I write to notify you of my candidacy for fellowship representative. I had some messages blocked and delayed so there is a kind-of lengthy meta-discussion before the announcement of candidacy. Feel Free to skip the meta-discussion.
--- meta-discussion : VOTING ---
First to say how i feel about elections, and their use in the context of Modern Free Software.
Although, many see this as an opportunity to encourage, endorse, and ultimately grow the Free Software community. The full picture is not so simple. I agree growth is good, but in what direction? Also, where winners are created there are bound to be losers -- so any encouragement would come at the expense of discouragement for others. Therefore i think it is absolutely critical that fairness, and a desire to grow with out commercial motivation shape the elections for FSFE representative.
Regarding the system of elected representatives. The first system of representative governance comes from Rome, beginning in ~700BC. At the time, it was NOT seen as an ideal solution to the challenges of governance. Indeed, it was a compromise based on what was feasible for them at that time.
Although many continue to see this system as an expedient, effetibe, and supremely feasible default-option. Long-term Free Software community members recognize that is not how Free Software has operated. Those will understand it as little more than blindly groping for a handle on the Free Software community by electing/erecting a familiar scaffolding-hierarchy-thing. In the end, you will see it's a community of individuals free from influence of community-managers and sheep-herders; the disturbing trend of paid community managers influencing Open Source projects on behalf of mega-corps.
In my personal opinion, the Free Software community has not been so much about maintaining strict community management practices and governance models based on large corporate structures, but more about promoting Software. I would not otherwise tarnish a valiant effort in the name of Free Software, but i think the FSFE can lead the way on this.
*** Important Meta-Point *** In the past, a system of elected representatives was necessitated largely by technological limitations regarding the speed of a horse drawn carriage. Why should we continue to be harnessed to an obsolete system who's inertia is limiting the growth of Free Software?
Ironically, today, the technological means exist for a Fellowship card carrying individual to vote any time any where for any purpose; specifically, card carrying fellows have the capability to use Strong cryptography in a secure way built into their Fellowship card.
Additionally, the fact that there is only one "official" candidate on the ballot!
If elected, i would not be afraid to make exception to a rule where the intent of rule is preserved. In the case where only one person is on the ballot, write-ins may be allowed in the interest of a meaningful "election."
Additionally, regarding the rule that "To be a candidate, you need to have been an active Fellow for at least a year before the election (so April 4th, 2015). This helps to make sure that the people elected into the GA are familiar with the organization and its work." And, the selection of the Schulze Voting System "For the voting process we will use the Schulze method, a popular voting system used by Debian, Wikimedia and others. It is a well tested method and has proven to be resistant to voting anomalies. "
Don't you think it anomalous to have an election with only one candidate?
Finally, It has come to my attention by means of blocked messages and delayed communications that those running the election would prevent you from voting for me (even as a write-in candidate) out of some misguided sense that they are "helping to make sure the people elected into the GA..."
Although it is my opinion that the FSFE risks it's relevance by using their technology as a door to exclude people from this election. However, weather or not you are allowed to vote for me in this election is not my decision. As i said, if elected i would not be afraid to make an obvious exception in the interest of a meaningful election. Ultimately, this election is not vital to the continued development of Free Software, but your continued support and encouragement is. I am here to let you know that the choice is yours!
If you feel strongly about my candidacy or anything i have written i ask you to please make a vote with your personal engorgement/discouragement/feedback/etc! Write to me! Your message could mean i decide to make the GNUBurgers regardless of the outcome of this election.
--- end-meta-discussion --
Joe Awni - http://joe.cryptobiz.directory
Candidacy
For more than a decade i use exclusively Free Software. Last year, i built a website on 100% Free Software stack: http://cryptobiz.directory (FSF approval pending). This year, i enjoyed traveling across Europe to computer conferences (FOSDEM [where i saw RMS], 32C3) to promote Free Software in innovative ways. Personally, i think the future of Free Software depends on our ability to connect with young software developers. With that in mind, i organized the GNUBurger.
GNUBurgers are made from a GPLv3 instruction set : https://foodhackingbase.org/wiki/Recipe:Mildenburger and usually have the GPLv3 logo toasted into the bun.
I'm hoping to earn your endorsement and vote to continue to representing the Free Software community with my pledge that if elected i will make freely available GNUBurgers to all software developers who wish. And, will attend as many events as possible.
On Saturday 16. April 2016 13.15.10 Joe Awni wrote:
Don't you think it anomalous to have an election with only one candidate?
Maybe it is, although it has happened before. Sorry if you mentioned that in your historical review, but I don't have time to read it properly at the moment!
As for this election (and for many if not most elections), I thought there was a deadline for declaring a candidacy, and given that the voting has been opened, that deadline will have been quite some time ago.
Finally, It has come to my attention by means of blocked messages and delayed communications that those running the election would prevent you from voting for me (even as a write-in candidate) out of some misguided sense that they are "helping to make sure the people elected into the GA..."
