Hi Florian,
I have left the FSFE because (among other things) there appears to be multiple levels of practical engagement with policy (which is fine) but it is based on a rather obscure set of policies concerning what membership means (which is not fine).
I am trying to understand better what exactly you mean here; would you mind elaborating a little bit about your experience?
Broadly, I would describe my experience in one way: initial enthusiasm about the FSFE transforming into ambivalence.
On one hand I am very energized by the work of the FSFE in keeping FS principles relevant to society, communities of developers and end users. On the other hand I am depressed and anxious about the specific features of the organization that frustrate that work through various contradictions at the level of organizational design which Daniel and a few others highlight in this thread and elsewhere so I won't repeat them here.
The danger I think is an organization like the FSFE is instrumental (though it's effectiveness is difficult to measure) in attenuating the most harmful effects of privately oriented institutional control over software development, but it is not immune to the potential to become 'weaponized' by well-meaning individuals, niches and other groups who themselves who are given far more control or influence over the organization than others in various ways.
This style of leadership although has benefits for some, it is generally I think problematic for society, communities of developers and end users - the objects the FSFE is claiming to support.
This is why I have chosen to cancel my financial support for the time being, until such time that a clearer picture emerges from the FSFE about it's policy priorities and future activities.
What is required is a clear set of policy priorities with robust evidence of support for them from the entire membership (and how 'membership' is to be construed seems to be unsettled too). There are many ways to do that from elections, polls, forums, working groups and all the rest of it but if either one is missing - 1) clear policy and 2) evidence of freely conferred deference to them from members (and it seems both appear to be weak in some instances) then no good will result and the FSFE will be on course for an arbitrary accumulation of capital causing all the overdetermined social problems and moral hazards that unaccountable accumulations of capital I think have proved universally to facilitate both in software development and anywhere where technical knowledge is distributed through networks framed by the monocultural havoc wrought by capital rather than the sympathetic wonder of diverse human collectives.
/ m
Je 2018-02-05 14:59:23, Mat Witts admin@yuj.it skribis:
There are many ways to do that from elections, polls, forums, working groups and all the rest of it but if either one is missing - 1) clear policy and 2) evidence of freely conferred deference to them from members (and it seems both appear to be weak in some instances) then no good will result and the FSFE will be on course for an arbitrary accumulation of capital causing all the overdetermined social problems and moral hazards that unaccountable accumulations of capital I think have proved universally to facilitate both in software development and anywhere where technical knowledge is distributed through networks framed by the monocultural havoc wrought by capital rather than the sympathetic wonder of diverse human collectives.
I am sorry. This is one sentence?
Tiuokaze oni egale povus skribi esperante, ĉar laŭ mi tiom homoj kapablas legi ĉi tiun tekston kiel kapablas legi la antaŭan. Tamen estas pli facile lerni legi ĉi tiun ol tiu. Ĉefe mi uzas nur simplajn vortojn, kiu faciligas kaj plaĉigas legadon, komprenadon kaj transdonadon de ideoj, sed kiam mi bezonas malfacilajn vortojn por eksprimi malsimplajn konceptojn, mi uzas tiujn maldense kaj sporade. Parenteze, mi deziras al vi bonan ŝancon kun guglo tradukilo.
If you know what I'm saying.
Amike,
I am sorry. This is one sentence?
Yes. Well observed. If you also notice it was a response to Florian's invitation to 'elaborat[e] a little bit about your experience?'.
The request was a bit vague but
I wrote in good faith about my experience as requested. This included some irritation which I conveyed in the way you observed. I was writing from that point of view, a sense of irritation with how I think the FSFE could do better, not from the perspective of trying to get a prize for literature. If I hadn't been asked about 'my experience' I would not have said any more about it since I find personal experience at times an unreliable indicator of what perhaps needs to be done next - and yet sometimes it's all we have - so I accepted the challenge.
Still on the subject of my personal experience then - it feels odd to be asked to offer to help and then be criticized for trying to help! If I had been asked to write an academic essay or a more reflective opinion piece using simple English or Esperanto then I may have done so too, but feeling judged on tone and grammar alone when the context is all about me being asked to offer my personal experience in a mailing list is a bit excessive too, don't you think?
Hi Mat,
Thank you for your feedback! Information like that is helpful in making the FSFE a better organization for everyone. Of course, your feedback will not be the only thing to consider, but I find it especially important to hear feedback from someone like you who stopped contributing financially, but is still interested enough in the community to stay on the mailing list. That is definitely an important data point, even if it is just one.
