Dear all,
It seems that former fellowship representative Daniel Pocock has a) set up a mailing list discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu b) subscribed all participants of this list (I guess) c) Sent an email asking people to unsubscribe from _this_ list
Clearly, I did not give consent to b) nor c).
I hereby ask FSFE officials to use all available legal tools against these eclatant DSGVO and privacy violations in order to protect its subscribers.
Best wishes Michael
On May 2, 2019 7:43:44 AM UTC, Michael Kesper mkesper@schokokeks.org wrote:
Dear all,
It seems that former fellowship representative Daniel Pocock has a) set up a mailing list discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu b) subscribed all participants of this list (I guess) c) Sent an email asking people to unsubscribe from _this_ list
Clearly, I did not give consent to b) nor c).
I hereby ask FSFE officials to use all available legal tools against these eclatant DSGVO and privacy violations in order to protect its subscribers.
Best wishes Michael
I have escalated this to system hackers earlier today. Hope they will be able to action soon.
Dear list-subscribers,
On 02.05.19 09:43, Michael Kesper wrote:
It seems that former fellowship representative Daniel Pocock has a) set up a mailing list discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu b) subscribed all participants of this list (I guess) c) Sent an email asking people to unsubscribe from _this_ list
Clearly, I did not give consent to b) nor c).
I hereby ask FSFE officials to use all available legal tools against these eclatant DSGVO and privacy violations in order to protect its subscribers.
we are really sorry for this having happened and can ensure that the list discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu is not run by the FSFE nor is it in any other way part of FSFE's infrastructure or communication channels.
IP-adresses associated with the infrastructure behind discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu indicate that the list is run by Daniel Pocock. Again, we can ensure that neither Daniel Pocock nor anyone else ever had allowance to misuse our list of subscribers for their private infrastructure.
[Attention] Meanwhile a script is being misused to unsubscribe all members of this list discussion@lists.fsfe.org automatically without their consent. If you like to stay on this list and you receive a mail to confirm your removal, do not follow the link!
We will stop this attack as soon as possible and discuss the case with legal experts to take action accordingly.
Feeling sorry for any inconvenience, Erik for the FSFE
Hello Erik,
Am 02.05.2019 12:59 schrieb Erik Albers:
We will stop this attack as soon as possible and discuss the case with legal experts to take action accordingly.
can you please tell us what do you want to achieve or what's the result of the discussion with legal experts?
It's not okay what Daniel did and hijacking our maillinglist is a no-go. I hope he will clean up the mess asap. But the FSFE should take care and help the community to evolve. What we really shouldn't do is to take each other to court or to threaten with lawyers.
Regards, Christian
Hi Christian,
On 03.05.19 08:00, Christian Imhorst wrote:
Am 02.05.2019 12:59 schrieb Erik Albers:
We will stop this attack as soon as possible and discuss the case with legal experts to take action accordingly.
can you please tell us what do you want to achieve or what's the result of the discussion with legal experts?
It's not okay what Daniel did and hijacking our maillinglist is a no-go. I hope he will clean up the mess asap. But the FSFE should take care and help the community to evolve. What we really shouldn't do is to take each other to court or to threaten with lawyers.
Well, I am not a lawyer and I cannot say what we will be the result of a consultation with legal experts. And I agree that bringing a case to court should be the last option to do.
But try to take for a second the other point of view: We are an organisation with tens of thousands supporters, followers, friends and volunteers. It is in the overall communities interest to protect them among other things against misuse of their data and our infrastructure.
There is nothing more I can say for now because personally I am not further involved in the process and it is not me to decide if and where the line of criminal activity has been passed or not.
Best, Erik
Hi Christian,
I am also not directly involved in this, but I think legal action (not necessarily suing someone, but for example filing GDPR violations or possibly criminal charges with the police) are very much appropriate. I am not sure what laws are concerned here in detail but I think such a massive violation of privacy and attacking & manipulating our infrastructure is not just a mess to be cleaned up, it requires the proper legal response as well.
The nice thing is that this is not a decision anyone needs to make for the community. For example, anyone who wants to can file a GDPR violation with their local data protection officer. Those who don't want to do that, don't need to.
