Hi Florian,
>> I have left the FSFE because (among other things) there appears to be
>> multiple levels of practical engagement with policy (which is fine) but it
>> is based on a rather obscure set of policies concerning what membership
>> means (which is not fine).
> I am trying to understand better what exactly you mean here; would you mind
> elaborating a little bit about your experience?
Broadly, I would describe my experience in one way: initial enthusiasm about
the FSFE transforming into ambivalence.
On one hand I am very energized by the work of the FSFE in keeping FS
principles relevant to society, communities of developers and end users. On the
other hand I am depressed and anxious about the specific features of the
organization that frustrate that work through various contradictions at the
level of organizational design which Daniel and a few others highlight in this
thread and elsewhere so I won't repeat them here.
The danger I think is an organization like the FSFE is instrumental (though
it's effectiveness is difficult to measure) in attenuating the most harmful
effects of privately oriented institutional control over software development,
but it is not immune to the potential to become 'weaponized' by well-meaning
individuals, niches and other groups who themselves who are given far more
control or influence over the organization than others in various ways.
This style of leadership although has benefits for some, it is generally I
think problematic for society, communities of developers and end users - the
objects the FSFE is claiming to support.
This is why I have chosen to cancel my financial support for the time being,
until such time that a clearer picture emerges from the FSFE about it's policy
priorities and future activities.
What is required is a clear set of policy priorities with robust evidence of
support for them from the entire membership (and how 'membership' is to be
construed seems to be unsettled too). There are many ways to do that from
elections, polls, forums, working groups and all the rest of it but if either
one is missing - 1) clear policy and 2) evidence of freely conferred deference
to them from members (and it seems both appear to be weak in some instances)
then no good will result and the FSFE will be on course for an arbitrary
accumulation of capital causing all the overdetermined social problems and
moral hazards that unaccountable accumulations of capital I think have proved
universally to facilitate both in software development and anywhere where
technical knowledge is distributed through networks framed by the monocultural
havoc wrought by capital rather than the sympathetic wonder of diverse human
collectives.
/ m
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