Happy hacking! Florian
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 18:12, floriansnow@fsfe.org said:
Thank you for your feedback! Information like that is helpful in making
Right feedback seems to be welcome, but discussion is done behind closed doors. With today's words of a board member to the members only list:
Regardless of what we individually think about our structure (and you know I have strong opinions on this too), let's keep that discussion *here*, between the members. No change will come from discussions about this elsewhere. Any change comes from us, here.
Which is of course aligned with our current structure but somewhat alien to the general principles of the free software movement. To me this sounds like "Let's do it like the FSF" - and we once wanted to be more participatory and open to the public than the FSF :-(.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
Hi Werner,
Right feedback seems to be welcome, but discussion is done behind closed doors. With today's words of a board member to the members only list:
To be clear, these words are mine:
Regardless of what we individually think about our structure (and you know I have strong opinions on this too), let's keep that discussion *here*, between the members. No change will come from discussions about this elsewhere. Any change comes from us, here.
That was written for the voting members of the FSFE, to convey to them that they are indeed responsible for changing the FSFE. And that it doesn't matter what is discussed on other mailing lists: here, fsfe-de, or elsewhere. For any change to happen, the voting members of the FSFE need to act and be convinced change is needed, and agree on the direction.
This was not intended to limit discussion. It was an attempt to convey to the voting members that they, and no one else, has the responbility for actually making changes to our structure, and that they should take that responsibility seriously. Changes which, I believe, both you and I would support, Werner.
On 06/02/18 20:37, Jonas Oberg wrote:
Hi Werner,
Right feedback seems to be welcome, but discussion is done behind closed doors. With today's words of a board member to the members only list:
To be clear, these words are mine:
Regardless of what we individually think about our structure (and you know I have strong opinions on this too), let's keep that discussion *here*, between the members. No change will come from discussions about this elsewhere. Any change comes from us, here.
That was written for the voting members of the FSFE, to convey to them that they are indeed responsible for changing the FSFE. And that it doesn't matter what is discussed on other mailing lists: here, fsfe-de, or elsewhere. For any change to happen, the voting members of the FSFE need to act and be convinced change is needed, and agree on the direction.
This was not intended to limit discussion. It was an attempt to convey to the voting members that they, and no one else, has the responbility for actually making changes to our structure, and that they should take that responsibility seriously. Changes which, I believe, both you and I would support, Werner.
This is why it is so important for us to determine if anybody else may either have achieved the status of being a member by completing the "Join the FSFE" form or if anybody feels that they or somebody in their team or local group should be accepted as a GA member by following the process described here:
https://wiki.fsfe.org/Teams/GA
Anybody who has contributed significant time to FSFE as a volunteer should read that page carefully and decide if they want to have a vote on these changes.
As I am not an ordinary member of the GA, rather, I am a fellowship representative, I try to consider the views of all fellows, supporters and volunteers and not just my own views when communicating with the GA. I have written on the GA list that I believe these changes require wider discussion, which may include mailing list discussion, surveys and potentially another real-world meeting like the summit we had in 2016 or the community gathering. Even if other members of the community are not able to vote on FSFE's constitution, I will try to listen to what people say in all these forums and bring that to the GA for you.
I would also ask people not to judge Jonas' comments too harshly, it is not uncommon for people to write things quickly on the GA list without thinking of all the ways they could be interpreted. Nonetheless, whichever way you interpret his comment, it is clear that people need to consider who else may have earned the right to have a voice and a vote.
Regards,
Daniel
Am Dienstag 06 Februar 2018 23:19:38 schrieb Daniel Pocock:
This is why it is so important for us to determine if anybody else may either have achieved the status of being a member by completing the "Join the FSFE" form
Which is quite clear form the constitution of the legal association: no one.
You have been pointed at this several times. It does not help us, our staff or volunteers to raise that question again and again. It keeps us away from making progress for Free Software.
or if anybody feels that they or somebody in their team or local group should be accepted as a GA member
I think there is a missconception here: The legal association as been founded to be a support pillar for the activities of the FSFE, not for being representative of a certain group, because it is not easy to define who this group should be. It certainly is an honor to be in the legal association, but you are expected to do a lot of work and for practical reasons it only makes sense to accept people that are showing the ability, the personal integrity and willingness to do the work.
(To be extra clear: This is my personal opinion.) Regards, Bernhard
Hi everyone,
Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro writes:
As I am not an ordinary member of the GA, rather, I am a fellowship representative, I try to consider the views of all fellows, supporters and volunteers and not just my own views when communicating with the GA.
Just to clarify this a bit: I am not a Fellowship representative, but I also try to consider multiple views, especially of people who are not part of the GA. I have the impression this is also true for other GA members. I am sure Daniel did not mean to imply otherwise; I just wanted to clarify here in case anyone misunderstood.
Happy hacking! Florian