Happy hacking! Florian
On Fri, 03 May 2019 06:35:17 -0400 Florian Snow floriansnow@fsfe.org wrote:
Hi Christian,
I think such a massive violation of privacy and attacking & manipulating our infrastructure is not just a mess to be cleaned up, it requires the proper legal response as well.
So nobody ever try to raise censorship issues about your e.V., right?
So rather than spending donation money for the real advancement of Free Software, we give the money to lawyers who "helped" us "safeguard" Free Software through Copyright Directive, right?
Going in such direction would be a shame for FSFE and a great help to the witch-hunting clan within it towards completely sterilizing FSFE.
Regards, Besnik
Hi Besnik,
You are right. I forgot about the witch hunting clan within the FSFE. How silly of me!
Happy hacking! Florian
Hi, Besnik,
all sarcasm aside,
Am 03.05.19 um 13:48 schrieb Besnik Bleta:
we give the money to lawyers who "helped" us "safeguard" Free Software through Copyright Directive, right?
what exactly do you refer to in this sentence? If FSFE spends money on something, I'm usually among the first ones to know, but I have no idea what you mean.
Thanks,
On Friday 3. May 2019 15.00.30 Reinhard Müller wrote:
Hi, Besnik,
all sarcasm aside,
Am 03.05.19 um 13:48 schrieb Besnik Bleta:
we give the money to lawyers who "helped" us "safeguard" Free Software through Copyright Directive, right?
what exactly do you refer to in this sentence? If FSFE spends money on something, I'm usually among the first ones to know, but I have no idea what you mean.
I think that there are concerns that the FSFE has not exactly safeguarded the interests of individual members and Free Software initiatives quite as well as those of its corporate sponsors and partners.
So, in the case of the Copyright Directive, where much fuss was made about keeping code sharing platforms free of copyright filters, it seemed that the FSFE was acting to defend GitHub and various proprietary services on the basis that they help people share Free Software. As I noted about a month ago, Microsoft/GitHub can surely do their own lobbying if they don't want their profitability to be affected, which is surely all they really care about in this instance.
And upon finding that these filters would still impact other online activities, it appeared that the FSFE was somehow trying to drum up business for companies to sell Free Software filters. This rather distasteful impression was alleviated when a statement in the press release was supposedly withdrawn, but this episode did not particularly inspire confidence that the organisation would remain in solidarity with its traditional partners and their causes.
Certainly, the FSFE has achieved good results in the past, participating in antitrust cases that have yielded benefits for Free Software. However, its legal activities remain opaque to supporters of the organisation, leaving suspicions of a two- or three-tier organisation, with those who donate out of their own pocket or who participate in their own scarce free time feeling that they are effectively enabling some kind of private club whose activities are never disclosed or discussed with them.
Of course, specific legal matters will never be discussed openly, but there is a significant contrast between the FSFE and, say, the Software Freedom Conservancy on more general legal activities with regard to transparency. It is also worth noting that the FSFE has largely had little to say about cases like Hellwig versus VMware, despite the legal venue being practically on the FSFE's doorstep:
https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/apr/02/vmware-no-appeal/
Conservancy may be empowered to participate in such cases due to its role as custodian of some Linux copyrights, but one can always wonder why the FSFE has avoided or abandoned such a role when it could have been more influential. This leaves impressions of apathy or a lack of guidance or strategy, none of which are particularly reassuring to supporters of the organisation.
I hope this provides some kind of explanation as to what people might be thinking, not that I seek to represent anyone in particular.
Paul
Dear Paul,
thank you for your verbose reply.
Am 03.05.19 um 18:00 schrieb Paul Boddie:
Am 03.05.19 um 13:48 schrieb Besnik Bleta:
we give the money to lawyers who "helped" us "safeguard" Free Software through Copyright Directive, right?
what exactly do you refer to in this sentence? If FSFE spends money on something, I'm usually among the first ones to know, but I have no idea what you mean.
I think that there are concerns that the FSFE has not exactly safeguarded the interests of individual members and Free Software initiatives
You are probably right that whether a specific strategy in a political process was optimal can always be questioned. But that's a different discussion, and other people within FSFE can better speak about that than myself.
