Hello,
I noticed that the election of the Fellowship representative to the FSFE General Assembly has begun. I had previously wanted to know a bit more about the candidates' positions on how the FSFE might empower its volunteers and act as an amplifier for their activities.
Unfortunately, the "hustings" were announced as taking place on two consecutive days [1], subsequently reduced to one [2], and then took place on the day that was "unannounced". There hasn't been any other discussion about the candidates' positions, as far as I can tell.
Now, reading the candidates' statements, only one of the candidates mentions volunteering and really only in the context of more of it being required, which doesn't necessarily make sense if volunteer activities end up not being particularly efficient or productive. So, I wouldn't mind knowing what the candidates want to do about making FSFE a venue for individual Fellows to be able to make a difference, both in the organisation and beyond.
(In the context of this being an election to a board with only a couple of Fellows present and the remainder being appointed [3], it might be interesting to know what the candidates *can* do about the above. But maybe that is another topic.)
Maybe there's nothing to discuss here at all, but I thought it still might be worth asking about such things here, anyway.
Regards,
Paul
[1] https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/Election/FellowshipElection_2017?action=rec... [2] https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/Election/FellowshipElection_2017?action=rec... [3] https://fsfe.org/about/team#general-assembly
On 10/04/17 16:16, Paul Boddie wrote:
Now, reading the candidates' statements, only one of the candidates mentions volunteering and really only in the context of more of it being required, which doesn't necessarily make sense if volunteer activities end up not being particularly efficient or productive. So, I wouldn't mind knowing what the candidates want to do about making FSFE a venue for individual Fellows to be able to make a difference, both in the organisation and beyond.
All the candidates, myself included, already do things on a voluntary basis, either directly for FSFE or in the wider free software community. Some of us also bring experience and observations from other volunteer-based non-profit organizations. My own experience in that area (outside the free software world) includes a rowing club, ham radio clubs (including WICEN), student organizations of various sizes and even a couple of political organizations.
(In the context of this being an election to a board with only a couple of Fellows present and the remainder being appointed [3], it might be interesting to know what the candidates *can* do about the above. But maybe that is another topic.)
In my experience of being elected to positions in the past, there is actually a lot that people can do even without being elected and anybody who wants to influence the way the organization works doesn't actually need to wait to see who is elected. Sometimes people actually do more for an organization or cause when they are "only" a volunteer, when they join the board they do less and if they start receiving a salary then they do even less, especially in student politics. You can have discussions about the organization through the mailing lists, IRC or at events, these discussions don't need to be kept within the board meetings.
Maybe there's nothing to discuss here at all, but I thought it still might be worth asking about such things here, anyway.
I don't know if there are any rules about discussing these things during the voting period, but if not, these things are worth discussing and hopefully they will be taken on board not just by the chosen candidate but by the whole organization.
Regards,
Daniel
Hi Paul,
I am happy to discuss things here with you, and I am sure other candidates will respond as well.
As to the specific point about bringing in more participating and making it efficient, I have to say that in my opinion, the General Assembly (GA) has a limited effect on that. From my experience with non-profits under German law (e.V.) in general, as well as with the FSFE in particular, many decisions affecting volunteer work are made outside of GAs.
In my opinion, the most important issue in that regard is that the GA needs to take a vote on how to make decisions within the larger FSFE community. Right now, a lot of decisions get stuck in discussions. I think discussions are important, but we need to find a clear path to actually make a decision in the end and not just stall. Having clear guidelines and a clear path for volunteers to make suggestions and reaching a decision is a very important task that the GA can take on.
Another big influence on volunteer work I see is making the GA transparent to volunteers. Right now, I have the impression some volunteers do not know what happens inside the GA and feel like they do not get very much input. So I see my role as a communicator between the GA and volunteers. I want to talk to people on mailing lists, in online chats, and in person. That way, I can explain what goes on in the GA and bring suggestions from volunteers to the GA.
Feel free to ask any other questions here and I will try to answer them as soon as possible.
