On 07/05/2019 02:03, Besnik Bleta wrote: > On Mon, 6 May 2019 17:15:56 +0200 > Daniel Pocock <[email protected]> wrote: > >> while 25% of the FSFE e.V. members have engaged in the discussion. > > > It’s simply because they have interest to maintain the current narrative > alive.
Actually, it is because the Fellows expressed their feelings about the word Supporter in a different way: hundreds of them silently quit. The stats[1] are clear: the email templates FSFE sends asking people to renew were changed to use the word Supporter at the end of 2017. Before that, membership was rising, after that, it consistently declined. As Fellowship representative, it was my responsibility to help inform people. A simple informational email like that was an important part of my role. FSFE insiders all know the names of the GA members but people new to the mailing list would not have realized that participation in discussions is so disproportionate. Nonetheless, why was that email censored? How does it violate the Code of Conduct? Or was it simply inconvenient, that the information in the email didn't prove anything, it was just to inform people, but the fact it was blocked shows that there is a fake[2] community syndrome at work? Another thing to keep in mind: if I wanted to hurt FSFE, I didn't need to say anything, because people are quitting anyway. The usual people made a huge fuss about migrating the mailing list, but the migration from Fellow to Supporter did all the damage. Will anybody threaten legal action over that change too? Regards, Daniel 1. https://fsfellowship.eu/2018/09/08/who-were-the-fsfe-fellowship.html 2. https://danielpocock.com/safety-or-a-fake-community _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