No, I imagine that the list has some kind of new sender moderation and you've just ended up in a queue.
Honestly, I have my reservations about the democratic standards in most organisations, and the FSFE Fellowship is no exception in that regard, but there needs to be a constructive discussion about such things instead of finger-pointing and opaque references to past occurrences that mean nothing to the casual observer.
Paul
Dear Joe,
On 04/16/2016 11:15 AM, Joe Awni wrote:
I write to notify you of my candidacy for fellowship representative. I had some messages blocked and delayed so there is a kind-of lengthy meta-discussion before the announcement of candidacy. Feel Free to skip the meta-discussion.
It is admirable that you wish to represent your fellow Fellows in FSFE's General Assembly. However, adequate representation requires intent to represent the Fellows and the FSFE, sufficient knowledge of the organization and its rules, and respect for the organization. As your e-mail has made it very clear that you lack at least one of those qualities, please allow me to give you a few pointers.
First, FSFE, like any other organization, has a written constitution that we have to follow. You can find the constitution at https://fsfe.org/about/legal/constitution.en.html and if you ever wish to successfully run for the Fellowship representative seat, I suggest you read through it. If you do that, you will soon find out that "Fellowship seats" (3) 4. requires candidates to notify the Fellowship coordinator at least two months before the election date. As an organization we are bound by law to follow our own constitution and could not accept your candidacy even if we wanted to.
Similarly, our constitution specifies the voting method to be used and the period potential candidates must have been Fellows for before they are permitted to run for the seats. Once again, it would be illegal for us to make any exceptions in this regard.
For more than a decade i use exclusively Free Software. Last year, i built a website on 100% Free Software stack: http://cryptobiz.directory (FSF approval pending). This year, i enjoyed traveling across Europe to computer conferences (FOSDEM [where i saw RMS], 32C3) to promote Free Software in innovative ways. Personally, i think the future of Free Software depends on our ability to connect with young software developers. With that in mind, i organized the GNUBurger.
GNUBurgers are made from a GPLv3 instruction set : https://foodhackingbase.org/wiki/Recipe:Mildenburger and usually have the GPLv3 logo toasted into the bun.
I'm hoping to earn your endorsement and vote to continue to representing the Free Software community with my pledge that if elected i will make freely available GNUBurgers to all software developers who wish. And, will attend as many events as possible.
This is all very nice, but the purpose of the Fellowship elections is to provide the Fellowship with confidence that FSFE is spending its resources in a sustainable way on our constitutional purposes, to enable the Fellowship a say about the activities we prioritize, and to provide active Fellows with an opportunity to lead in the fight for the advancement of Free Software. While this is my personal conviction, you might find that if you do decide to stand for election next year, you are unlikely to be elected if your agenda would be the promotion of personal projects.
Sincerely yours,
Dear Joe,
thank you very much for you lengthy email and your thoughts on FSFE's Fellowship representative election. Discussions and Feedback like this is exactly what helps to make any democratic decision more understandable.
Just one question ahead: I replied to your first email on 15/04/16 13:55 to let you know that the candidacy is over. Did you receive that mail?
Am 16/04/16 um 13:15 schrieb Joe Awni:
I write to notify you of my candidacy for fellowship representative.
As already said in my other mail, I am sorry but the time to announce a candidacy is over and was from
January 11, 2016 - February 1, 2016 (see here: http://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/FellowshipElection_2016)
To make sure that everyone knows about it, every Fellow with an active account did receive an email from the Fellowship system on 11/01/16 18:09 with the subject "Call for Candidates - Announcement of the Fellowship Elections 2016" including all the background information.
I had some messages blocked and delayed so there is a kind-of lengthy meta-discussion [...]
In my personal opinion, the Free Software community has not been so much about maintaining strict community management practices and governance models based on large corporate structures, but more about promoting Software. I would not otherwise tarnish a valiant effort in the name of Free Software, but i think the FSFE can lead the way on this.
Thank you very much for this, I agree and I hope most of the people on the list agree as well.
If elected, i would not be afraid to make exception to a rule where the intent of rule is preserved. In the case where only one person is on the ballot, write-ins may be allowed in the interest of a meaningful "election."
Additionally, regarding the rule that "To be a candidate, you need to have been an active Fellow for at least a year before the election (so April 4th, 2015). This helps to make sure that the people elected into the GA are familiar with the organization and its work." And, the selection of the Schulze Voting System "For the voting process we will use the Schulze method, a popular voting system used by Debian, Wikimedia and others. It is a well tested method and has proven to be resistant to voting anomalies. "
Don't you think it anomalous to have an election with only one candidate?
Look, there have been three weeks of time, announced in an email to every Fellow - but there was only one person who used that momentum to apply as a candidate.