Happy hacking! Florian
hello paul, On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 04:16:04PM +0200, Paul Boddie wrote:
Unfortunately, the "hustings" were announced as taking place on two consecutive days [1], subsequently reduced to one [2], and then took place on the day that was "unannounced". There hasn't been any other discussion about the candidates' positions, as far as I can tell.
well, changing the dates is unfutunate yes, however, what kind of discussions would you have hopped for? i hope we can give you all the information you need to make an informed decision.
yes, the times that i was a candidate we held the the discussion meetings with xmpp not irc, but at least to me that constitues a minor change in procedures (and if i remember correctly we also only had one xmpp meeting, though i have not checked that)
Now, reading the candidates' statements, only one of the candidates mentions volunteering and really only in the context of more of it being required, which doesn't necessarily make sense if volunteer activities end up not being particularly efficient or productive. So, I wouldn't mind knowing what the candidates want to do about making FSFE a venue for individual Fellows to be able to make a difference, both in the organisation and beyond.
i would recommend to ask them directly to take part in that, either to write more in the wiki or take part in i a discussion here as i'm not shure if they are subscribed to this list.
(In the context of this being an election to a board with only a couple of Fellows present and the remainder being appointed [3], it might be interesting to know what the candidates *can* do about the above. But maybe that is another topic.)
"appointed" is the wrong term here i think. the GA is the general assembly of assosiation so "members of the GA" are actually "members of the FSFE e.V.", which are apart from the fellowship representatives permanenet members of the assosiation, which are not "appointed", even though membership applications have to be confirmed by the current members[0], to my knowledge all current members have been heavily involved with our work before becoming members themselves (apart from the founding members of the organisation of course as a special case).
please feel free to ask as i think good communication will only improve our work and i welcome you and any other fellows to try to make informed discussions.
regards, albert
ps: DISCLAIMER: i'm currently a member of the assisioation and therefore the GA
[0] https://fsfe.org/about/legal/constitution.en.html#id-acquisition-of-membership
On Monday 10. April 2017 17.16.18 Albert Dengg wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 04:16:04PM +0200, Paul Boddie wrote:
Unfortunately, the "hustings" were announced as taking place on two consecutive days [1], subsequently reduced to one [2], and then took place on the day that was "unannounced". There hasn't been any other discussion about the candidates' positions, as far as I can tell.
well, changing the dates is unfutunate yes, however, what kind of discussions would you have hopped for? i hope we can give you all the information you need to make an informed decision.
I understand that things do get mixed up, but I think it was pretty unfortunate that an event was announced and then occurred at another time. I found out about it on the wiki, obviously, whose recent changes page I tend to follow. (I accept that this makes me somewhat unusual, but it is a habit that has proved useful when moderating and administering wiki sites.)
Now, I did have a brief conversation with Jonas about this on IRC, and it is possible that I didn't get an e-mail announcing the meeting - my Fellowship renewal was occurring during this period, so I might not have been on the right list at that point - but what worries me is that there doesn't seem to be much said in public about the topic at all. I could be as unkind as to say that an election with little discussion around it probably isn't being taken very seriously by very many people.
[...]
i would recommend to ask them directly to take part in that, either to write more in the wiki or take part in i a discussion here as i'm not shure if they are subscribed to this list.
I think that this is perhaps another problem. No-one wants to spend all their time on the Internet discussing and arguing about things, but if people aren't on this list or on some other list where they can engage with the electorate, then what kind of representation do we have?
(In the context of this being an election to a board with only a couple of Fellows present and the remainder being appointed [3], it might be interesting to know what the candidates *can* do about the above. But maybe that is another topic.)
"appointed" is the wrong term here i think. the GA is the general assembly of assosiation so "members of the GA" are actually "members of the FSFE e.V.", which are apart from the fellowship representatives permanenet members of the assosiation, which are not "appointed", even though membership applications have to be confirmed by the current members[0], to my knowledge all current members have been heavily involved with our work before becoming members themselves (apart from the founding members of the organisation of course as a special case).
I used "appointed" for want of a better word, but this is a topic that possibly needs revisiting, not because I disagree with the legal structure of the organisation, but to make it clearer to Fellows what their influence and role is. One might say that Fellows (along with sponsors) are merely providers of the means by which the organisation may continue to operate, which is not something I have a problem with, either, but it might influence individuals' decisions about whether the FSFE is the right organisation for them or not.
please feel free to ask as i think good communication will only improve our work and i welcome you and any other fellows to try to make informed discussions.