Besnik claimed that FSFE gave money (even "the money") to lawyers in the course of that activity. This is an allegation for which I would request information about on what it is based.
Thanks,
On Friday 3. May 2019 22.00.24 Reinhard Müller wrote:
Dear Paul,
thank you for your verbose reply.
You're welcome!
Am 03.05.19 um 18:00 schrieb Paul Boddie:
Am 03.05.19 um 13:48 schrieb Besnik Bleta:
we give the money to lawyers who "helped" us "safeguard" Free Software through Copyright Directive, right?
what exactly do you refer to in this sentence? If FSFE spends money on something, I'm usually among the first ones to know, but I have no idea what you mean.
I think that there are concerns that the FSFE has not exactly safeguarded the interests of individual members and Free Software initiatives
You are probably right that whether a specific strategy in a political process was optimal can always be questioned. But that's a different discussion, and other people within FSFE can better speak about that than myself.
It is possibly the more interesting discussion from my perspective, but I can understand that your perspective may be different.
Besnik claimed that FSFE gave money (even "the money") to lawyers in the course of that activity. This is an allegation for which I would request information about on what it is based.
I might also add that various campaigns tend to involve some kind of expenditure in order to get work done. Although you in your role within the FSFE might have knowledge of the precise expenditure yourself, others must deduce where the money may have been directed: staff salaries and campaign contributor expenses, purchases from suppliers of printed materials and merchandise, and so on.
It isn't too big a stretch of the imagination that if legal advice features in a campaign, this advice is potentially purchased. I seem to remember another organisation whose costs for legal consultations were explicitly noted in the fundraising messages I received for various campaigns.
One can easily be cynical and express a view that even where fundamental rights and freedoms are involved, some people still demand to be paid to care about such causes. Meanwhile, others are requested to pitch in for free or even pay for the privilege. With Free Software organisations, it often seems to be the supporters who are making the real sacrifices for the benefit of those organisations.
For instance, in another organisation, I have seen the consequences of paid work being commissioned, delivered and the less-than-satisfactory result left to unpaid supporters to fix and maintain: a double burden on those supporters. I don't begrudge anyone who is wanting to be treated fairly the chance to be paid for valuable work, but then I don't think that the result of should work should be beyond criticism, if this is justified, either.
Anyway, this is how the "allegation" of paying lawyers money (shocking as this may seem) can innocently come about, together with some indication of why people might care about such a thing to begin with.
Paul
Hi, Paul!
Am 03.05.19 um 23:08 schrieb Paul Boddie:
It is possibly the more interesting discussion from my perspective, but I can understand that your perspective may be different.
So I hope you don't get me wrong when I ask you to open a new thread for the discussion which you (and probably others) will find interesting.
I find myself confronted with what might easily been seen as an allegation of abuse of FSFE's funds, in Besnik's claim that FSFE gave "the money" to [certain] lawyers. As FSFE's accountant, I feel obliged to make a statement on that allegation, which I can only do when it is precised, what I think only Besnik himself can do.
Thanks,
On Fri, 3 May 2019 22:00:24 +0200 Reinhard Müller reinhard@fsfe.org wrote:
Besnik claimed that FSFE gave money (even "the money") to lawyers in the course of that activity. This is an allegation for which I would request information about on what it is based.
Thanks,
I didn't claim anything close to that.
Regards, Besnik
On Fri, 03 May 2019 18:00:03 +0200 Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
why the FSFE has avoided or abandoned such a role when it could have been more influential. This leaves impressions of apathy or a lack of guidance or strategy, none of which are particularly reassuring to supporters of the organisation.
Well said. It's sad to get more information about what's happening and more calls to action in the weeks/days before the vote of Copyright Directive from other organizations and nothing from FSFE.
Regards, Besnik
On 03/05/2019 19:00, Paul Boddie wrote:
So, in the case of the Copyright Directive, where much fuss was made about keeping code sharing platforms free of copyright filters, it seemed that the FSFE was acting to defend GitHub and various proprietary services on the basis that they help people share Free Software.
That doesn't sound like a logical conclusion. Sure Github is one of the affected platforms, but code sharing platforms also include Free Software initiatives (eg. sourcehut) or even self-hosted instances of Gitlab, Gitea, etc.
