Fixed down links in message body, oops! On Jun 15, 2018 12:01 PM, "Joe Awni" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi All, > > I decide to chime in today because I felt my message could potentially > make a difference, at some point in time. > > I am another person who decided against involving myself feather in the > group because I also felt the group is not promoting or following what I > consider to be Free Software values. > > Before I get into the point of my message, I want to ask you to keep this > rhetorical question in mind: > > Is failure and option for the FSFE? Meaning, could the group at any point > decide that they (or a particular policy of theirs) was/were not > effectively achieving their stated goals and dissolve the association or > program? Or is it's existence a mandate that will continue no-matter-what? > > Since I last wrote to this mailing list a lot has happened, not > necessarily for the better. If you are interested in my personal story > please see the following links (chronological): > 1) http://amsterdamjoe.sdf.org/Pics/2016_USA/Email.html > 2) http://amsterdamjoe.sdf.org/Pics/2017_EU/SummerVaccation.html > 3) http://amsterdamjoe.sdf.org/MetaArpaMembership.html > > Basically, my website is offline, I'm roughing it in deep south Spain > doing farmer-boy stuff like feeding the chickens, my computing happens a > tree <https://i.imgur.com/r1qSqvv.jpg> , and not having much luck > learning to kite-surf. Finally, I decided to switch career away from > software development. > > The software issue is clear. If you want to promote Free Software, you > must use it. If you don't want to use it on your personal device(s), that > is understandable. But, leading by example is core value of mandate to use > Free Software. > > Exclusively Free Software since as long as I can remember, and notmissing > proprietary options, > Joe Awni > On Jun 15, 2018 9:55 AM, "Mat Witts" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In the context of this thread I personally cannot see anything that >> Daniel has said that may be considered as personally insulting. >> >> What I see is people choosing to take offence because particular ideas >> and expressions have lead to increased ambivalence among participants, but >> that is different. >> >> Much of this thread is informed, in good faith and well calibrated I >> think and is a credit to those involved in topics that people are of course >> passionate about. Rhetorical mood is perhaps the most dominant form of >> political discourse online and helps to motivate participation, and thus is >> a consistent strategy with the need for more grassroots representation at >> the FSFE I think. The right to take offence at the things people are saying >> is one thing, but accusations of personal insults I think requires a much >> higher standard of evidence and in absence of that ought to be discounted. >> The currency of offence-taking is common in public discourse, and while in >> many cases it is legitimate, in many others it is used to shame people into >> silence, a kind of precursor to secretive meetings by 'core groups' and a >> culture of stealth blocking and censorship... none of which is in the >> spirit of open democracy. >> >> I switched my affiliation away from FSFE because of controversy and >> contention but because controversy and contention seemed to bemissing, >> being kept un-observed from view and so moderately heated public discussion >> threads I believe are signs of a resurgence in vibrant community relations >> and are just the thing that is needed right now. Sweeping this stuff under >> the carpet only leads to an accumulation and trip hazards later on. >> >> let's be **bold** in our thinking change, and in our talking change? >> >> The FSFE is a public-facing institution that appears to me to be run more >> like a polite, private gentlemens club and whether my view is actually >> accurate or not, that freely-formed suspicion, or perception of the culture >> at least needs to change, surely? >> >> in your writing, so I am assuming it is serious. This is an incredibly >> insulting statement to many people within the FSFE. You are supposed to >> also represent FSFE Supporters like me and others who you insult on a >> regular basis. I appreciate how seriously you take your responsibility >> as a representative, but with your current communication style I have to >> say you do not represent me because I stand for civil communication, not >> for insults and attacks. >> >> For me, active representatives asking difficult questions are an >> essential part of a democracy. >> >> I agree with that statement. Please re-read my comment; I did not >> complain about your questions. I don't like your insults, especially in >> this case when they are also untruthful. You know I made several >> suggestions to improve community involvement and influence in the GA, so >> I will not stand for your personal attacks. >> >> You are very much _not_ the last man standing for democracy in the FSFE. >> Democracy is not about who can yell the most or who can yell the >> loudest. Your current actions are often disruptive and drown out other >> people's ideas and voices in the GA. And when you ask questions, you >> often fail to do so and follow up in any sort of structured way, and you >> draw conclusions from details that often do not represent what the >> majority in the GA actually think. Also, the last time you asked for >> community feedback in person, you afterwards failed to answer any >> questions about comparing your stated goal with the outcome and you >> report stayed anecdotal. Please be more constructive; I want to work >> with you, not against you. >> >> Happy hacking! >> Florian >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 7 >> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 07:15:41 +0200 >> From: Florian Snow <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: the questions you really want FSFE to answer >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain >> >> Hi Daniel, >> >> >> Daniel Pocock <[email protected]> <[email protected]> writes: >> >> While some people don't care about elections or proper membership, >> >> Disagreement with a specific implementation of an idea does not mean not >> caring about that idea. >> >> >> >> other people do care about it so much that they stopped contributing >> >> Perhaps I missed that and then I apologize, but did you bring that up to >> the GA with specific examples? >> >> >> >> The constructive thing to do is get more people involved in the >> discussion about what comes next rather than using a reference to the >> CoC to censor how people discuss it. >> >> A call to order is also a normal part of democracy because it keeps the >> discussion civil. No one censured you; we are simply asking you to >> refrain from attacks and insults. >> >> Happy hacking! >> Florian >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discussion mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion >> >> This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All >> participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: >> https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct >> >>
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