Thank you for your response! (And Daniel and Florian, too.)
Paul
hi, On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 06:41:52PM +0200, Paul Boddie wrote: ...
I understand that things do get mixed up, but I think it was pretty unfortunate that an event was announced and then occurred at another time. I found out about it on the wiki, obviously, whose recent changes page I tend to follow. (I accept that this makes me somewhat unusual, but it is a habit that has proved useful when moderating and administering wiki sites.)
i used to read the changelog of _all_ wiki pages for quite some time.
Now, I did have a brief conversation with Jonas about this on IRC, and it is possible that I didn't get an e-mail announcing the meeting - my Fellowship renewal was occurring during this period, so I might not have been on the right list at that point - but what worries me is that there doesn't seem to be much said in public about the topic at all. I could be as unkind as to say that an election with little discussion around it probably isn't being taken very seriously by very many people.
i obviously can't speak for other people, personally i do think that they are importand, though i cannot say what went wrong here, as i was not involved the organization of the election.
[...]
i would recommend to ask them directly to take part in that, either to write more in the wiki or take part in i a discussion here as i'm not shure if they are subscribed to this list.
I think that this is perhaps another problem. No-one wants to spend all their time on the Internet discussing and arguing about things, but if people aren't on this list or on some other list where they can engage with the electorate, then what kind of representation do we have?
well, at least two of the candidates are definitly here...however since not everybody knows all maillinglist, i just wanted to point it out
...
I used "appointed" for want of a better word, but this is a topic that possibly needs revisiting, not because I disagree with the legal structure of the organisation, but to make it clearer to Fellows what their influence and role is. One might say that Fellows (along with sponsors) are merely providers of the means by which the organisation may continue to operate, which is not something I have a problem with, either, but it might influence individuals' decisions about whether the FSFE is the right organisation for them or not.
there have been lots of discussions on this over the years i think and i think that fsfe really wants to be transperant and get feedback from the community but of course the success varies in my expirience over the last 10 years i'm involved now.
even though discussions can be long and tiresome, feedback and involvment is always welcome, though i think general discussions on improvments might merrit their own thread and lets keep this one on the topic of the election and interaction with the candidates might be a good idea.
please feel free to ask as i think good communication will only improve our work and i welcome you and any other fellows to try to make informed discussions.
Thank you for your response! (And Daniel and Florian, too.)
your welcome.
regards, albert
On 10/04/17 19:20, Albert Dengg wrote:
hi, On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 06:41:52PM +0200, Paul Boddie wrote: ...
I understand that things do get mixed up, but I think it was pretty unfortunate that an event was announced and then occurred at another time. I found out about it on the wiki, obviously, whose recent changes page I tend to follow. (I accept that this makes me somewhat unusual, but it is a habit that has proved useful when moderating and administering wiki sites.)
i used to read the changelog of _all_ wiki pages for quite some time.
Now, I did have a brief conversation with Jonas about this on IRC, and it is possible that I didn't get an e-mail announcing the meeting - my Fellowship renewal was occurring during this period, so I might not have been on the right list at that point
- but what worries me is that there doesn't seem to be much said
in public about the topic at all. I could be as unkind as to say that an election with little discussion around it probably isn't being taken very seriously by very many people.
i obviously can't speak for other people, personally i do think that they are importand, though i cannot say what went wrong here, as i was not involved the organization of the election.
I noticed there were long lead times between the call for nominations, the closing of nominations and the start of voting.
If the time between the close of nominations (10 February) and start of voting (10 April) is not really being used for campaigning then maybe those dates should be closer together.
[...]
i would recommend to ask them directly to take part in that, either to write more in the wiki or take part in i a discussion here as i'm not shure if they are subscribed to this list.
I think that this is perhaps another problem. No-one wants to spend all their time on the Internet discussing and arguing about things, but if people aren't on this list or on some other list where they can engage with the electorate, then what kind of representation do we have?
well, at least two of the candidates are definitly here...however since not everybody knows all maillinglist, i just wanted to point it out
For discussions (mailing list, board meeting, etc) to lead to action it is really useful for people to propose a course of action. E.g. if somebody says "FSFE should spend $10,000 on foo", that provides a specific action that people can discuss.