Of course, we would love to see more candidates and I hope we will be better next year. And although I agree, that now changing the rules to see them fit sounds like an attractive solution but there are at least two problems we would face:
1. It is not legal. The FSFE as a legal entity is an association registered in Hamburg and as an association we are bound to a constitution. Unfortunately, our constitution knows a lot of details to tell about under "Fellowship seats" in https://fsfe.org/about/legal/constitution.html. It clearly says: "Candidates are all Fellows elegible for election who have informed the Fellowship coordinator of their intention to stand for office at least two months before the election date;" And if we would not keep to the rules of our constitution, we could lose the right to be an association and therewith the status of a chariable NGO. That means that these are decision out of our scope. We first need to change the constitution for this, but cannot change the rules adhoc. Else we couldfear to further exist.
2. The general problem when you try to fix a rule with exceptions ... -> when will you do the next exception? Imagine we would say now: Ok, you are allowed to be a candidate. Then the next one will come and say: me too! And the next one and so on.... We would need to make a new deadline. Just to see someone else is coming after that deadline to say: "last deadline you already made exceptions, so please do so again" ... And then someone would suggests to change the time of the voting ....
Finally, It has come to my attention by means of blocked messages and delayed communications that those running the election would prevent you from voting for me (even as a write-in candidate) out of some misguided sense that they are "helping to make sure the people elected into the GA..."
I do not understand exactly how you think that I should prevent people from voting you (I run the elections in all conscience)? I think you are doing me wrong here, I answered your last mail about your candidacy in no later than one hour. And I did not block any message or was trying to delay communications.
Although it is my opinion that the FSFE risks it's relevance by using their technology as a door to exclude people from this election.
I do not see the how we use technology in that sense? We simply follow our legal rules.
However, weather or not you are allowed to vote for me in this election is not my decision. As i said, if elected i would not be afraid to make an obvious exception in the interest of a meaningful election. Ultimately, this election is not vital to the continued development of Free Software, but your continued support and encouragement is. I am here to let you know that the choice is yours!
If you feel strongly about my candidacy or anything i have written i ask you to please make a vote with your personal engorgement/discouragement/feedback/etc! Write to me! Your message could mean i decide to make the GNUBurgers regardless of the outcome of this election.
Joe, I am really happy about your will for candidacy and we know each other from 32C3 and I highly appreciated your GNUBurgers at our assembly. Believe me, there is nothing I would do to prevent you from being a candidate as a Fellowship representative.
This is also true for everyone else here on the list. The more candidates we have, the more exciting it is for everyone involved. All of you are welcome to run for office as a Fellowship representative.
And if you agree with Joe that we should change the rules, I am also happy to see proposals so we can change our constitution on that base.
Thanks again for the discussion and the feedback, Erik
If you have not had time to read the message, how do you find time to reply at length?
I address your concerns in my original message.
Just because you made rules, at a previous date, regarding the structure of the election does not mean you have to waste this election which has only one candidate. *Indeed, its the purpose of the election to let the people decide. *
If you insist on not allowing write-ins, I'll call the election and you can just go home.
On 18 April 2016 at 08:54, Erik Albers eal@fsfe.org wrote:
Dear Joe,
thank you very much for you lengthy email and your thoughts on FSFE's Fellowship representative election. Discussions and Feedback like this is exactly what helps to make any democratic decision more understandable.
Just one question ahead: I replied to your first email on 15/04/16 13:55 to let you know that the candidacy is over. Did you receive that mail?
Am 16/04/16 um 13:15 schrieb Joe Awni:
I write to notify you of my candidacy for fellowship representative.
As already said in my other mail, I am sorry but the time to announce a candidacy is over and was from
January 11, 2016 - February 1, 2016 (see here: http://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/FellowshipElection_2016)
To make sure that everyone knows about it, every Fellow with an active account did receive an email from the Fellowship system on 11/01/16 18:09 with the subject "Call for Candidates - Announcement of the Fellowship Elections 2016" including all the background information.
I had some messages blocked and delayed so there is a kind-of lengthy meta-discussion [...]
In my personal opinion, the Free Software community has not been so much about maintaining strict community management practices and governance models based on large corporate structures, but more about promoting Software. I would not otherwise tarnish a valiant effort in the name of Free Software, but i think the FSFE can lead the way on this.
Thank you very much for this, I agree and I hope most of the people on the list agree as well.
If elected, i would not be afraid to make exception to a rule where the intent of rule is preserved. In the case where only one person is on the ballot, write-ins may be allowed in the interest of a meaningful
"election."
Additionally, regarding the rule that "To be a candidate, you need to
have
been an active Fellow for at least a year before the election (so April 4th, 2015). This helps to make sure that the people elected into the GA
are
familiar with the organization and its work." And, the selection of the Schulze Voting System "For the voting process
we
will use the Schulze method, a popular voting system used by Debian, Wikimedia and others. It is a well tested method and has proven to be resistant to voting anomalies. "
Don't you think it anomalous to have an election with only one candidate?
Look, there have been three weeks of time, announced in an email to every Fellow - but there was only one person who used that momentum to apply as a candidate.