Free Software developers and users would all suffer from the directive if the exception for code sharing platforms hadn't be adopted. So lobbying towards that direction seems like a very meaningful (and successful) way for safeguarding the interests of the Free Software community.
~nikos
On Saturday 4. May 2019 13.42.51 Nikos Roussos wrote:
On 03/05/2019 19:00, Paul Boddie wrote:
So, in the case of the Copyright Directive, where much fuss was made about keeping code sharing platforms free of copyright filters, it seemed that the FSFE was acting to defend GitHub and various proprietary services on the basis that they help people share Free Software.
That doesn't sound like a logical conclusion. Sure Github is one of the affected platforms, but code sharing platforms also include Free Software initiatives (eg. sourcehut) or even self-hosted instances of Gitlab, Gitea, etc.
Of course. But what I object to is a prominent position being given to a centralising, proprietary service provider in a campaign about how copyright legislation will affect Free Software. I would much rather the FSFE supported and promoted genuinely open code-sharing platforms and let the proprietary service providers do their own lobbying.
Particularly since I imagine that a lot of stuff going up on GitHub isn't actually Free Software, as you'll agree if you've ever seen repositories just used for file uploads, which I have. And thus GitHub starts to share a number of characteristics with YouTube, dealing in the kind of material that got the copyright cartels so upset with these companies in the first place.
But beside this, the FSFE has to decide whether the organisation should stand against centralising, coercive proprietary services or not. People are being "asked" to sign up for these services all the time, like I recently had to do as part of my work. It is just like peer pressure making people join the likes of Facebook and its many wholly-controlled brands.
All of this is damaging to interoperability, choice, and ultimately to Free Software, regardless of how nice Facebook, GitHub, Google and Microsoft are supposedly being to Free Software projects. The FSFE is supposed to be in favour of the former qualities and should remain uninfluenced by the latter apparent generosity of entities who inevitably want something in return.
It is of no help to independent code-sharing, collaboration, communication, and other Free Software projects if they end up being impossible to deploy because the Internet has been effectively reconfigured to exclude them. The claim that it is easier or "normal" to just get an account with one of the providers in a big-name cartel may satisfy the impatient consumer, but it has serious consequences for their privacy, and the exclusion of independent Free Software from general deployment has serious social and economic consequences for Free Software developers.
Free Software developers and users would all suffer from the directive if the exception for code sharing platforms hadn't be adopted. So lobbying towards that direction seems like a very meaningful (and successful) way for safeguarding the interests of the Free Software community.
And another point I made was that it is all very well getting narrow exemptions for Free Software, for which I suppose we should be grateful, but what do we then say to other, natural partners of the Free Software movement when they do not receive the same exemptions? It feels like abandoning those other partners of a broader coalition so that certain corporations can continue their business as usual.
Paul
Hello,
On 6. May 2019, at 12:37, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
On Saturday 4. May 2019 13.42.51 Nikos Roussos wrote:
On 03/05/2019 19:00, Paul Boddie wrote:
So, in the case of the Copyright Directive, where much fuss was made about keeping code sharing platforms free of copyright filters, it seemed that the FSFE was acting to defend GitHub and various proprietary services on the basis that they help people share Free Software.
That doesn't sound like a logical conclusion. Sure Github is one of the affected platforms, but code sharing platforms also include Free Software initiatives (eg. sourcehut) or even self-hosted instances of Gitlab, Gitea, etc.
Of course. But what I object to is a prominent position being given to a centralising, proprietary service provider in a campaign about how copyright legislation will affect Free Software. I would much rather the FSFE supported and promoted genuinely open code-sharing platforms and let the proprietary service providers do their own lobbying.
there is a simpler, less flattering explanation. More likely to be correct under Occam’s razor: Most of the ground work on this issue was done by Openforum Europe. Github is one of their member companies. FSFE piggy-backed on their work. Which means the interests of the free software community where much less present in the process than is commonly assumed here. This also explains the dopey wording on the Twitter message that exploded.
Best,
Mirko.
Hi, Mirko!