I've seen many discussions in different communities where no specific action is proposed or where there is no sign of a volunteer who is willing to undertake the proposed effort.
Regards,
Daniel
Paul,
The husting (singular) was the occasion for an interesting discussion with candidates. But, as others have indicated, we don't need a special occasion to upload IRC logs to the wiki. Alot of interesting ideas are coming up in this email thread. I invite all to introduce on #fsfe on freenode to continue the discussion. I'm logged in as FreeSoftwareJoe and can up-date my homepage ( https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/Election/JoeAwni ) with quotes. A way to organise the threads...will likely present itself as the discussion starts to require it...
-Joe
On 11 April 2017 at 05:39, Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro wrote:
On 10/04/17 19:20, Albert Dengg wrote:
hi, On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 06:41:52PM +0200, Paul Boddie wrote: ...
I understand that things do get mixed up, but I think it was pretty unfortunate that an event was announced and then occurred at another time. I found out about it on the wiki, obviously, whose recent changes page I tend to follow. (I accept that this makes me somewhat unusual, but it is a habit that has proved useful when moderating and administering wiki sites.)
i used to read the changelog of _all_ wiki pages for quite some time.
Now, I did have a brief conversation with Jonas about this on IRC, and it is possible that I didn't get an e-mail announcing the meeting - my Fellowship renewal was occurring during this period, so I might not have been on the right list at that point
- but what worries me is that there doesn't seem to be much said
in public about the topic at all. I could be as unkind as to say that an election with little discussion around it probably isn't being taken very seriously by very many people.
i obviously can't speak for other people, personally i do think that they are importand, though i cannot say what went wrong here, as i was not involved the organization of the election.
I noticed there were long lead times between the call for nominations, the closing of nominations and the start of voting.
If the time between the close of nominations (10 February) and start of voting (10 April) is not really being used for campaigning then maybe those dates should be closer together.
[...]
i would recommend to ask them directly to take part in that, either to write more in the wiki or take part in i a discussion here as i'm not shure if they are subscribed to this list.
I think that this is perhaps another problem. No-one wants to spend all their time on the Internet discussing and arguing about things, but if people aren't on this list or on some other list where they can engage with the electorate, then what kind of representation do we have?
well, at least two of the candidates are definitly here...however since not everybody knows all maillinglist, i just wanted to point it out
For discussions (mailing list, board meeting, etc) to lead to action it is really useful for people to propose a course of action. E.g. if somebody says "FSFE should spend $10,000 on foo", that provides a specific action that people can discuss.
I've seen many discussions in different communities where no specific action is proposed or where there is no sign of a volunteer who is willing to undertake the proposed effort.
Regards,
Daniel _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:21:14PM +0000, Joe Awni wrote:
The husting (singular) was the occasion for an interesting discussion with candidates.
Certain organizational issues are no reason to promote illiteracy. In modern English the word is plural in form but either plural or singular in construction. See [0] or [1].
[0] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hustings [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hustings
On 11/04/17 22:21, Joe Awni wrote:
Paul,
The husting (singular) was the occasion for an interesting discussion with candidates. But, as others have indicated, we don't need a special occasion to upload IRC logs to the wiki. Alot of interesting ideas are coming up in this email thread. I invite all to introduce on #fsfe on freenode to continue the discussion. I'm logged in as FreeSoftwareJoe and can up-date my homepage ( https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/Election/JoeAwni ) with quotes. A way to organise the threads...will likely present itself as the discussion starts to require it...
I've published another blog on planet[1] today with some of my own views on leadership in free software.
If anybody hasn't voted already, whoever you would like to vote for, please don't forget to do so. It could be easily forgotten in the long weekend.
Regards,
Daniel
Hi!
I've published another blog on planet[1] today with some of my own views on leadership in free software.