Of course, we would love to see more candidates and I hope we will be better next year. And although I agree, that now changing the rules to see them fit sounds like an attractive solution but there are at least two problems we would face:
- It is not legal. The FSFE as a legal entity is an association registered
in Hamburg and as an association we are bound to a constitution. Unfortunately, our constitution knows a lot of details to tell about under "Fellowship seats" in https://fsfe.org/about/legal/constitution.html. It clearly says: "Candidates are all Fellows elegible for election who have informed the Fellowship coordinator of their intention to stand for office at least two months before the election date;" And if we would not keep to the rules of our constitution, we could lose the right to be an association and therewith the status of a chariable NGO. That means that these are decision out of our scope. We first need to change the constitution for this, but cannot change the rules adhoc. Else we couldfear to further exist.
- The general problem when you try to fix a rule with exceptions ... ->
when will you do the next exception? Imagine we would say now: Ok, you are allowed to be a candidate. Then the next one will come and say: me too! And the next one and so on.... We would need to make a new deadline. Just to see someone else is coming after that deadline to say: "last deadline you already made exceptions, so please do so again" ... And then someone would suggests to change the time of the voting ....
Finally, It has come to my attention by means of blocked messages and delayed communications that those running the election would prevent you from voting for me (even as a write-in candidate) out of some misguided sense that they are "helping to make sure the people elected into the
GA..."
I do not understand exactly how you think that I should prevent people from voting you (I run the elections in all conscience)? I think you are doing me wrong here, I answered your last mail about your candidacy in no later than one hour. And I did not block any message or was trying to delay communications.
Although it is my opinion that the FSFE risks it's relevance by using
their
technology as a door to exclude people from this election.
I do not see the how we use technology in that sense? We simply follow our legal rules.
However, weather or not you are allowed to vote for me in this election is not my
decision.
As i said, if elected i would not be afraid to make an obvious exception
in
the interest of a meaningful election. Ultimately, this election is not vital to the continued development of
Free
Software, but your continued support and encouragement is. I am here to
let
you know that the choice is yours!
If you feel strongly about my candidacy or anything i have written i ask you to please make a vote with your personal engorgement/discouragement/feedback/etc! Write to me! Your message could mean i decide to make the GNUBurgers regardless of the outcome of this election.
Joe, I am really happy about your will for candidacy and we know each other from 32C3 and I highly appreciated your GNUBurgers at our assembly. Believe me, there is nothing I would do to prevent you from being a candidate as a Fellowship representative.
This is also true for everyone else here on the list. The more candidates we have, the more exciting it is for everyone involved. All of you are welcome to run for office as a Fellowship representative.
And if you agree with Joe that we should change the rules, I am also happy to see proposals so we can change our constitution on that base.
Thanks again for the discussion and the feedback, Erik
-- No one shall ever be forced to use non-free software Erik Albers | Free Software Foundation Europe OpenPGP Key-ID: 0x8639DC81 on keys.gnupg.net
On 04/18/2016 01:07 PM, Joe Awni wrote:
If you have not had time to read the message, how do you find time to reply at length?
Nowhere in his public e-mail has Erik stated that he has not had enough time to read your message.
Just because you made rules, at a previous date, regarding the structure of the election does not mean you have to waste this election which has only one candidate. *Indeed, its the purpose of the election to let the people decide. *
I explained the purpose of the Fellowship elections to you in my e-mail to the list.
If you insist on not allowing write-ins, I'll call the election and you can just go home.
This kind of abuse will not be tolerated.
Are you suggesting that i am abusing you by pointing out that the results of an election with only one candidate are a foregone conclusion?
On 18 April 2016 at 09:13, Repentinus repentinus@fsfe.org wrote:
On 04/18/2016 01:07 PM, Joe Awni wrote:
If you have not had time to read the message, how do you find time to reply at length?
Nowhere in his public e-mail has Erik stated that he has not had enough time to read your message.
Just because you made rules, at a previous date, regarding the structure of the election does not mean you have to waste this election which has only one candidate. *Indeed, its the purpose of the election to let the people decide. *
I explained the purpose of the Fellowship elections to you in my e-mail to the list.
If you insist on not allowing write-ins, I'll call the election and you can just go home.
This kind of abuse will not be tolerated.
-- Heiki Lõhmus Coordinator Translations Free Software Foundation Europe mailto:repentinus@fsfe.org xmpp:repentinus@jabber.fsfe.org http://blogs.fsfe.org/repentinus/
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On 04/18/2016 01:16 PM, Joe Awni wrote:
Are you suggesting that i am abusing you by pointing out that the results of an election with only one candidate are a foregone conclusion?
No. Please forgive me. I misunderstood you to mean that you would be calling new elections yourself (instead of calling the results).
Of course.
You don't need me to tell you the result of an election with one candidate is that the election-holders can take a long lunch break or so...
On 18 April 2016 at 09:19, Repentinus repentinus@fsfe.org wrote:
On 04/18/2016 01:16 PM, Joe Awni wrote:
Are you suggesting that i am abusing you by pointing out that the results of an election with only one candidate are a foregone conclusion?
