Re: the questions you really want FSFE to answer
On 15/06/18 00:13, Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote: > Dear Daniel, > > On ĵaŭ, 2018-06-14 at 22:37 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: >>> This statement could create the impression that Daniel Pocock was the >>> one vote against the simplification of the membership procedure. >>> However, this is not the case. Daniel Pocock did not participate in this >>> vote, nor did he participate in the General Assembly altogether (neither >>> personally nor by delegation). >>> >> >> Some people may have chosen not to attend the meeting so that it >> wouldn't achieve quorum. > > That sounds unusually anti-democratic. A staunch democrat votes. > >> In my case, I actually went out to Albania and Kosovo for free software >> events[1] while other FSFE GA members and staff were meeting in Berlin >> to remove my position. > > This sounds more than a little disingenuous. It sounds like you are > implying that the GA scarcely go to free software events and/or only > had a meeting to vote on a single matter. Both couldn't be further > from the truth. > The meeting minutes show that it only considered a single matter. > I am certain that there is a better platform or way to address these > disagreements than what looks like airing dirty laundry in public, > though. The CoC mandates that criticism be constructive, and claims > like this... > >> As the last[1] man standing for democracy in FSFE > > ...don't look the part. > > I assume you have good intentions, Daniel, and love free software every > bit as much as the rest of us, so I want to ask you if your issues can > be addressed with the same assumption of good intentions. > As a representative, I also have to be honest with people There are currently no other elected representatives of the community in the General Assembly While some people don't care about elections or proper membership, other people do care about it so much that they stopped contributing and that is a loss for everybody. The constructive thing to do is get more people involved in the discussion about what comes next rather than using a reference to the CoC to censor how people discuss it. Regards, Daniel ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org 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
Re: the questions you really want FSFE to answer
On 14/06/18 23:48, Alessandro Rubini wrote: > I try to post no more than once a day, for several reasons, but this is > otrageous. > >> Some people may have chosen not to attend the meeting so that it >> wouldn't achieve quorum. > > Such people may be polite enough to state that clearly in advance, > since they were well aware the council were trying to find a suitable > date for them. > > The date (May 26th) was chosen in order to allow you, Daniel, to attend. > Message-Id: <1524740237.bd97pi0uvf...@vita.none> > The message you refer to doesn't contain any evidence that I was actively contacted about the date, it suggests people guessed I would be in OSCAL the weekend before and assumed, without contacting me, that I would be available to attend an extraordinary general meeting in Berlin on 26 May. >> In my case, I actually went out to Albania and Kosovo for free software >> events[1] > > The event, OSCAL, was on the previous weekend. You did not state that > you would stay in the area one week more, until after the date was > decided. > I am not FSFE staff, I am a volunteer, so I don't have to share my travel plans for months in advance. > There is no need to argue on these details in public. But I can't > accept that you paint reality your way in order to play the > mistreated and destroy trust within our community. > I am not painting reality. I feel that in this case you have simply seen the message you refer to above and assumed some effort was made to contact me about the date. While the message mentions my name, I confirm no attempt was made to contact me about availability for that date. The real question is: why was this meeting held in May, in Berlin, where only nine people could attend (mostly staff) and not during the community meeting in July? Then a lot more people, including me, could have participated and the costs of having the meeting on 26 May would have been avoided. Regards, Daniel ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org 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
Re: the questions you really want FSFE to answer
Hi, Am 2018-06-14 um 22:36 schrieb Daniel Pocock: > To make it clear, FSFE has a community with hundreds of long time > supporters/fellows/volunteers who have contributed time and money > regularly over many years but have: > > - no right to petition for a general meeting > > - no right to propose a motion in a general meeting > > - no right to run for president yes, that's exactly the point. We all (except for you, obviously) agreed that it is not fair that these rights should only be given to only one of them per year, not even (or: even less) if the others may vote upon who that would be. Everybody who actively participates in FSFE's work does not only have the possibility to take influence in exactly that field of activity, they even unaviodably execute that influence by contributing to that activity. If you don't believe it, try to actually participate in FSFE's activities, and you'll see! :-) And on top of that, we think that people active within FSFE and interested in contributing to the long-term vision and strategy of the organisation should be able to join that group without going through a "there can only be one" kind of competition against fellow activists. Thanks, -- Reinhard Müller * Financial Team Free Software Foundation Europe signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org 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