For those favoring a direct link, Daniel's post is here:
https://danielpocock.com/risks-of-using-proprietary-software
But I do encourage people to use and follow the Planet regularly too. I will certainly want to respond to Daniel's post to continue the discussion, especially as I don't quite agree with it :-)
I'm happy to hear others weigh in on this discussion, and others. It's only through such open debates we can progress in our thinking and everyone's thoughts contribute to shaping the self-conception of the FSFE.
Sorry to hi-jack the general assembly thread to reply to the article on planet.
I personally tend to disagree with any extremist idea and have to say, even though I'd love to be in the world described in Daniel's article, I still am for compromises:-)
A world without compromise and tolerance is not different than the world full of dictatorship or slavery. I know it sounds like a paradox and it actually is a paradox. By surrounding yourself with the restrictions and walls you do nothing but imprison yourself and it is the same with proprietary software.
I personally try to avoid the usage of proprietary solutions but at the same time I don't consider a big tragedy if I happen to have to use proprietary software where there is no equivalent offered.
What I am trying to say is that, in my opinion, it is thanks to its interoperability and integration (with non-free environments) that free and open source software achieved a magnificent success for the last 17yrs.
I say 17 years because it is 17 years I am using free software and I actively promote it whenever I have/get a chance, I use every opportunity to do that. I'd like to remark the word promoting and not forcing people to use free software:-)
Sorry Daniel but I have to go with Jonas on this one and actually I'd love to have a discussion on this topic whenever needed.
Stefan
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Jonas Oberg jonas@fsfe.org wrote:
Hi!
I've published another blog on planet[1] today with some of my own views on leadership in free software.
For those favoring a direct link, Daniel's post is here:
https://danielpocock.com/risks-of-using-proprietary-software
But I do encourage people to use and follow the Planet regularly too. I will certainly want to respond to Daniel's post to continue the discussion, especially as I don't quite agree with it :-)
I'm happy to hear others weigh in on this discussion, and others. It's only through such open debates we can progress in our thinking and everyone's thoughts contribute to shaping the self-conception of the FSFE.
-- Jonas Öberg, Executive Director Free Software Foundation Europe | jonas@fsfe.org Your support enables our work (fsfe.org/join)
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On 12 April 2017 13:52:54 CEST, Stefan Umit Uygur ostendali@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to hi-jack the general assembly thread to reply to the article on planet.
I personally tend to disagree with any extremist idea and have to say, even though I'd love to be in the world described in Daniel's article, I still am for compromises:-)
A world without compromise and tolerance is not different than the world full of dictatorship or slavery. I know it sounds like a paradox and it actually is a paradox. By surrounding yourself with the restrictions and walls you do nothing but imprison yourself and it is the same with proprietary software.
I feel that using a word like extremist or dictatorship is a bit strong.
My blog does actually include examples of compromises, otherwise I have simply tried to describe how I personally choose to live and how I feel about that.
Do you feel that everybody who lived a successful life before computers or Facebook were created was an extremist?
Regards,
Daniel
I am perfectly aware they are strong words (and sorry if I had to use them) but if I have differentiate the 2 point of views (between yourself and Jonas) I am inclined to say I see more compromises and flexibility in Jonas's side:-)
You kinda reminded me RMS with your article and perhaps that is why I used those words because I am aware of his views (even discussing between free software and open source software) and it wasn't difficult for me not to notice the radicalism in the article. Don't think I didn't read, noticed the examples you refer to but still...
And again, mine is a point of view, a simple expression and the way how I can achieve a freedom to ultimate freedom.
To answer your last question, no I definitely don't feel everybody who lived successful life before computers were extremists. I can't answer for facebook as I don't have any knowledge nor a profile on that platform. But forgive my ignorance in this regards (I am slow to understand) I feel like I didn't catch the hint in your last question.
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro wrote:
On 12 April 2017 13:52:54 CEST, Stefan Umit Uygur ostendali@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to hi-jack the general assembly thread to reply to the article on planet.
I personally tend to disagree with any extremist idea and have to say, even though I'd love to be in the world described in Daniel's article, I still am for compromises:-)
A world without compromise and tolerance is not different than the world full of dictatorship or slavery. I know it sounds like a paradox and it actually is a paradox. By surrounding yourself with the restrictions and walls you do nothing but imprison yourself and it is the same with proprietary software.