Am 06.05.19 um 15:55 schrieb Mirko Boehm:
Most of the ground work on this issue was done by Openforum Europe. [...] Which means the interests of the free software community where much less present in the process than is commonly assumed here.
Is this implying that OFE actively works against the interests of Free Software, or are they just indifferent? I assume that you have some insight about this, being the Co-Chair of the Intellectual Property Task Force at OFE.
Also, given your involvement in the OFE side of the process, I understand that you of course see the amount of work done on that side.
Generally, I think it makes sense to, for specific activities, partner with other organisations if these other orgs pursue the same goals as we do, even if they do it for different reasons.
In no case, IMHO, should we stop to fight for what is good for Free Software just because it happens to also be good for organisations or companies we don't like.
Thanks, Reinhard
Hello Reinhard,
I am unsure if your question is satire. I did not say or imply what you think I said. I will try to answer you question, risking that the answer points into the ether:
On 7. May 2019, at 11:50, Reinhard Müller reinhard@fsfe.org wrote:
Am 06.05.19 um 15:55 schrieb Mirko Boehm:
Most of the ground work on this issue was done by Openforum Europe. [...] Which means the interests of the free software community where much less present in the process than is commonly assumed here.
Is this implying that OFE actively works against the interests of Free Software, or are they just indifferent? I assume that you have some insight about this, being the Co-Chair of the Intellectual Property Task Force at OFE.
There is a long way to go from "interests of the free software community where much less present” to "OFE actively works against the interests of Free Software”. Is this an “you are either with me or against me” argument? Maybe you can explain how you got there.
Also, given your involvement in the OFE side of the process, I understand that you of course see the amount of work done on that side.
The mission of OFE is this (from their web site): "OpenForum Europe (OFE) is a not-for-profit, European-based independent think tank which explains the merits of openness in computing to policy makers and communities across Europe.” “Open Source” is mentioned a couple of paragraphs down on their about-us page. “Free software” is not mentioned.[1]
OFE is a great ally to FSFE, and has a mission that is strongly related to ours. It is however not a software freedom focused organisation. It is good to work together. It is not a promising approach to rely on OFE to have software freedom represented in Brussels for us.
Generally, I think it makes sense to, for specific activities, partner with other organisations if these other orgs pursue the same goals as we do, even if they do it for different reasons.
Agreed.
In no case, IMHO, should we stop to fight for what is good for Free Software just because it happens to also be good for organisations or companies we don't like.
Agreed.
Best,
Mirko. [1] http://www.openforumeurope.org/about-ofe/ http://www.openforumeurope.org/about-ofe/
Hi, Mirko!
Thank you for clarifying.
Am 09.05.19 um 11:54 schrieb Mirko Boehm:
OFE is a great ally to FSFE, and has a mission that is strongly related to ours. It is however not a software freedom focused organisation. It is good to work together. It is not a promising approach to rely on OFE to have software freedom represented in Brussels for us.
So it makes sense to work together with organisations like OFE, but we need to make sure that their goals in a specific field of cooperation match our goals, even if it is for different reasons. Right?
Thanks,
Hello,
On 9. May 2019, at 12:40, Reinhard Müller reinhard@fsfe.org wrote:
Am 09.05.19 um 11:54 schrieb Mirko Boehm:
OFE is a great ally to FSFE, and has a mission that is strongly related to ours. It is however not a software freedom focused organisation. It is good to work together. It is not a promising approach to rely on OFE to have software freedom represented in Brussels for us.
So it makes sense to work together with organisations like OFE, but we need to make sure that their goals in a specific field of cooperation match our goals, even if it is for different reasons. Right?
Right. On top of that, I suggest that when it comes to software freedom, we remain the key driver. Even if the missions of other organisations match well with ours, their priorities may be different. We should assume that software freedom is our top priority and *a* priority for them.
Best,
Mirko.
* Mirko Boehm:
there is a simpler, less flattering explanation. More likely to be correct under Occam’s razor: Most of the ground work on this issue was done by Openforum Europe. Github is one of their member companies. FSFE piggy-backed on their work. Which means the interests of the free software community where much less present in the process than is commonly assumed here. This also explains the dopey wording on the Twitter message that exploded.