No. Please forgive me. I misunderstood you to mean that you would be calling new elections yourself (instead of calling the results).
-- Heiki Lõhmus Coordinator Translations Free Software Foundation Europe mailto:repentinus@fsfe.org xmpp:repentinus@jabber.fsfe.org http://blogs.fsfe.org/repentinus/
On 04/18/2016 01:16 PM, Joe Awni wrote:
Are you suggesting that i am abusing you by pointing out that the results of an election with only one candidate are a foregone conclusion?
Concerning the low number of candidates, we at FSFE would prefer much greater participation in the results. These elections are not the first with only a single candidate nor are they likely to be the last. This is suboptimal, but permitting candidates to put themselves forth at arbitrary times is not the solution. Rather, the solution would be to permit a no confidence vote in all candidates. If that proved to be the winning option, the elections would be recalled for a date three months in the future, allowing more people to put themselves forward. I will propose the necessary constitutional amendment at the next general assembly. However, we have to stick to the rules we have for now. I understand this is frustrating, but it is equally frustrating for us as we want the best Fellowship representatives we could have, which means several candidates.
On 04/18/2016 01:28 PM, Repentinus wrote:
greater participation in the results. These elections are not the first
participation in the elections*
Hi Joe,
Am 18/04/16 um 15:07 schrieb Joe Awni:
If you have not had time to read the message, how do you find time to reply at length?
I address your concerns in my original message.
I do not see any solution to my legal concerns in your message.
Just because you made rules, at a previous date, regarding the structure of the election does not mean you have to waste this election which has only one candidate. *Indeed, its the purpose of the election to let the people decide. *
and the purpose of rules is to stick to them. This is especially true for all state-run agencies like the register of associations, revenue authorities and others.
if we do not stick to the rules in our constitution they will simply cut us off.
If you insist on not allowing write-ins, I'll call the election and you can just go home.
sorry, I guess I do not understand this sentence completely.
Best regards, Erik
It has not been my intend to insult, abuse, or confuse anyone with my message. But, i have met these complaints. IMO, no person is perfect, so no one should hold themselves above insult. I like to think i bring a fresh perspective, but -- it just seems logical to me.
Regarding concern that not following the rules that you set at a prior date will cause your funding to evaporate: i would urge you not to consider future-money, but what you are being paid for at present.
How do you think donors would feel that you spend time and energy to offer an empty election?
On 18 April 2016 at 09:47, Erik Albers eal@fsfe.org wrote:
Hi Joe,
Am 18/04/16 um 15:07 schrieb Joe Awni:
If you have not had time to read the message, how do you find time to
reply
at length?
I address your concerns in my original message.
I do not see any solution to my legal concerns in your message.
Just because you made rules, at a previous date, regarding the structure
of
the election does not mean you have to waste this election which has only one candidate. *Indeed, its the purpose of the election to let the people decide. *
and the purpose of rules is to stick to them. This is especially true for all state-run agencies like the register of associations, revenue authorities and others.
if we do not stick to the rules in our constitution they will simply cut us off.
If you insist on not allowing write-ins, I'll call the election and you
can
just go home.
sorry, I guess I do not understand this sentence completely.
Best regards, Erik
-- No one shall ever be forced to use non-free software Erik Albers | Free Software Foundation Europe OpenPGP Key-ID: 0x8639DC81 on keys.gnupg.net
# Joe Awni [18.04.2016 @ 16:17]:
How do you think donors would feel that you spend time and energy to offer an empty election?
I am positive they feel quite good since we comply with applicable laws and our own constitution. That's nothing I would like to see changed.
Please feel invited to join our Fellowship and apply for next year's Fellowship elections as soon as the candidature phase is opened. We are happy about each and every applicant.
Best, Max
Frankly, It's not possible for you to say the donors are "feeling quite good" about this (unless you are talking about a rather small sub-set of donors that do not represent independent software developers) for example, I donated, and i wish there was more than one candidate.
Erik, No disrespect, you know me, and you know the struggle independent Free Software developers face. Sure, most people know about Linux and Firefox, but beyond that are totally clueless. Almost none seem to be aware of the fact larger open source projects regularly port other projects' unique features to their own platform thereby depriving other developers of users and potential donors.
Companies that make their profit from being known as the kings of open source think it's a good thing as they leave the rest of us out. I'm not kidding, while the Mozilla team was being wined and dined in Brussels after FOSDEM, i was getting beat-up and mugged half a block from the university after eating falafel and french fries.
So, NO - your donors do not feel quite good (unless you mean the mega-corps).
On 18 April 2016 at 10:37, Max Mehl max.mehl@fsfe.org wrote:
# Joe Awni [18.04.2016 @ 16:17]:
How do you think donors would feel that you spend time and energy to offer an empty election?
I am positive they feel quite good since we comply with applicable laws and our own constitution. That's nothing I would like to see changed.