I feel that using a word like extremist or dictatorship is a bit strong.
My blog does actually include examples of compromises, otherwise I have simply tried to describe how I personally choose to live and how I feel about that.
Do you feel that everybody who lived a successful life before computers or Facebook were created was an extremist?
Regards,
Daniel
On 12/04/17 15:31, Stefan Umit Uygur wrote:
I am perfectly aware they are strong words (and sorry if I had to use them) but if I have differentiate the 2 point of views (between yourself and Jonas) I am inclined to say I see more compromises and flexibility in Jonas's side:-)
You kinda reminded me RMS with your article and perhaps that is why I
Thanks, I'm flattered and I think RMS would also be a great candidate for joining the FSFE General Assembly.
used those words because I am aware of his views (even discussing between free software and open source software) and it wasn't difficult for me not to notice the radicalism in the article. Don't think I didn't read, noticed the examples you refer to but still...
Well, I would also note that the audience for this article was clearly the Free Software community. When I'm talking about Free Software in a business environment or with some other audience I would normally use very different words and I would align my message more closely with the pains they experience with proprietary software.
And again, mine is a point of view, a simple expression and the way how I can achieve a freedom to ultimate freedom.
To answer your last question, no I definitely don't feel everybody who lived successful life before computers were extremists. I can't answer for facebook as I don't have any knowledge nor a profile on that platform. But forgive my ignorance in this regards (I am slow to understand) I feel like I didn't catch the hint in your last question.
There are still many people who live happily without computers and facebook and other proprietary platforms or software. Think of all those grandmothers who are happy knitting. Their choice doesn't make them extremists.
I think most of us probably know a friend or family member who is obsessed with a proprietary product like iPhone or a service like facebook. Those people typically see anybody without facebook or whatever as anti-social or an extremist. Sometimes they even try to "help" create profiles on behalf of family members who don't want to use facebook.
Sometimes "extremism" is simply the right solution. If I was visiting a hospital, I would be thrilled if their cleaning staff were "extremists" about hygiene. When I deposit my money in a bank, I hope they are extremists about security and risk management. People who achieve great things, like Olympic athletes, can only get there with a "radical" lifestyle and diet. A friend once dated one of Australia's Olympic rowers: she would come to the pub, drink an orange juice and go to be at 9pm. I would not regard any of these people as dictators for talking about their approach.
Regards,
Daniel
Daniel, I have no doubt that there are plenty people who's lives is far away from any sort of technologies and have absolute no doubt that they are happier then anyone on this forum:-) I actually dream to be one of them one day.....
Now that we clarified that we both agree on that end I still remain in my idea that your approach in the article appears strong to me. That is why I mentioned RMS.
I understand that the article was for free software community crowd only but remember your blog is public. For instance, forget that you are running for a role in FSFE and think as outsider, those who are alien to Free Open Source Software. Your approach wouldn't help even little for me to come closer to free software (again, I said me, maybe others will think differently). I have experienced in person Free Software Community (I run many FOSS communities) and I speak based on my experience.
I can be in agreement with most of your comments but strongly disagree with some other comments you made, comments like "Sometimes "extremism" is simply the right solution.".
I think you are confusing the common sense with extremism/radicalism, at least this is what I understand by reading examples given by you (hospital, cleaning, bank, etc...).
Now, lets' go back the political propaganda and to the role that you are running in FSFE. I personally don't know any of candidates and so far I have had some interesting reading and comments from your side and I think this is the best way for anyone to introduce themselves. So I'd like to hear from the rest of candidates as well so we can profile them as well:-)
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro wrote:
On 12/04/17 15:31, Stefan Umit Uygur wrote:
I am perfectly aware they are strong words (and sorry if I had to use them) but if I have differentiate the 2 point of views (between yourself and Jonas) I am inclined to say I see more compromises and flexibility in Jonas's side:-)
You kinda reminded me RMS with your article and perhaps that is why I
Thanks, I'm flattered and I think RMS would also be a great candidate for joining the FSFE General Assembly.
used those words because I am aware of his views (even discussing between free software and open source software) and it wasn't difficult for me not to notice the radicalism in the article. Don't think I didn't read, noticed the examples you refer to but still...