Re: the questions you really want FSFE to answer
On 14/06/18 21:57, Reinhard Müller wrote: > Hi, all! > > Just to avoid misunderstandings: > > Am 2018-06-14 um 21:33 schrieb Daniel Pocock: >> As the last[1] man standing for democracy in FSFE,[...] >> >> 1. https://fsfe.org/news/2018/news-20180526-01.en.html > > This statement could create the impression that Daniel Pocock was the > one vote against the simplification of the membership procedure. > However, this is not the case. Daniel Pocock did not participate in this > vote, nor did he participate in the General Assembly altogether (neither > personally nor by delegation). > Some people may have chosen not to attend the meeting so that it wouldn't achieve quorum. In my case, I actually went out to Albania and Kosovo for free software events[1] while other FSFE GA members and staff were meeting in Berlin to remove my position. Regards, Daniel 1. https://danielpocock.com/pmpc-for-fsfe-itself ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org 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
Re: the questions you really want FSFE to answer
On 14/06/18 21:58, Florian Snow wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > > Daniel Pocock writes: >> As the last[1] man standing for democracy in FSFE > > Perhaps this is meant as a joke, but you usually do not make that clear > in your writing, so I am assuming it is serious. This is an incredibly > insulting statement to many people within the FSFE. You are supposed to > also represent FSFE Supporters like me and others who you insult on a > regular basis. I appreciate how seriously you take your responsibility > as a representative, but with your current communication style I have to > say you do not represent me because I stand for civil communication, not > for insults and attacks. For me, active representatives asking difficult questions are an essential part of a democracy. I have no desire to join the executive council, become a staff member or be president of FSFE, this is the role I chose to volunteer for and I am naturally a bit disappointed that the rug was pulled out underneath me. To make it clear, FSFE has a community with hundreds of long time supporters/fellows/volunteers who have contributed time and money regularly over many years but have: - no right to petition for a general meeting - no right to propose a motion in a general meeting - no right to run for president - and since May 2018, no right to vote (since the elections have just been abolished) In fact, the people affected by this change who previously had a right to vote were not even sent the invitation to the meeting. Regards, Daniel ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org 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
Re: the questions you really want FSFE to answer
Hi Daniel, Daniel Pocock writes: > As the last[1] man standing for democracy in FSFE Perhaps this is meant as a joke, but you usually do not make that clear in your writing, so I am assuming it is serious. This is an incredibly insulting statement to many people within the FSFE. You are supposed to also represent FSFE Supporters like me and others who you insult on a regular basis. I appreciate how seriously you take your responsibility as a representative, but with your current communication style I have to say you do not represent me because I stand for civil communication, not for insults and attacks. Happy hacking! Florian ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org 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
Re: the questions you really want FSFE to answer
Hi, all! Just to avoid misunderstandings: Am 2018-06-14 um 21:33 schrieb Daniel Pocock: > As the last[1] man standing for democracy in FSFE,[...] > > 1. https://fsfe.org/news/2018/news-20180526-01.en.html This statement could create the impression that Daniel Pocock was the one vote against the simplification of the membership procedure. However, this is not the case. Daniel Pocock did not participate in this vote, nor did he participate in the General Assembly altogether (neither personally nor by delegation). Thanks, -- Reinhard Müller * Financial Team Free Software Foundation Europe signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org 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
the questions you really want FSFE to answer
Hi all, As the last[1] man standing for democracy in FSFE, I propose to give a report at the community meeting[2] at RMLL It is important for me to understand the topics you want me to cover as so many things have happened in free software and in FSFE in recent times. Some of the things people already asked me about: - the status of the fellowship and the membership status of fellows - use of non-free software and cloud services in FSFE, deviating from the philosophy that people associate with the FSF / FSFE family - measuring both the impact and cost of campaigns, to see if we get value for money (a high level view of expenditure is here[3]) What are the issues you would like me to address? Please feel free to email me privately or publicly. If I don't have answers immediately I would seek to get them for you as I prepare my report. Without your support and feedback, I don't have a mandate to pursue these issues on your behalf so if you have any concerns, please reply. Regards, Daniel FSFE Fellowship Representative 1. https://fsfe.org/news/2018/news-20180526-01.en.html 2. https://wiki.fsfe.org/Events/LSMandCommunityMeeting2018 3. https://fsfe.org/about/funds/2016.en.html ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org 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
Re: Public Money Public Code: a good policy for FSFE and other, non-profits?
