On 09/07/18 21:31, Reinhard Müller wrote: > Dear all, > > Am 2018-07-09 um 20:57 schrieb Daniel Pocock: >> A single fellow also made a bequest of EUR 150,000 to FSFE and they were >> not identified publicly. > > Correction: We recieved a large sum out of an inheritance where the > deceased explicitly wished to remain anonymous. We never claimed that > this person was a Fellow, and to keep anonymity of the person intact, I > will also not make any statement about whether or not the deceased was a > Fellow. >
Would FSFE be willing to allow the elected fellowship representative to know the facts about this person and see their written intentions? >> Every corporate donor who contributes over 10% >> is named publicly. Does anybody feel that the same transparency >> principle should apply in cases such as bequests? > > We clarified this with "Initiative Transparente Zivilgesellschaft" whose > rules we follow regarding transparency, and they confirmed that it is ok > to follow the deceased's wish for anonymity. > > Personally, I do not see a large risk of the deceased person trying to > influence FSFE's policy in future. > I think it may be useful in such cases for the fact this happened to be in the list of top donors anyway, but with a statement there saying "name withheld - bequest" and a brief note about how FSFE acts in such cases. >> The dissemination of the fellowship statistics on the team mailing list >> stopped shortly after the extraordinary general assembly. > > Huh? There hasn't been any change in this. The statistics is still sent > each Sunday on 4:00 by a cron job. > > For others reading here: the statistics shows the number of supporters > by country and the development over the past months and years. It is > sent to the "core team" mailing list so that people coordinating an > activity can get feedback about the development of supporter numbers. > Last email I saw was on 10 June, if it is a technical issue please let me know >> I notice that >> the fellowship numbers had been increasing last year but in the last few >> months it has been decreasing. Personally, I suspect that two factors >> may be responsible: >> >> [...] > > Maybe it's the discussion currently happening on some public mailing > lists which create the impression that FSFE is mainly busy with its own > internals rather than doing actual work. It is unfortunate that such an > impression comes up, because it does not match reality. > Not discussing the issue runs the risk that things continue to slide. I notice that our sister organization, the FSF, also produces an annual report[1] with membership and supporter data. They report having 9 board members with voting rights and 2000 volunteers. Their report includes the amounts paid in some individual salaries and a much more detailed budget. The amortization report lists some of the hardware products they have chosen. In my role as representative, I'm keen to see a similar amount of detail made available to FSFE's fellows and I wouldn't be performing my role properly if I didn't ask questions like that. Regards, Daniel 1. https://www.fsf.org/about/financial _______________________________________________ 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
