I do have a problem with the current closed constitution of the FSFE.
This is not a democratic system, but a system set up by a few self-nominated individuals. As such it has no political validity.
Although I grant, that the current members of the FSFE are well-meaning and are greatly contributing to the Free Software movement, they cannot represent the Free Software Movement at large, since at least technically they only represent themselves: there exists no political mandate.
I fear that many others, who would be supportive of the Free Software movement, hold back, because they do not really feel represented.
I hear again and again the argument of hostile takeovers, and that may be a valid one. Why is it then however, that anyone can become a member of the FSF (in the USA)? Does RMS not worry about hostile takeovers?
I believe there must be other measures than such a closed society to prevent hostile takeovers. For example, you may exclude anyone from membership, who works for a company that produces proprietary software products, since there would obviously be a conflict of interest.
Although a benevolent oligarchy may actually be more efficient than a democracy, how are you going to be respected by the democratically elected members of the governments you are talking to?
- Josef
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 09:42:46AM +0200, Josef Dalcolmo wrote:
I do have a problem with the current closed constitution of the FSFE.
This is not a democratic system, but a system set up by a few self-nominated individuals.
This has been addressed before. The system itself is democratic. RMS approved people.
there exists no political mandate.
The aim of the FSFE is not to obtain a political mandate in the way you describe it. We do not want to represent the Free Software Movement in total numbers.
I fear that many others, who would be supportive of the Free Software movement, hold back, because they do not really feel represented.
If our actions do not represent you, please tell us. Listen to a large group of people is not much easier when they are official members of an organisation. We want to listen.
Why is it then however, that anyone can become a member of the FSF (in the USA)?
This is news to me. AFAIK only the necessary number of people is actually a member of the FSF.
how are you going to be respected by the democratically elected members of the governments you are talking to?
Our arguments will have to stand on their own.
Bernhard
Hi all,
|| On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:42:46 +0200 || Josef Dalcolmo dalcolmo@vh-s.de wrote:
jd> This is not a democratic system, but a system set up by a few jd> self-nominated individuals.
The people currently in the FSF Europe were nominated by (and in direct agreement with) Richard Stallman. You may disagree with him, but please take this criticism where it belongs.
jd> As such it has no political validity.
The FSF does not claim to be representing everyone, the only people we may represent are those who publicly state that we do because they are happy with the work we do.
Other than that, we only speak for ourselves.
jd> Why is it then however, that anyone can become a member of the jd> FSF (in the USA)?
You can't and never could. I even went so far as to ask Richard whether this has ever changed without my knowledge. It hasn't.
jd> Does RMS not worry about hostile takeovers?
He does.
Which is why we had very long discussions with him on the structure of the FSF Europe until we convinced him that our democratic model with the possibility of involving everyone was stable enough to truly become the sister organization of his FSF.
All the other points had been discussed before and you can find the proper answers in the archives. Therefore continuing this thread seems to be a waste of energies that would better be used to promote Free Software.
In the end it boils down to this:
If you feel another organization is required to promote Free Software, please go ahead and create it. We certainly won't think badly of you for doing that and will be happy to work with you on promoting Free Software.
There is a lot of work to do and there are many ways of getting deeply involved in the FSF Europe even without becoming a member.
Please use them and give us a chance to get to know you by your deeds, just like I'd like to ask everyone to judge us by what we do and say and not by whether Microsoft employees could join or not.
If you feel the FSF Europe is doing bad things and you cannot work with us, this would make me personally sad, but it is your decision and you're free not to work with us.
But if you - like me - feel the FSF Europe is a necessary and important step in order to reflect and assist Europe's buzzing Free Software community, please help us freeing Europe's computer users.
Regards, Georg
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 03:43:22PM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
Hi all,
hi Georg,
i understand and accept everything you state, but i see a small inconvenience in your conception of representativeness:
[snip]
The FSF does not claim to be representing everyone, the only people we may represent are those who publicly state that we do because they are happy with the work we do.
Other than that, we only speak for ourselves.
[snip]
in fact what i see here is a dangerous recursion: if membership to FSFE would be opened, the "ourselves" would enlarge to the community which is asking you to be inscribed because it feels represented. by closing membership you avoid any legitimation of the possible critics coming out from that community.
i'm satisfied with the activity of the FSF and grateful to many developers which shared their research and joined their efforts in developing not only Free Software but the idea of it; but i fear the danger of a takeover on the long period for larger scale FSF's affiliates and of immediate takeovers for smaller (i.e. national) contexts while adopting such dialectics.
if i'm bothering you that much with such arguments i beg your pardon, if there is a FSF discussion area for such topics i would be interested in knowing about it.
regards