On 21/11/2019 01:26, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote: > El 2019-11-18 11:41, The one with the questions escribió: >> Nov 15, 2019, 13:26 by quil...@riseup.net: >> >>> El 2019-11-15 04:21, Daniel Pocock escribió: >>> >>>> Some people asked for the full email from John Sullivan confirming >>>> that >>>> >>>> FSFE has not acted honestly in using the FSF name. >>> >>> Thank you very much for this document. >>> >>> I had these doubts about FSFE too. But I do not know for sure about >>> acts >>> >>> that violate these conditions: >> >> just out of curiosity. Do you also have doubts regarding the mail >> shared by Daniel, > > Yes. That is exactly why I am asking. If I would be sure, I would not > ask. > >> especially as we know for sure that he faked >> documents he shared here and in his blog before? > > I do not know that HE faked anything. I don't understand who is "we" in > your statement. It is possible that I would not trust someone. But I > will not judge them guilty even if the law claims them offenders, unless > I personally can see proof which convinces me. Anyway, the documents > FSFE publishes are the best source.
FSFE had fake elections. When Florian Snow, the candidate they wanted, didn't win, they appointed him to the GA anyway and then used every means at their disposal to impede and discredit the person the community voted for. Fake election indeed. > >> Do you know that the >> mailing list we are writing here is in no way affiliated with FSF*? > > I know. The source of the information does not make it true or false. Nobody claimed this is an FSF* list. Many people see benefits in the Fellowship operating independently now. >> Most of us are probably just here because Daniel mass subscribed us >> without our consensus. > > I know that. I have not unsubscribed because I want to know both sides > of the issues. Nobody was subscribed without consent. FSFE and Fellowship have diverged. It is not the same thing as spamming. Maintaining an on-topic Fellowship-oriented mailing list, while FSF and FSFE censor their lists, has nothing in common with spamming. >> As you are a FSFLA member. Did you reached out to your sister >> organizations (FSFE, FSF US and maybe some colleagues at FSFLA) and >> asked them about their opinion to get some first hand information? > > Not FSFE, but the others yes. Nevertheless, they are very cautious about > making public statements lately. Are they still circulating defamation in private communications though? An organization using their name to spread malicious defamation, whether in public or in private emails, is wrong. >> Did >> you already reached out to John Sullivan pointing him to the mail >> shared by Daniel and asked him if this is really what he wrote?> > > I might. This is not necessary at the moment because the issue is not > John's email. The main issue for me is if FSFE is in fact working in the > same direction that FSF has or it takes the direction of OSI. If it is > the later, I or of any of the organizations I support would not make > FSFE an allie. > >> As you seems to be one of the last remaining rational people on this >> list with a direct connection to the organizations it would be great >> if you could get some first-hand information. > > I think rationality is as important as feelings. If someone feels > attacked, their feeelings are as valid as rationality, both if it their > response is diplomatic or not. In fact, usually swindlers are very > diplomatic and charismatic. > > My connections to these organizations are as direct as yours. I am not > searching for personal positions from the members of these > organizations. I would like them to make their organizational position > very clear regarding support for Richard Stallman and regarding their > defense of freedom or just defense of price, quality and business (as > OSI) with respect to software. These are very important issues for me. > > It is also necessary to stop attacking Daniel because FSFE is a stronger > party than him. It is not a fair fight. A mob attack is not good image > for an organization. Rather, FSFE should concentrate on its transparency > about how it handles affairs, instead of letting doubts arise by the > secrecy. > >> Just asking questions... > > A lot of statements in your questions! attack statements _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