Please feel invited to join our Fellowship and apply for next year's Fellowship elections as soon as the candidature phase is opened. We are happy about each and every applicant.
Best, Max
-- Max Mehl – FSFE Germany Coordinator – https://fsfe.org Further contact information on www.fsfe.org/about/mehl Private blog: blog.mehl.mx | Private homepage: mehl.mx Your donation enables our work: http://fsfe.org/donate
Thinking my candidacy can be flushed away with a torrent of legal mumbo-jumbo emails messages?
The Free Software movement is not some soft white absorbed fabric you can use to mop up the murky reality and discard when convenient nor is that the purpose of your country's legal system.
Please see my original message, preserved for posterity: https://cryptobiz.directory/pub/document?getDoc=umZPtBk1XI7zGtMJjNygNtM0v4u1...
Do they really think i will swirl down the drain never to be heard from again?
I cant blame them, more and more independent software developers are killing themselves or otherwise just deign. Aaron Swartz, Ian Murdock, or very recently the non-publicized untimely death of my friend Napoleon Kofi ( http://napoleonkofi.me/ ). I am sure there are other independent software developers deign right now. Maybe we can wake up in a better world tomorrow, but with out action today its very unlikely.
I don't mean to "point fingers" but feel i would be totally remiss if i did not mention the difficulties which i have faced to get my message of candidacy out (especially on IRC [not even sure if they were coders]). And, want to repeat my request that you please contact me!
We are not looking to the FSFE for more of the same with emphasis on MORE and SAME; more similarly held elections are not the answer!
Ask yourself, at any given moment, who is representing the ideals free software community? Guys in an office in Berlin or someone making GNUBurgers at FOSS events?
On 18 April 2016 at 11:24, Joe Awni joe.awni@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, It's not possible for you to say the donors are "feeling quite good" about this (unless you are talking about a rather small sub-set of donors that do not represent independent software developers) for example, I donated, and i wish there was more than one candidate.
Erik, No disrespect, you know me, and you know the struggle independent Free Software developers face. Sure, most people know about Linux and Firefox, but beyond that are totally clueless. Almost none seem to be aware of the fact larger open source projects regularly port other projects' unique features to their own platform thereby depriving other developers of users and potential donors.
Companies that make their profit from being known as the kings of open source think it's a good thing as they leave the rest of us out. I'm not kidding, while the Mozilla team was being wined and dined in Brussels after FOSDEM, i was getting beat-up and mugged half a block from the university after eating falafel and french fries.
So, NO - your donors do not feel quite good (unless you mean the mega-corps).
On 18 April 2016 at 10:37, Max Mehl max.mehl@fsfe.org wrote:
# Joe Awni [18.04.2016 @ 16:17]:
How do you think donors would feel that you spend time and energy to offer an empty election?
I am positive they feel quite good since we comply with applicable laws and our own constitution. That's nothing I would like to see changed.
Please feel invited to join our Fellowship and apply for next year's Fellowship elections as soon as the candidature phase is opened. We are happy about each and every applicant.
Best, Max
-- Max Mehl – FSFE Germany Coordinator – https://fsfe.org Further contact information on www.fsfe.org/about/mehl Private blog: blog.mehl.mx | Private homepage: mehl.mx Your donation enables our work: http://fsfe.org/donate
I think you should grow up and have a bit of respect to the others.
Cheers,
Mauricio
On 2016-04-18 18:05, Joe Awni wrote:
Thinking my candidacy can be flushed away with a torrent of legal mumbo-jumbo emails messages?
The Free Software movement is not some soft white absorbed fabric you can use to mop up the murky reality and discard when convenient nor is that the purpose of your country's legal system.
Please see my original message, preserved for posterity: https://cryptobiz.directory/pub/document?getDoc=umZPtBk1XI7zGtMJjNygNtM0v4u1... [1]
Do they really think i will swirl down the drain never to be heard from again?
I cant blame them, more and more independent software developers are killing themselves or otherwise just deign. Aaron Swartz, Ian Murdock, or very recently the non-publicized untimely death of my friend Napoleon Kofi ( http://napoleonkofi.me/ [2] ). I am sure there are other independent software developers deign right now. Maybe we can wake up in a better world tomorrow, but with out action today its very unlikely.
I don't mean to "point fingers" but feel i would be totally remiss if i did not mention the difficulties which i have faced to get my message of candidacy out (especially on IRC [not even sure if they were coders]). And, want to repeat my request that you please contact me!
We are not looking to the FSFE for more of the same with emphasis on MORE and SAME; more similarly held elections are not the answer!
Ask yourself, at any given moment, who is representing the ideals free software community? Guys in an office in Berlin or someone making GNUBurgers at FOSS events?
On 18 April 2016 at 11:24, Joe Awni joe.awni@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, It's not possible for you to say the donors are "feeling quite good" about this (unless you are talking about a rather small sub-set of donors that do not represent independent software developers) for example, I donated, and i wish there was more than one candidate.