Well, I would also note that the audience for this article was clearly the Free Software community. When I'm talking about Free Software in a business environment or with some other audience I would normally use very different words and I would align my message more closely with the pains they experience with proprietary software.
And again, mine is a point of view, a simple expression and the way how I can achieve a freedom to ultimate freedom.
To answer your last question, no I definitely don't feel everybody who lived successful life before computers were extremists. I can't answer for facebook as I don't have any knowledge nor a profile on that platform. But forgive my ignorance in this regards (I am slow to understand) I feel like I didn't catch the hint in your last question.
There are still many people who live happily without computers and facebook and other proprietary platforms or software. Think of all those grandmothers who are happy knitting. Their choice doesn't make them extremists.
I think most of us probably know a friend or family member who is obsessed with a proprietary product like iPhone or a service like facebook. Those people typically see anybody without facebook or whatever as anti-social or an extremist. Sometimes they even try to "help" create profiles on behalf of family members who don't want to use facebook.
Sometimes "extremism" is simply the right solution. If I was visiting a hospital, I would be thrilled if their cleaning staff were "extremists" about hygiene. When I deposit my money in a bank, I hope they are extremists about security and risk management. People who achieve great things, like Olympic athletes, can only get there with a "radical" lifestyle and diet. A friend once dated one of Australia's Olympic rowers: she would come to the pub, drink an orange juice and go to be at 9pm. I would not regard any of these people as dictators for talking about their approach.
Regards,
Daniel _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On 12/04/17 16:41, Stefan Umit Uygur wrote:
I can be in agreement with most of your comments but strongly disagree with some other comments you made, comments like "Sometimes "extremism" is simply the right solution.".
I put the word extremism in double quotes to make it clear I wasn't talking about "real" acts of extremism, such as building a wall between the US and Mexico.
I think you are confusing the common sense with extremism/radicalism, at least this is what I understand by reading examples given by you (hospital, cleaning, bank, etc...).
If somebody cleaned their home every day to the same standard as a hospital, most people would consider it extreme. But in the context of the hospital it would be desirable behavior.
On 12/04/17 17:04, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 12/04/17 16:41, Stefan Umit Uygur wrote:
I can be in agreement with most of your comments but strongly disagree with some other comments you made, comments like "Sometimes "extremism" is simply the right solution.".
I put the word extremism in double quotes to make it clear I wasn't talking about "real" acts of extremism, such as building a wall between the US and Mexico.
I think you are confusing the common sense with extremism/radicalism, at least this is what I understand by reading examples given by you (hospital, cleaning, bank, etc...).
If somebody cleaned their home every day to the same standard as a hospital, most people would consider it extreme. But in the context of the hospital it would be desirable behavior.
On the other hand if you cleaned your home in the way a hospital is cleaned are you not at increased risk of infection, as you're not exposed to dirt, bacteria which is essential for your body to build up natural defenses.
Paul
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Hi Daniel, Stefan, Paul,
If somebody cleaned their home every day to the same standard as a hospital, most people would consider it extreme. But in the context of the hospital it would be desirable behavior.
On the other hand if you cleaned your home in the way a hospital is cleaned are you not at increased risk of infection, as you're not exposed to dirt, bacteria which is essential for your body to build up natural defenses.
I think any analogy will be flawed in some way :-) I also believe the perception of what is extreme depends on ones own position along the continuum which I believe we can agree exists. It's not a matter of black or white but many shades in between.
We can see the same in other debates: we tend to argue from positions we interpret as being black or white, where in reality we're talking about nuances. At the same time, it's somewhere along these continuums the fault lines of the free softare community exist and it is what sometimes causes fractures and splits in our community.
The debates we have, including this, are not meant to widen the fault lines, but to build bridges: to help understand the positions people in our community have. I do wish we would do more of it!
On 12/04/17 19:28, Jonas Oberg wrote:
Hi Daniel, Stefan, Paul,
If somebody cleaned their home every day to the same standard as a hospital, most people would consider it extreme. But in the context of the hospital it would be desirable behavior.