I found the implication disgusting that free software development depends on large-scale copyright infringement. I don't think the free software community has a significant problem in this area; we are generally pretty good at training new contributors in these matters. Most of us remove potentially copyright-infringing code proactively, even without notification from the copyright owner. Often, merely unclear licensing conditions are grounds for removal.
On Fri, 3 May 2019 15:00:30 +0200 Reinhard Müller reinhard@fsfe.org wrote:
Hi, Besnik,
all sarcasm aside,
Am 03.05.19 um 13:48 schrieb Besnik Bleta:
we give the money to lawyers who "helped" us "safeguard" Free Software through Copyright Directive, right?
what exactly do you refer to in this sentence? If FSFE spends money on something, I'm usually among the first ones to know, but I have no idea what you mean.
Thanks,
I'm referring to lawyers as a group of professionals.
I believe that FSFE's steps about Copyright Directive have the legal team (lawyers) behind. And I consider that directive a failure for FSFE. I'm not claiming that donation money was spent for that.
Calls for legal procedure against Pocock means involvement of a legal process, which has costs to be covered. Which means money to be paid to that above mentioned category of professionals.
Regards, Besnik
Hi, Besnik!
Am 03.05.19 um 13:48 schrieb Besnik Bleta:
we give the money to lawyers who "helped" us "safeguard" Free Software through Copyright Directive, right?
Am 03.05.19 um 23:46 schrieb Besnik Bleta:
I'm not claiming that donation money was spent for that.
Thank you for clarifying, I indeed seem to have misinterpreted your original message.
Best,
I think the FSFE needs to change to become an Organisation where the FSFE Fellows/Supporters are actually members like many other Organisations. For instance I’m a member of Proveg e.v. and there you are actually a member and not just a „financial contributor“ like with FSFE.
Hi, Karun!
Am 03.05.19 um 18:36 schrieb Karun:
I think the FSFE needs to change to become an Organisation where the FSFE Fellows/Supporters are actually members like many other Organisations. For instance I’m a member of Proveg e.v. and there you are actually a member and not just a „financial contributor“ like with FSFE.
I just found the minutes of the last General Assembly of Proveg e.V.: https://proveg.com/de/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/12/Protokoll-der-Mitgl... (sorry, only in German).
I noticed two interesting points:
1. Appearantly, Proveg has just introduced a "supporting membership" (in German Fördermitgliedschaft), i.e. pretty much exactly what the supporter status is right now with FSFE.
2. According to the minutes, the organisation has 15.000 members, of which 36 (!) attended the General Assembly. So while Proveg calles all those 15.000 members, de facto 99.8% of them are financial supporters.
Personally, I do agree with you that the membership base of the legal skeleton of FSFE (the FSFE e.V.) should be broadened, but I am a strong supporter of the strategy that membership in this body should be a privilege of those actively contributing to the work of the organisation. You are highly welcome to join through this path, as is everybody else, there are numerous fields within FSFE in which you can engage.
Thanks,
On 03/05/2019 12:35, Florian Snow wrote:
Hi Christian,
I am also not directly involved in this, but I think legal action .... (snip)
(snip) For example, anyone who wants to can file a GDPR violation with their local data protection officer.
Thanks to Florian and Carmen for bringing up the threats of legal action, just at Matthias did in private emails last year.
Anybody who wants to go legal can just print this form, sign it and post it:
https://fsfellowship.eu/assets/2019-data-breach-bundle.pdf
Last time I checked, there is no GDPR army outside my door, no attack helicopters outside my window and I had no problem sleeping last night.
These threats are intended to maintain obedience from everybody, you, me and every volunteer. Maybe some people won't take FSFE seriously any more after all these threats.
Here is the data protection office in Berlin, where FSFE is based: https://www.datenschutz-berlin.de/ueber-uns/kontakt/
We are a community and we are Free to communicate with each other as we please. This trailer makes it clear, are you a prisoner or a guard?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250258/
If the threat culture bothers you, feel free to unsubscribe[1] or send a resignation to privacy@fsfe.org
Thank you to the people who already denounced the threat culture and sent me messages of support.