Erik, No disrespect, you know me, and you know the struggle independent Free Software developers face. Sure, most people know about Linux and Firefox, but beyond that are totally clueless. Almost none seem to be aware of the fact larger open source projects regularly port other projects' unique features to their own platform thereby depriving other developers of users and potential donors.
Companies that make their profit from being known as the kings of open source think it's a good thing as they leave the rest of us out. I'm not kidding, while the Mozilla team was being wined and dined in Brussels after FOSDEM, i was getting beat-up and mugged half a block from the university after eating falafel and french fries.
So, NO - your donors do not feel quite good (unless you mean the mega-corps).
On 18 April 2016 at 10:37, Max Mehl max.mehl@fsfe.org wrote: # Joe Awni [18.04.2016 @ 16:17]:
How do you think donors would feel that you spend time and energy to offer an empty election?
I am positive they feel quite good since we comply with applicable laws and our own constitution. That's nothing I would like to see changed.
Please feel invited to join our Fellowship and apply for next year's Fellowship elections as soon as the candidature phase is opened. We are happy about each and every applicant.
Best, Max
-- Max Mehl - FSFE Germany Coordinator - https://fsfe.org [3] Further contact information on www.fsfe.org/about/mehl [4] Private blog: blog.mehl.mx [5] | Private homepage: mehl.mx [6] Your donation enables our work: http://fsfe.org/donate [7]
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion [8]
Links: ------ [1] https://cryptobiz.directory/pub/document?getDoc=umZPtBk1XI7zGtMJjNygNtM0v4u1... [2] http://napoleonkofi.me/ [3] https://fsfe.org [4] http://www.fsfe.org/about/mehl [5] http://blog.mehl.mx [6] http://mehl.mx [7] http://fsfe.org/donate [8] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
The people who were put-up to accuse me of abuse, immaturity, or lack of respect have already apologized to me in private (before i even had time to register a .gripe TLD). Honestly, i don't blame them for doing whatever it takes to get-by. But this is 2016 -- if you have not had time to read the message or can not be bothered to explain you position that i have "disrespected the others" please refrain from posting.
On 18 April 2016 at 12:53, Mauricio Nascimento aurion@fsfe.org wrote:
I think you should grow up and have a bit of respect to the others.
Cheers,
Mauricio
On 2016-04-18 18:05, Joe Awni wrote:
Thinking my candidacy can be flushed away with a torrent of legal mumbo-jumbo emails messages?
The Free Software movement is not some soft white absorbed fabric you can use to mop up the murky reality and discard when convenient nor is that the purpose of your country's legal system.
Please see my original message, preserved for posterity: https://cryptobiz.directory/pub/document?getDoc=umZPtBk1XI7zGtMJjNygNtM0v4u1...
Do they really think i will swirl down the drain never to be heard from again?
I cant blame them, more and more independent software developers are killing themselves or otherwise just deign. Aaron Swartz, Ian Murdock, or very recently the non-publicized untimely death of my friend Napoleon Kofi ( http://napoleonkofi.me/ ). I am sure there are other independent software developers deign right now. Maybe we can wake up in a better world tomorrow, but with out action today its very unlikely.
I don't mean to "point fingers" but feel i would be totally remiss if i did not mention the difficulties which i have faced to get my message of candidacy out (especially on IRC [not even sure if they were coders]). And, want to repeat my request that you please contact me!
We are not looking to the FSFE for more of the same with emphasis on MORE and SAME; more similarly held elections are not the answer!
Ask yourself, at any given moment, who is representing the ideals free software community? Guys in an office in Berlin or someone making GNUBurgers at FOSS events?
On 18 April 2016 at 11:24, Joe Awni joe.awni@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, It's not possible for you to say the donors are "feeling quite good" about this (unless you are talking about a rather small sub-set of donors that do not represent independent software developers) for example, I donated, and i wish there was more than one candidate.
Erik, No disrespect, you know me, and you know the struggle independent Free Software developers face. Sure, most people know about Linux and Firefox, but beyond that are totally clueless. Almost none seem to be aware of the fact larger open source projects regularly port other projects' unique features to their own platform thereby depriving other developers of users and potential donors.
Companies that make their profit from being known as the kings of open source think it's a good thing as they leave the rest of us out. I'm not kidding, while the Mozilla team was being wined and dined in Brussels after FOSDEM, i was getting beat-up and mugged half a block from the university after eating falafel and french fries.
So, NO - your donors do not feel quite good (unless you mean the mega-corps).
On 18 April 2016 at 10:37, Max Mehl max.mehl@fsfe.org wrote:
# Joe Awni [18.04.2016 @ 16:17]:
How do you think donors would feel that you spend time and energy to offer an empty election?
I am positive they feel quite good since we comply with applicable laws and our own constitution. That's nothing I would like to see changed.
Please feel invited to join our Fellowship and apply for next year's Fellowship elections as soon as the candidature phase is opened. We are happy about each and every applicant.