On the other hand if you cleaned your home in the way a hospital is cleaned are you not at increased risk of infection, as you're not exposed to dirt, bacteria which is essential for your body to build up natural defenses.
I think any analogy will be flawed in some way :-) I also believe the
Analogies are only used to help people understand a point. I don't feel it is helpful to dwell on the details of an analogy though as that is where the discussion can quickly go off topic.
perception of what is extreme depends on ones own position along the continuum which I believe we can agree exists. It's not a matter of black or white but many shades in between.
Well, in computer science it is 0 or 1 rather than black or white.
In some cases, I would agree there are different ways to look at things (e.g. some people like the GPL and some don't) but in other cases, such as whether or not a license would be accepted for a Debian package, the answer usually is black or white.
Even in those cases though we still need to be able to communicate politely with people. For example, sometimes developers will agree to change a license when they see the value of being part of the free software community.
We can see the same in other debates: we tend to argue from positions we interpret as being black or white, where in reality we're talking about nuances. At the same time, it's somewhere along these continuums the fault lines of the free softare community exist and it is what sometimes causes fractures and splits in our community.
The debates we have, including this, are not meant to widen the fault lines, but to build bridges: to help understand the positions people in our community have. I do wish we would do more of it!
One thing to bear in mind with my own writing is that I always set high standards for things. Even if these standards are difficult to achieve, if we don't have them as objectives, it is much easier to get lost along the way.
Regards,
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
One thing to bear in mind with my own writing is that I always set high standards for things. Even if these standards are difficult to achieve, if we don't have them as objectives, it is much easier to get lost along the way.
And I do appreciate that! We do need people, and organisations, to set the highest standard for which we must strive. Not everyone will be living up to those standards, but without them we'd have nowhere to go, higher than where we now are.
An interesting question in this regard is of course where the FSFE is in this, which is related to the ongoing election. The candidates represent somewhat different thoughts on this, and whoever is elected, their opinions will be important for the organisation to develop.
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 04:16:04PM +0200, Paul Boddie wrote:
Unfortunately, the "hustings" were announced as taking place on two consecutive days [1], subsequently reduced to one [2], and then took place on the day that was "unannounced". There hasn't been any other discussion about the candidates' positions, as far as I can tell.
We had a partial communications breakdown. I am sorry about that. A coworker was a bit too enthusiastic in announcing the dates on the wiki before we had received information on the availability of candidates. Subsequently, the correct information was announced on our web page[0], but I made a mistake while removing the extra date that should have been never communicated in the first place. I am sorry for that.
[0] https://fsfe.org/news/news.en.html (2017-03-29) Fellowship elections 2017 with eight candidates.
Cheers,
Hi all,
On 04/10/2017 04:16 PM, Paul Boddie wrote:
Now, reading the candidates' statements, only one of the candidates mentions volunteering and really only in the context of more of it being required, which doesn't necessarily make sense if volunteer activities end up not being particularly efficient or productive. So, I wouldn't mind knowing what the candidates want to do about making FSFE a venue for individual Fellows to be able to make a difference, both in the organisation and beyond.
As one of the candidates, I'd like to add that I think volunteer work is absolutely crucial to what the FSFE is and can be. The local groups or Fellowship Groups can do very important work in their local communities, and I think the FSFE and the General Assembly should support such work in every way they can.
I might add that in my own experience as the founder of a group in Aarhus, core FSFE people and especially then-vice president Matthias Kirschner and then-president Karsten Gerloff were very supportive and helpful. I also found the coordinator's meetings to be a very helpful initiative, even though I was only able to attend the first one in Berlin. The production of good folders, posters, stickers etc. is a good example of something the FSFE can do which might easily be beyond the means of a local group.
So I think that the FSFE should definitely be a venue for individuals to make a difference. In some ways, it already is, as I observed. Since I'm interested in using free software for the empowerment of local communities (using the software *and* the underlying philosophy which gave us the software), I'd be very interested in any ideas as to improve it in this regard. The paying Fellows are very important for the FSFE as a source of income, but there is a *huge* potential in Fellows volunteering and doing good work for free software, and that might be the most important aspect of the FSFE in the long run. Many people on this list know this, of course, from their own volunteer work.
Best Carsten