Regards,
Daniel
Hi,
On 07.05.19 10:33, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 03/05/2019 12:35, Florian Snow wrote:
Hi Christian,
I am also not directly involved in this, but I think legal action .... (snip)
(snip) For example, anyone who wants to can file a GDPR violation with their local data protection officer.
Thanks to Florian and Carmen for bringing up the threats of legal action, just at Matthias did in private emails last year.
Anybody who wants to go legal can just print this form, sign it and post it:
This is very nice. YOU did something illegal and now want that people get legal against FSFE.
We are a community and we are Free to communicate with each other as we please. This trailer makes it clear, are you a prisoner or a guard?
NO. We as a community want to communicate with respect to each other as otherwise no community can survive.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250258/
If the threat culture bothers you, feel free to unsubscribe[1] or send a resignation to privacy@fsfe.org
Thanks, no.
Michael
On 07/05/19 09:33, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 03/05/2019 12:35, Florian Snow wrote:
Hi Christian,
I am also not directly involved in this, but I think legal action .... (snip)
(snip) For example, anyone who wants to can file a GDPR violation with their local data protection officer.
Thanks to Florian and Carmen for bringing up the threats of legal action, just at Matthias did in private emails last year. ...> These threats are intended to maintain obedience from everybody,
you, me
and every volunteer. Maybe some people won't take FSFE seriously any more after all these threats.
Actually those who were signed-up, without their consent, to your new list may feel pretty strongly that they deserve better from those who would process their data. And by better, I mean in compliance with GDPR.
You, Daniel, owe us an apology, at the very least, for harvesting and processing our personal information without our consent.
You also must destroy any copies of that personal information because you do not have consent to process it.
You must surely be intelligent enough to know that the "threats of legal action" are nothing more than folk expressing their desire to seek redress. You surely know that you have done wrong.
Please know that you are failing in your persistent manoeuvres to manipulate the way you are perceived. You are not a victim and I, for one, am bored by your childish antics.
Wouldn't you much rather spend your valuable time advancing the state of free software in a more constructive way? I and everybody else would certainly welcome and support you in your decision to direct your efforts to doing good.
Best,
jah
Dear all,
Am Donnerstag, 2. Mai 2019, 09:43:44 CEST schrieb Michael Kesper:
Dear all,
It seems that former fellowship representative Daniel Pocock has a) set up a mailing list discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
It seems to me, that either the list is broken by now or got switched to moderated. I sent there a mail, that never got delivered (to me at least). On the other side, there were mails, that came through.
I will keep you informed about the state of delivery, if anything new happens, but here is the mail for now.
I do send it here anyway because it should be a known fact, that Daniels term regularity ended on 24th April 2019. I hope that clarifies some of the statements of his:
Hi Daniel,
Am Donnerstag, 2. Mai 2019, 20:24:41 CEST schrieb Daniel Pocock:
You elected me as a community representative. An election is something I take very seriously. The winner has a mandate to take action.
Your election was announced at 2017-04-25 to the community. Even under the words of the old statute, your term was set for 2 years. Saying this, the actions you recently took didn't happen during your term as an elected representative in either way.
Now calm down and enjoy your retirement.
Best Christian
Best Christian
On 03.05.19 10:08, Christian Kalkhoff wrote:
Dear all,
Am Donnerstag, 2. Mai 2019, 09:43:44 CEST schrieb Michael Kesper:
Dear all,
It seems that former fellowship representative Daniel Pocock has a) set up a mailing list discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
It seems to me, that either the list is broken by now or got switched to moderated. I sent there a mail, that never got delivered (to me at least). On the other side, there were mails, that came through.
this is already the third email by three different persons that I am aware of that is not delivered on discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu.
and then quoting Daniel again:
"I'd like to focus on one simple and constructive issue: how can fellows and the rest of the free software community move to a censorship-free way of working?"
that looks like an epic fail to me...
Best, Erik
Hi everyone,
One of my corrections has not gone through either. I don't care about my mail, but it shows that Daniel lies even about these basic things such as not filtering mails.
Up until this episode, I still gave him the benefit of the doubt, but now I have no idea anymore how he could possibly think his actions would benefit Free Software if his accusations are full of lies, if he is breaking the law by spamming people, and if he repeatedly lies about how to unsubscribe.
Happy hacking! Florian