the meeting from May. Is it possible that this irregularity violates the legality of the constitutional change and the elections will still have to go ahead now to appoint a replacement for Mirko to attend the annual meeting in October?
Nonetheless, I never said the GA stabbed me in the back. I said it looks like an the person who constructed this motion, not the whole GA, was trying to stab me in the back. Think of it this way: putting this option in the meeting invitation and asking people to come and vote on it feels a lot like putting a gun to my head, holding it there for a month and asking people to come and vote on whether to pull the trigger. How could any member of a community feel good in such circumstances? How could anybody still trust the people behind that type of politics, even though the vote failed to give them what they wanted? Four people voted for that option, including at least one member of the executive.
Let there be no doubt about it: despite the abstract way in which it is written, the people who gave up their Saturday to attend the meeting and the 4 people who voted for that option fully understood the impact it would have, eliminating a democratically elected representative of the community. How do you think I was feeling that weekend, wondering what was going on at the meeting in Berlin, waiting until several days later before anybody even told me the outcome of the vote?
The minutes also note that one staff member asked for a secret ballot, I make no assumptions about how she voted but this demonstrates that having such politics in the GA creates a horrible situation for staff as the staff also need to be able to work productively with all of us in the community and not choose sides in political situations. As the president has put the staff in this awkward position, I feel it is another reason for him to consider resigning.
Regards,
Daniel
1. https://fsfe.org/about/legal/minutes/minutes-2018-05-26.en.pdf
Hi list,
I was the first elected fellowship representative and am still part of the legal body FSFE e.V. where I had to see this kind of trolling for way too long already. Lots of time and energy wasted that could otherwise have been spent to further Free Software. I'll personally back out of this "discussion" again and focus on the latter.
Kind Regards, Torsten
On 27/08/18 16:07, Torsten Grote wrote:
Hi list,
I was the first elected fellowship representative and am still part of the legal body FSFE e.V. where I had to see this kind of trolling for way too long already. Lots of time and energy wasted that could otherwise have been spent to further Free Software. I'll personally back out of this "discussion" again and focus on the latter.
Thanks for the support, I've been trolled with this discussion about eliminating the elections since about a week after I was elected.
The motion to terminate my membership immediately and without any valid reason was one of the most outrageous acts of trolling I've ever seen.
Regards,
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
I have been watching your rants on FSFE list and in other places for a significant amount of time. Like others, I do believe your intentions are good, but your tone and behaviour is not constructive at all. Actually, I think you're damaging/discrediting your own position by the agressive tone.
What you are conveying with this kind of messages (to me) is that you feel personally injured and that you'd like to get as much attention to that.
I don't have as much insight into the activities of the FSFE e.V. or into the fellowship to comment in extensive details on the facts. However, I've been involved with Free Software for more than two decades now, and consider myself as a friend and supporter of the FSFE without ever having had any formal role or title in it, or ever being a member.
As a side note, to put things into some perspective: To me, from the very beginning of the fellowship establishment, it was always *very* clear that being a fellow is not equal to being a voting member of the legal entity (e.V.). This model is quite commonly used in German e.V.'s, so no surprise at all.
What I am missing in your communication and related threads is the clear evidence that a reasonable number of "fellows" are actually supporting your position in these arguments. Without the clear support from at least a number of fellows, I think your argument is moot.
So to summarize:
* please change your tone to a less aggressive one
* please allow the larger audience to understand if there are really a [significant] number of fellows that make the complians you raise, or whether you are making those complaints merely based on your own understanding of what your role as [former] fellowship representative should be?
Regards, Harald
On 28/08/18 09:01, Harald Welte wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I have been watching your rants on FSFE list and in other places for a significant amount of time. Like others, I do believe your intentions are good, but your tone and behaviour is not constructive at all. Actually, I think you're damaging/discrediting your own position by the agressive tone.
If the abusive termination of somebody's membership by underhanded means doesn't deserve a firm response, what does?
I would be just as outraged if any other member was subjected to similar tactics by FSFE's executive and as fellowship representative, I would be speaking up in their defence.
What you are conveying with this kind of messages (to me) is that you feel personally injured and that you'd like to get as much attention to that.
No, it is not about attention. As somebody else commented, that looks like another attempt at character assassination.
I simply feel that I have an obligation to the people who I agreed to represented to tell the truth about the organization, for better or worse. If all I wanted was attention I would have sent the email (or a blog) a lot earlier but I deferred doing so in the hope that there would be some sign of reform.