Best, Max
-- Max Mehl – FSFE Germany Coordinator – https://fsfe.org Further contact information on www.fsfe.org/about/mehl Private blog: blog.mehl.mx | Private homepage: mehl.mx Your donation enables our work: http://fsfe.org/donate
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Hello Joe, I would like to say that I feel in no position to add some constructive and substantive points to the discussion and I won't even try to do so. However, what I want to point out for your consideration is that almost all your mails are rather aggressive, which won't help you convince others to agree with what you believe, or even can do the opposite.
On 04/18/2016 06:05 PM, Joe Awni wrote:
Please see my original message, preserved for posterity: https://cryptobiz.directory/pub/document?getDoc=umZPtBk1XI7zGtMJjNygNtM0v4u1...
All conversations from discussion list are publicly available. You can find your first mail here: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2016-April/010944.html
Best regards, cmd
Hi Joe,
I understand that you are frustrated, but you are behaving like a troll, so please also understand people's reactions. You have been offered help on IRC many times, but you did not want to listen and you refused to even give an error message or a clear description of which steps you took to sign up.
Your messages _did_ go through to the list and Max told you so on Saturday. You have still received polite responses here, motivating you to register as a candidate next year and your responses are often a mixture of conspiracy theories and completely unrelated issues.
It is regrettable that developers kill themselves, but that has nothing to do whatsoever with the elections for a Fellowship representative. The person in that position has no influence on the state of mind of developers. The FSFE is mainly in the business of educating the public about Free Software. And one of the goals of Free Software is also to facilitate forks so people can compete on a level playing field. You criticize forks so I don't know what to say about that.
The responses about the constitution are not legal mumbo-jumbo. You make more and more outrageous statements here. I (and I think everyone here) appreciate your enthusiasm and energy, but you're overdoing it here. Maybe you can channel that enthusiam towards something else for now and become a candidate next year?
Happy hacking! Florian
As candidate, i would aggressively pursue FOSS goals.
I don't think its right to sweep the emotionally charged issues under the rug like a piece of dust, and i did not criticize forks.
As poster and correspondent, i will never attempt to use dehumanizing epithets such as "troll" on coders or non-coders. This process of dehumanization is not welcome in the FOSS community.
Further, you inability to make specific points, instead relying on ad hominem attacks means i dont even want to engage with you.
On 18 April 2016 at 13:25, Florian Snow floriansnow@fsfe.org wrote:
Hi Joe,
I understand that you are frustrated, but you are behaving like a troll, so please also understand people's reactions. You have been offered help on IRC many times, but you did not want to listen and you refused to even give an error message or a clear description of which steps you took to sign up.
Your messages _did_ go through to the list and Max told you so on Saturday. You have still received polite responses here, motivating you to register as a candidate next year and your responses are often a mixture of conspiracy theories and completely unrelated issues.
It is regrettable that developers kill themselves, but that has nothing to do whatsoever with the elections for a Fellowship representative. The person in that position has no influence on the state of mind of developers. The FSFE is mainly in the business of educating the public about Free Software. And one of the goals of Free Software is also to facilitate forks so people can compete on a level playing field. You criticize forks so I don't know what to say about that.
The responses about the constitution are not legal mumbo-jumbo. You make more and more outrageous statements here. I (and I think everyone here) appreciate your enthusiasm and energy, but you're overdoing it here. Maybe you can channel that enthusiam towards something else for now and become a candidate next year?
Happy hacking! Florian _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Dear all,
we are coming closer to a point where the initial message of someone who likes to be a candidate for the Fellowship representative turned into a discussion about legal and democratic aspects of the Fellowship elections and more and more ends in personal criticism against each other.
Personal criticism is something that we like to avoid. I kindly ask everyone to keep to the topic and avoid personal criticism. Additionally, I recommend trying to stop the discussions until tomorrow noon which might help everyone to cool down.
Thank you very much, Erik
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:05, joe.awni@gmail.com said:
Thinking my candidacy can be flushed away with a torrent of legal
Your are simply jumping too late onto the train. There are rules for elections which can't be changed on the request from a potential new candidate who missed the deadline. That is unfortunate for us all but this is how things work.
Now, it might happen that an elected candidate won't accept his election or someone will contest the election. In both cases it is possible that we will have a new election. A new election with the same rules but this time with you being able to candidate.
BTW: It is not to uncommon that there is only one candidate; for example see the Debian elections from 2011: https://lwn.net/Articles/438923/
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
Am 18/04/16 um 16:17 schrieb Joe Awni:
Regarding concern that not following the rules that you set at a prior date will cause your funding to evaporate: i would urge you not to consider future-money, but what you are being paid for at present.
I am sorry if I was not clear in my communication: It is not about money or funding. If we do not stick to our constitution that agency for registrations of associations will come and say: You will not be an association anymore. You are forbidden to further exist as an association. This could lead to the end of FSFE.
So let's stick to our constitution for this year, see how we should change it and try to get more candidates for next year.
Best regards, Erik