First of all, I fully accept your position although I don't agree to it and its reasoning. # Mat Witts [2018-06-14 10:35 +0200]: > For me, I think until the FSFE abandons what seems to me to resemble a > kind of 'watered-down' market-led ideology at the highest level and > fully adopts a more appropriate political philosophy and (as > importantly), culture - I predict many years of in-fighting, confusion, > missed opportunities and personal hurt ahead for all involved at that > level of organization? I think the FSFE doesn't have *one* ideology. We are an organisation with as many ideologies as people being part of it. And isn't this the great thing about Free Software? It has benefits for so many areas and political standpoints, from philosophical, political, ethical, commercial, environmental, educational and many more points of views. But it all comes down to the four freedoms! It's completely natural that in an NGO with so many people involved and our long history, we have disagreement when it comes to our position on certain issues, e.g. the evaluation of the current economical system and how certain tech companies behave. But that's OK, and the bandwidth of our activities and campaigns represents this diversity. Forcing everyone to agree on the one and only ideology would surely create more fights and demotivation. If you feel that another organisation (who I guarantee to have similar internal conflicts :P) fit your standpoint better, please support them. But I think to know even more people who value the diversity and tolerance of viewpoints the FSFE offers. Best, Max -- Max Mehl - Program Manager - Free Software Foundation Europe Contact & information: https://fsfe.org/about/mehl | @mxmehl Become a supporter to enable our work: https://fsfe.org/join ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org 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
Public Money Public Code: a good policy for FSFE and other, non-profits?
> Daniel's article about the use of proprietary software and services
by the FSFE:
> https://danielpocock.com/pmpc-for-fsfe-itself
> ...a long discussion last year, starting here...
> https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2017-June/011591.html
> ...and ending here:
> https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2017-October/011934.html
We may be wrong to give awards to organisations who use Free Software to
achieve their objectives.
I say this because I see how beauty pageants, and the general seductions
of seeking 'prestige' tend to make topics like privacy, surveillance and
ultimately, control seem more juvenile than they really are. In any
case, it's hard to out-match the behavior of companies like Google and
Facebook in terms of their huge success in trivializing such things in
my view. For those of us that are doing our best to use Free Software
and improve it, I believe the rewards for knowing we are in control of
the technology are more than sufficient?
What is at stake here I think in the Free Software universe is not about
levels of adoption and pragmatics, since many CMS packages and FS
flavors of linux are already doing pretty well in terms of 'market
share' I think, (if I can put it that way). What I imagine is on the
horizon is humanity having to deal with such challenges as IoT and AI
while attenuating the land-grabbing mentality of the tech. giants and
the extraordinary resources they already have at their disposal to
influence governments and civil society - tax evasion, high-level
'cabals' lobbying for international trade exemptions and so forth.
In terms of the FSFE, I think there are some obvious problems with the
way things are done (or not done perhaps) which I think may be somewhat
related to the relationships between the various actors at GA level,
which I know nothing about and to be frank, cannot really get excited
about because I don't see what I want to see at the FSFE. I have mostly
lost interest in FSFE and instead have decided to support FSF in America
for the time being. I don't agree with everything FSF stands for, but I
do admire it enough to switch my affiliation for now.
Having worked with non-profits since the early nineties I see the same
problems time and time again which are beyond the scope of this email,
but can be generally classified as 'parochialism', getting too bogged
down in personal battles and internal politics and losing the 'big
picture' which I generally attribute to a prevailing images of the
confluence of post-sufficiency (capitalist) philanthropy and liberal
voluntaryism.
