Re: [GA] who is a member?
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 18:12, florians...@fsfe.org said: > Thank you for your feedback! Information like that is helpful in making Right feedback seems to be welcome, but discussion is done behind closed doors. With today's words of a board member to the members only list: Regardless of what we individually think about our structure (and you know I have strong opinions on this too), let's keep that discussion *here*, between the members. No change will come from discussions about this elsewhere. Any change comes from us, here. Which is of course aligned with our current structure but somewhat alien to the general principles of the free software movement. To me this sounds like "Let's do it like the FSF" - and we once wanted to be more participatory and open to the public than the FSF :-(. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. pgpL0L7evhb5u.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Apply for membership and meet us at FOSDEM
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 14:58, dan...@pocock.pro said: > - the German laws for non-profits (this was mentioned on another list) There is no specific law in Germany for non-profits. You have to distinguish between all the possible legal forms for an association. The FSFE is a German eingetragener Verein which has only very few legal requirements so that the Verein can will define its rules in its constitution. A charitable Verein is a bit more restricted as a general Verein. For example it is not allowed to issue a receipt for donations received for an exchange. Demanding a fixed purpose for a donation would may be such an exchange. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. pgp75mcADQmuy.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: who is a member?
On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 17:12, dan...@pocock.pro said:
> There are practical problems with this. The most obvious problem is
> that there is no board and the GA functions a little bit like a board
> and a board with 1,700 members would not be very functional. To resolve
That is not correct. Unless I missed some of the many constitutional
changes of the last years, the FSFE e.V., as German Verein, of course as
an elected board ("Vorstand", aka "EC") which consists of the
"president", the "vice-president", and the "treasurer". (I used to be
the treasurer some years ago.)
However. having only a few members we had the *informal* rule to ask all
members (the so-called "GA") for their opinions on imporatnt decisions
of the board.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
pgpbQoCQ_vFdn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Apply for membership and meet us at FOSDEM (was: Apply for membership - or meet us at FOSDEM :-)
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 00:25, reinh...@fsfe.org said: > Daniel has already supplied a pointer to the web page giving some > background information about the GA, its role in FSFE, and the To make thinks a bit more clear. Many members of the FSFE e.V., which happens to be plain standard German Eingetragener Verein (e.V.), use the term GA to refer to the members of that Verein. The term GA was used as an abbreviation for General Assembly / General Meeting / Mitgliederversammlung but it is nothing else than the members of the Verein, that is the Verein itself. This might have been introduced along with the fellowship to paper a bit over the fact that the fellows had no legal rights within the Verein - in contrast to the members, now called the GA. Later the constitution was changed to allow an external group (the fellowship) to elect up to two temporary members of the Verein. Due to various reasons candidates for this "fellowship seats" were not in good supply and thus the idea is now to drop this failed concept of improved participation. Anyway, the Vorsitzende (uncommonly termed "president") of the FSFE e.V. has had always the right to accept new membership applications which will only need to be confirmed at the next general meeting (of the members). For the first 15 years this was handled very strict and basically impossible for a wider audience to be accepted as a member. This seemed to have changed over the last 2 or 3 years when employees and very active people were granted membership quickly. I personally see a lot of problems that employees of the FSFE are also members _and_ that they make up a large part of the membership. Thus I support the call for new members (as I always did in internal discussions over the last 17 years) but for organization issues I would also ask not to rush this. Sending an applications to the president is of course fine but please don't get upset if it takes some time to setup the FSFE for a larger base of members. Shalom-Salam, Werner (founding member, not paid, and mostly inactive these days) -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. pgpef1XKyQZvd.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: 34C3
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:33, br...@tracciabi.li said: > out is that according to majestyx an FSFE employee and staff member > with a "boss" t-shirt wanted to deny access to the FSFE booth to > majestyx. majestyx wrote: Am dritten Tag folgte dann leider ein sehr einschneidendes Erlebnis. Der FSFE Mitarbeiter (mit Endgegner Shirt) wollte mir den Zugang zum FSFE Stand verwehren mit der Aussage ich würde quasi über den FSFE Tisch hinweg Negativ-Werbung machen. Ich fragte ihn nach dem Beweis, den blieb er schuldig und versteifte sich darauf bei seiner Behauptung zu bleiben, um mich dann des FSFE Standes zu verweisen. Content: A FSFE staffer rejected him access to the FSFE booth where he used to help out as a volunteer. The given reason was that majestyx was engaged in negative advertising on the FSFE from behind the booth. He asked for evidence but the FSFE staffer was not able to present it. That FSFE staffer (Erik) explained on the members only list: one of our supporters was acting like a wolf in sheep's clothing. While he was on one hand behind the booth to sell merchandise, he on the other hand spread self-made print-outs about "#fuckgooglefsfe" to criticise that FSFE accepts donations by google. (the print-outs were fortunately so bad and cryptic I doubt someone could understand what they are saying) Despite him insisting on his freedom of opinion, I forbid that person to spread these print-outs around the booth. The background seems to be a discussion on the German list (and maybe on some Berlin meetings) on whether it is acceptable that the FSFE takes donations from Google. In the aftermath of this one Berlin based member canceled their membership which triggered a discussion on the members only list. I have not seen these handouts but I assume the text was in line with his arguments expressed over several weeks on the German lists. Erik's reaction to ban him from *behind* the booth is fully acceptable to me and I would have done the same. Diverting opinions are for sure welcome but they should not be presented in a way which let bystanders assume that this (self-)critique is an official position of the FSFE. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. pgpx7jGqqC6Yu.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: LWN article on Limux / WiMue and PMPC
Matze, publishing a private subscriber only URL to a _public_ mailing list is not for what LWN generate them as a favor to their subscribers. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. pgpWgfuDP8iYq.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Implementing a code of conduct?
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 16:00, dger...@gmail.com said: > Also, these days the lack of a CoC actively repels people. They wonder I wonder why you are in favor of such a thing but do not comply yourself to the common standard on how to work with mail (Netiquette, RFC-1855). Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. pgpJT8YtrDPIW.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
October Newsletter /Summit
Hi, reading the "FSFE Newsletter - October 2016" [1] We're still not over how cool it was to see so many from our community join the FSFE Summit in September. It was a good experience and we're keen to repeat it. [...] I miss any mentioning of an (internal) discussion in the aftermath of a very questionable talk[2] advertising proprietary software. The speaker of that talk is head of a company selling non-free software but trying to get associated with Free Software. In the F&Q after the talk the speaker was asked about this (35'50'' into the video) and confirmed that their software is and will not be published under a Free Software license. He also said that he did not think cloud services should at all require Free Software, be it GPL or BSD. I am quite surprised to see such a talk at an FSFE conference. In particular because the talk was not described as giving a counterpoint to Free Software. It was a straight ad talk and that should have been known to the program committee: For example, the FSFE president was recently guest at one of their dinner events and before that he had asked me about my opinion on that company (I once gave a keynote at one of their events). A newsletter should not be silent about topics which can at least be called controversial and have been called in as an agenda topic for tomorrow's FSFE general assembly. Shalom-Salam, Werner [1] https://fsfe.org/news/nl/nl-201610.en.html [2] https://conf.qtcon.org/en/qtcon/public/events/581 -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. pgph0og9e42SI.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