How come we never hear anybody suggesting that Tank Man was a selfish attention seeker?
I don't have as much insight into the activities of the FSFE e.V. or into the fellowship to comment in extensive details on the facts. However, I've been involved with Free Software for more than two decades now, and consider myself as a friend and supporter of the FSFE without ever having had any formal role or title in it, or ever being a member.
As a side note, to put things into some perspective: To me, from the very beginning of the fellowship establishment, it was always *very* clear that being a fellow is not equal to being a voting member of the legal entity (e.V.). This model is quite commonly used in German e.V.'s, so no surprise at all.
As the "E" in FSFE is for Europe and many members are outside Germany, that may not be obvious to many of the people who have come into contact with FSFE.
Original posts about the fellowship do talk about it being a class of membership and words like "join" have frequently been used.
At least one article[1] in Linux Magazine talks about fellows having a vote at the GA after 12 months. It is remarkable to look at the way fellows are described there and in this post[2] and then read Erik's recent post[3] suggesting fellows are no more than another corporate donor who didn't deserve elections any more.
However, that is only one aspect of the issue.
What I am missing in your communication and related threads is the clear evidence that a reasonable number of "fellows" are actually supporting your position in these arguments. Without the clear support from at least a number of fellows, I think your argument is moot.
One other fact that is not made public anywhere is that membership/fellowship numbers started dropping at the end of last year. We are talking about hundreds of people who stopped participating in the program, that is a fact. I don't know if those people sent a reason and if they didn't, we can only guess: was it because the change from "fellow" to "supporter" feels like a downgrade? Did some of them see the motion passed at the annual general meeting (October) to begin the process of removing elections? I suspect the former has had more impact than the latter.
Many people agree that there is a lot of good work being done at FSFE and that is why people are frustrated about the governance issues, every time there is some change (e.g. renaming fellows to supporters, cancelling elections, ...) a few more people silently quit. This is another reason why it is important for serious public discussion to start, the previous discussions about these things all happened in a bubble.
Instead of choosing to stop supporting FSFE, I would encourage people to come to Berlin on 7 October for the annual general meeting[4] and ask to be accepted as equal members.
Regards,
Daniel
1. http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/index.php/layout/set/print/Online/News/Free-... 2. https://fsfe.org/news/2008/news-20081210-01.en.html 3. https://fsfe.org/news/2018/news-20180526-01.en.html 4. https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20180827/ae43734e/at...
Hi Daniel,
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:12:14PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
If the abusive termination of somebody's membership by underhanded means doesn't deserve a firm response, what does?
Nobody argues against a *firm* response. You can be firm while still using constructive wording/language.
I would be just as outraged if any other member was subjected to similar tactics by FSFE's executive and as fellowship representative, I would be speaking up in their defence.
I don't think there's anywhere near as much tactics or conspiracy behind it as you think.
The point is, that the ultimate FSFE body responsible for making decision (the General Assembly) has cast a vote to change the internal structure of the organization, right? It is your right to protest against that, but ultimately, unless a majority of voting members is convinced by your arguments ahead of the vote, the decision is made.
It seems that you neither attended the 2017 GA, nor delegated your vote, while the Agenda (which I suppose was delivered as part of the GA invitation) clearly lists two topics directly related to the fellowship representative.
So when looking at the record, a body of which you have been a member has decided to remove that role by a vote, and you didn't cast or delegate your vote.
What you are conveying with this kind of messages (to me) is that you feel personally injured and that you'd like to get as much attention to that.
No, it is not about attention. As somebody else commented, that looks like another attempt at character assassination.
I am not attempting anything like that, I was merely reflecting on what impression your e-mails, blog-posts etc. of the past months are creating to me personally.
I simply feel that I have an obligation to the people who I agreed to represented to tell the truth about the organization, for better or worse.
It is obvious that you have that feeling, as you have expressed in many ways. However, is that (subjective) feeling backed by actual support of at least a reasonable number of the former fellows and now supporters?
How come we never hear anybody suggesting that Tank Man was a selfish attention seeker?
I am sorry, I don't get the cultural reference / analogy here. I have no understanding who Tank Man is or was.
As a side note, to put things into some perspective: To me, from the very beginning of the fellowship establishment, it was always *very* clear that being a fellow is not equal to being a voting member of the legal entity (e.V.). This model is quite commonly used in German e.V.'s, so no surprise at all.
As the "E" in FSFE is for Europe and many members are outside Germany, that may not be obvious to many of the people who have come into contact with FSFE.
That's correct. However, all related documents of FSFE have to my knowledge always been available in translated form to (at least) English.
