Hi Daniel,
Daniel Pocock writes:
> It is quite simple to explain:
>
> - the funds from fellowship/supporters pay the salaries and other major
> expenses (over 50% of the budget comes from fellowship/supporter donations)
>
> - but the fellowship/supporters only have 2 votes in the GA (and none
>
On 02/05/2018 12:06 PM, Florian Snow wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Pocock writes:
It is quite simple to explain:
- the funds from fellowship/supporters pay the salaries and other major
expenses (over 50% of the budget comes from fellowship/supporter donations)
- but the fellowship/supporters o
Hi Carsten,
> So I think the point Daniel has been raising is this: Could
> supporters/fellows, before joining, have received the erroneous impression
> that their payments constitute membership dues for membership in the FSFE?
> Or, should they constitute such membership dues.
I think this is in
Hi Florian,
> [...] people have the right to give up their freedoms, but I don't
know why they would from a theoretical perspective.
Well, with the obvious possibility of again sounding a bit like a
lecturer with a hangover who has stumbled into the wrong theatre - I
have to say there are many th
> Today we had a poster near our FOSDEM booth saying "Join us at the Funky
> Monkey", and indeed a nice bunch of people met in that pub. I didn't have the
> impression that any of them felt having become a formal member of the legal
> association by following the invitation to join.
Small sample
Hi Carsten,
Carsten Agger writes:
> Of course Google could not have a voice in the GA - they're a
> proprietary software company and by definition are not committed to
> the values of free software.
To make this clear: I am not advocating for companies getting a voice,
but what you are describ
Hi Mat,
Mat Witts writes:
> I have left the FSFE because (among other things) there appears to be
> multiple levels of practical engagement with policy (which is fine)
> but it is based on a rather obscure set of policies concerning what
> membership means (which is not fine).
Thank you for tha
On 05/02/18 13:09, Florian Snow wrote:
> Hi Carsten,
>
>
> Carsten Agger writes:
>> Of course Google could not have a voice in the GA - they're a
>> proprietary software company and by definition are not committed to
>> the values of free software.
> To make this clear: I am not advocating for co
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Pocock writes:
> - in businesses, it is normal for votes at the AGM to be based on
> financial shareholding, a shareholder with more shares gets more votes.
> In some countries I think non-profits can choose that model too. It is
> complicated when mixing the votes of volunte
Hi Florian,
>> I have left the FSFE because (among other things) there appears to be
>> multiple levels of practical engagement with policy (which is fine) but it
>> is based on a rather obscure set of policies concerning what membership
>> means (which is not fine).
> I am trying to understan
Je 2018-02-05 14:59:23, Mat Witts skribis:
> There are
> many ways to do that from elections, polls, forums, working groups and
> all the rest of it but if either one is missing - 1) clear policy and
> 2) evidence of freely conferred deference to them from members (and it
> seems both appear to be
Hi,
Am 2018-02-05 um 14:58 schrieb Daniel Pocock:
> - the German laws for non-profits (this was mentioned on another list)
> allow donors to specify that their donation or ongoing contributions be
> used for capital purposes. So any fellow/supporter can write an email
> to cont...@fsfe.org and de
> I am sorry. This is one sentence?
Yes. Well observed. If you also notice it was a response to Florian's
invitation to 'elaborat[e] a little bit about your experience?'.
The request was a bit vague but
I wrote in good faith about my experience as requested. This included
some irritation which I
13 matches
Mail list logo