I agree it is not only 'right' for the FSFE to set the highest
standards, but it can also be politically useful to be able to
articulate a clear ethos. A 'zero-tolerance' policy is great for PR and
helps to create the necessary differentiation between slippery customers
like 'Open Source'.
However, this stance is often seen as 'anti-business',
'anti-capitalist', 'utopian' and all the rest of it, which is where a
lot of the anxiety is among business-oriented people (industrialists if
you like). For business owners to admit that Free Software has a
potential to circumvent the normative business practices they want,
based on notions of appropriate incentives, private property and a
stable macro-economic is akin to admitting a kind of personal defeat
too, and for many it is (psychologically) too much to bear perhaps?
This is why the public code / public money campaign seems like a good
idea at first, because it aligns an objective of the FSFE ('public
code') with an identifiable social reality 'public money'. The one
downside of this of course is the real tyrants, the ambitious
industrialists and neoliberals just out to exploit for personal
advantage (once again) manage to avoid the heat while publicly funded
organizations are put under more pressure to meet standards that
business leaders don't feel obliged to meet while doing everything they
can to evade.
The problem with seeing FS just as a kind of liberal-minded , ethical
gimmick for a business to enable it to produce a sense of social
conscience, rather than a core ideal for humanity is that it is still
bound to a more contentious idea of 'empowering' people to pursue goals
to improve their lives (which for many people is fine) by putting
capital and labour together to create products that add value (which for
many people, isn't fine). The result is (again!) the accumulation of
private property interests which brings with it problems such as social
injustice, rising inequalities and powers of extractive elites enjoying
monopoly profits.
FS advocates that fail to see how the broader logic of capitalism
succeeds at connecting to even our best, socially motivated intentions
means that half-heated solutions like 'Open Source' can still create
outcomes that threaten to harm public and merit goods by meeting in
secret to develop plans that do not
Re: Public Money Public Code: a good policy for FSFE and other non-profits?
Context: Daniel Pocock writes in his own blog that he will repost at
the next GA meeting a motion that did not pass at the previous GA
meeting. Unchanged, seemingly.
Paul Boddie:
>>> I was surprised that Daniel's motion to document the FSFE's proprietary
>>> dependencies, and to describe ways of eliminating them, was so strongly
>>> opposed.
Voting against by a large majority doesn't mean it was "strongly
opposed". There was discussion and we agreed it's better not to have
it. A vote just reflects the balance of pros and cons made by voting
members.
Max Mehl explained the refusal:
>> 1. Which scope should the list of proprietary software in organisation
>>have? Only the OS and applications on our computers and servers? Or
>>does it extend to [...]
>> 2. Obviously, we try to use as much Free Software as possible, but
>>unfortunately we cannot avoid all of it, [...] Does creating such a huge
>>list benefit our work [...] ?
Paul noted about (1) above:
> This is something I briefly addressed in my message:
> "Many of us commit to using Free Software exclusively where the right to
> exercise this control has been given to us."
>
> So the embedded software in your phones is probably not an area [...]
The problem is "probably" and the vagueness of where the right to exercise
is there or not. You also note sometimes it's possible but not reasonable
to demand.
And about (2) above:
> I agree that the potential impact on volunteers would be problematic.
So it seems even you (paul) acknowledge that the proposal is not
"obviously right" when we face the real world, even if it clearly was
designed with the aim to do better.
Oh, and what about firmware? I personally shall be damned because I
download binary blobs to my hardware's RAM (instead of having it in
flash memory).
> But did no-one see any merit in the idea? Maybe one of the many
> other, non-Fellow/member/supporter Assembly members might share
> their thoughts with us.
I am a member, and I think Max well explained the reasoning. But I see
one more: we do not need to publish a "hall of shame". It would
mostly help internal frictions, or attacks by anybody who wants to
paint himself as holier than us ("himself": women are usually more
intelligent than that).
> But did no-one see any merit in the idea?
Daniel Pocock I suppose. So much as to claim he will post the same
motion again without further arguments. I can't avoid thinking
he wants to lose the vote again in order to complain again on his blog
and increase his own halo. I'd love to be proved wrong.
/alessandro
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
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