Original posts about the fellowship do talk about it being a class of membership and words like "join" have frequently been used.
Yes, a "supporting membership" is not a "voting membership" and of course you can join an entity in any kind of role. I'm confident that at no point it was marketed as "become a voting/general member of the legal entity"?
At least one article[1] in Linux Magazine talks about fellows having a vote at the GA after 12 months.
That is of course unfortunate, but if you have ever dealt with press, you will notice that often it is inaccurate and not representing facts correctly due to inadequate research or misunderstandings. It would be useful if somebody had noticed it at that time to request a rebuttal/correction.
It is remarkable to look at the way fellows are described there and in this post[2] and then read Erik's recent post[3] suggesting fellows are no more than another corporate donor who didn't deserve elections any more.
You cannot compare third party publications with publications of FSFE itself. Any third party can have written anything. The point is, whether or not the FSFE has ever in an way indicated that the fellowship is about becoming a regular/voting member of the legal entity.
What I am missing in your communication and related threads is the clear evidence that a reasonable number of "fellows" are actually supporting your position in these arguments. Without the clear support from at least a number of fellows, I think your argument is moot.
One other fact that is not made public anywhere is that membership/fellowship numbers started dropping at the end of last year. We are talking about hundreds of people who stopped participating in the program, that is a fact. I don't know if those people sent a reason and if they didn't, we can only guess: was it because the change from "fellow" to "supporter" feels like a downgrade? Did some of them see the motion passed at the annual general meeting (October) to begin the process of removing elections? I suspect the former has had more impact than the latter.
That may or may not be the case. I agree you have an argument there, but you are drawing those conclusions yourself. My question was whether or not a real number of fellows/supporters have actually asked you to represent them in that way.
Many people agree that there is a lot of good work being done at FSFE and that is why people are frustrated about the governance issues, every time there is some change (e.g. renaming fellows to supporters, cancelling elections, ...) a few more people silently quit.
This is your interpretation. Without an "exit poll", nobody can know.
One could equally argue that every time you proceed with communication that some people find non-constructive, they think they don't want to contribute to an entity that has a lack of proper discussion culture and that has such open fights / flame-wars.
I'm not saying this is my position, I'm just showing you that in absence of hard facts, we have no clue as to why which fellows/supporters have left.
Instead of choosing to stop supporting FSFE, I would encourage people to come to Berlin on 7 October for the annual general meeting[4] and ask to be accepted as equal members.
I am not sure if this is constructive. I think the one year between the two General Assemblies (2017 and 2018) would have ben the time for anyone to voice their concerns to the FSFE, whether or not via the fellowship representative.
So far, I'm mostly hearing one voice. The key aspect (to me) is: How many fellows/supporters really have voiced concerns, protested, or in any other way disagreed with the related motions of the 2016 GA.
On 08/30/2018 02:44 AM, Harald Welte wrote:
It seems that you neither attended the 2017 GA, nor delegated your vote, while the Agenda (which I suppose was delivered as part of the GA invitation) clearly lists two topics directly related to the fellowship representative.
So when looking at the record, a body of which you have been a member has decided to remove that role by a vote, and you didn't cast or delegate your vote.
This is the crucial point! That would have been the opportunity to influence and change how the legal body works.
Letting these opportunities pass and then opening countless disastrous discussions instead looks like nothing but trolling to me.
On Sat, 1 Sep 2018 12:42:27 -0300 Torsten Grote Torsten.Grote@fsfe.org wrote:
On 08/30/2018 02:44 AM, Harald Welte wrote:
It seems that you neither attended the 2017 GA, nor delegated your vote, while the Agenda (which I suppose was delivered as part of the GA invitation) clearly lists two topics directly related to the fellowship representative.
So when looking at the record, a body of which you have been a member has decided to remove that role by a vote, and you didn't cast or delegate your vote.
This is the crucial point! That would have been the opportunity to influence and change how the legal body works.
Letting these opportunities pass and then opening countless disastrous discussions instead looks like nothing but trolling to me.
Voting for something you judge wrong means giving it legitimacy, thus going against yourself.
Now tell me that this looks nothing but trolling to you.
Besnik
Am Sonntag 02 September 2018 00:32:21 schrieb Besnik Bleta:
Letting these opportunities pass and then opening countless disastrous discussions instead looks like nothing but trolling to me.
Voting for something you judge wrong means giving it legitimacy, thus going against yourself.
The idea is to cast a vote, but vote against something you don't perceive as right...