Hi Christian,
Christian Imhorst <[email protected]> writes: > If longtime members drop out, we should talk about it openly. It is > the wrong way to withold the leaving. I think there are multiple relevant factors here. We are in complete agreement that we should not hide things. The question is, though, how to treat them. One question is the question of privacy. I think the person who leaves has the right to decide in which group this resignation is discussed. In the current case here, that person decided to send an email to multiple internal mailing lists. I think something like that should not just be made public verbatim. We could publish the contained criticism. But then, the question is what exactly do we do? If we receive criticism, do we respond to it or do we summarize it to a public mailing list? If someone who has been active for many years leaves us, do we make that public? I think those questions do not have easy answers. Our current approach is to handle criticism at the level it is raised at. The lists the mail in question went to are working lists on which our engaged volunteers organize themselves. On this list here, we have a mixture of people who are active for the FSFE and some who might prefer to listen or discuss. I think handling criticism is more productive on the former kinds of lists instead of involving people who may not know our internal structures and who did not necessarily sign up for this list to debate these things, but to talk about Free Software. > Words like "fsfegate 2.0" don't mean anything to me, because I'm just > not in your filter bubble. That is not a term that already has a meaning. It ultimately goes back to the Watergate scandal and American news outlets like saying "something gate" rather than "something scandal". It is a bit of a dubious term and that is what my comment about it meant. I would have responded the same way if someone had used a term like "fake news". > I have no problem with anonymous whistleblowing. Information should be > free, so I support that. I generally don't see an issue with whistleblowing either, but it needs a bit of context in my opinion. I do not condone simply forwarding a private email. The base line should be at least naming the evil which is to be revealed. > That is in the nature of things and it is a problem, > unfortunately. E.g. the section on open source platforms that are > excluded from the new EU Copyright Directive: As someone who stands on > the sidelines I didn't really saw our success. GitHub claims that they > would have enforced the exception. Anyone who contributed to that result can claim it for themselves and is never completely wrong. You never know why exactly someone made a certain decision in the end. > It's a pity that we didn't make our contribution so well visible. I think this is an important point. Where else would you like to see information like that? There was a mailing about it and a press release (which was suboptimal, I know). We are open to suggestions. 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
