Re: Request for Clarifications

[Eike Rathke]

On Monday, 2019-05-06 17:49:16 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:

> > To: discuss...@lists.fsfellowship.eu, discussion@lists.fsfe.org
> >> [...]
> > Interesting how that mail did not make it to Pocock's list, where every
> > mail now is manually approved.. or discarded..
> 
> Given that over 90% of people are subscribed to both lists, the censors
> have to work extra hard to try and guess which mails the other censors
> will accept and then discard them to avoid any user receiving the same
> mail on both lists.

You are talking ridiculous nonsense.

  Eike

-- 
OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
GPG key 0x6A6CD5B765632D3A - 2265 D7F3 A7B0 95CC 3918  630B 6A6C D5B7 6563 2D3A
Use LibreOffice! https://www.libreoffice.org/


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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: Request for Clarifications

[Daniel Pocock]

On 06/05/2019 17:01, Eike Rathke wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Saturday, 2019-05-04 15:41:26 +0200, Diogo Constantino wrote:
> 
> To: discuss...@lists.fsfellowship.eu, discussion@lists.fsfe.org
> 
>> [...]
> 
> Interesting how that mail did not make it to Pocock's list, where every
> mail now is manually approved.. or discarded..
> 


Given that over 90% of people are subscribed to both lists, the censors
have to work extra hard to try and guess which mails the other censors
will accept and then discard them to avoid any user receiving the same
mail on both lists.

Happy Censoring,

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: Request for Clarifications

[Florian Snow]

On May 6, 2019 11:49:16 AM EDT, Daniel Pocock  wrote:
> the other censors

Aren't you that other person you are talking about in the third person?
___
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: Request for Clarifications

[Eike Rathke]

Hi,

On Saturday, 2019-05-04 15:41:26 +0200, Diogo Constantino wrote:

To: discuss...@lists.fsfellowship.eu, discussion@lists.fsfe.org

> [...]

Interesting how that mail did not make it to Pocock's list, where every
mail now is manually approved.. or discarded..

  Eike

-- 
OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
GPG key 0x6A6CD5B765632D3A - 2265 D7F3 A7B0 95CC 3918  630B 6A6C D5B7 6563 2D3A
Use LibreOffice! https://www.libreoffice.org/


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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: Request for Clarifications

[Mirko Boehm]

Hi,

> On 6. May 2019, at 04:36, Florian Snow  wrote:
> 
> Calling Daniel's behavior a symptom is a gross understatement.

The symptoms of some ailments can be quite unpleasant, even icky. But I see 
your point. Now for some root cause analysis, please.

Cheers,

Mirko.
-- 
Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V.
FSFE Team Germany
Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer
Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm

___
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: Request for Clarifications

[Florian Snow]

Hi Mirko,

Calling Daniel's behavior a symptom is a gross understatement.

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: Request for Clarifications

[Florian Snow]

Hi Paul,

Thank you for asking this question.  Let me try to give you a summary to the 
best of my knowledge.  I am sorry this mail is going to be pretty long, but I 
need to provide some background here for this to make sense.

As far as I can tell the root cause of the issue with Daniel consists of two 
things:  He appears to understand the role of representative in such a way that 
it requires him to take opposition to the FSFE Executive (I sometimes see 
similar approaches to representation  in Anglo-Saxon countries), even when some 
Supporters/Fellows told him that they felt differently.  The second thing is an 
event that happened and felt personal to Daniel (I will get to that in a 
second).

So when Daniel was elected, he requested certain things and made suggestions, 
both reasonable steps to take.  Some of what he wanted, happened, some did not. 
 But there was always a debate about why or why not.  One of the things he 
requested was having access  to our Supporter database which we did not grant 
him because we heavily restrict access to that database for privacy reasons.  
However, we told him he could send mailings to supporters via our system and we 
considered setting up a mailing list for that purpose.  However, we were trying 
to figure out how we needed to ask for consent  to do that.

During the same time, Daniel made many suggestions and part of the problem with 
that was that he never followed through on any of those things.  He would 
suggest something and move on to the next topic so in the end, there were so 
many things happening at the same time that it bogged us down.  Another issue 
with his suggestions were, that they were often half-baked and he showed no 
willingness to improve on them nor did he say he was willing to help with the 
work involved.  There were some instances where we just told him, ok, go ahead, 
do it (as we often do with volunteers), yet there was not even a response from 
him.  One such example was an inventory of all non-free software in FSFE use: 
computer firmware, printers, coffee makers, everything where non-free software 
might be involved.  We asked about the purpose and told him how much work it 
would be (we were afraid of spending supporter money on actions with 
potentially very limited impact) and his response was that it could be 
automated. I asked him to start working on such a system and then there was no 
answer anymore.  So it certainly looked as if he wanted to tell other people 
what work to do, but not participate.  That is not how we typically do things, 
though.  We usually just do the work ourselves that we think is important.  I 
think that makes for a strong community.

His communication style created additional problems.  He often avoided giving 
clear answers and he quoted us out of context over and over again when 
responding to us.  When we clarified his mis-quotations, he ignored those 
clarifications and continued to repeat his inaccurate statements.  And when we 
pointed out his hostile tone, he told us why his tone was just right.

The reason he felt justified in his tone was the event I referenced before.  
Before Daniel was even on our screens as a candidate, the GA took a decision to 
restructure.  The idea at the time was that the elections should be replaced by 
a different path to membership.  When he became a GA member, Daniel repeatedly 
claimed that the vote scheduled during his candidacy was an attack on him.  
Yet, in reality, it had nothing to do with him because the GA had taken a vote 
to take those steps before Daniel was even a GA member.  What further worsened 
the matter was the options put on the ballot:  There was an option to keep 
current representatives active to the end of their turn, but there was also an 
option to have the term end with the vote to remove the position.  He took the 
latter option personally and thought it was an attack on him.

Part of the issue for him with that vote is a step that I personally also was 
not completely satisfied with:  We had some delays in the implementation and 
then had a choice: Do we spend money on organizing elections just so we can 
take a vote on not having those anymore a few months later at our regular 
annual meeting or do we have a short extraordinary meeting and not organize 
elections?  At the time, we chose to go with the extraordinary meeting, but in 
hindsight, I wish we had done it differently because of the way it looks.  Even 
back then, some people within the FSFE disagreed to have this extraordinary 
meeting, but we cannot change that now.  The end effect would have been the 
same anyway, just a few months later.  There were people who had doubts about 
ending the elections and I tried to show Daniel that we were not opponents, but 
agreed sometimes and disagreed at other times. However he either did not see or 
ignored it when people agreed with him and wound up attacking those that 
supported at least parts of what he wanted.

Whenever 

Re: Request for Clarifications

[Diogo Constantino]

Please stop immediatly!

I've certainly not elected you, I'm not even a member of the FSFE or 
your abusive fellowship of data robbers, and I certainly haven't 
participated on any election.


You have "sequestered" my personal data for the good of your personal 
agenda, and hosted it on systems of other parties. I see that as 
extremely big abuse of my personal rights.


I don't care about anything else you have to say, because you haven't 
regret it or asked for pardon.


Your abusive and entitled attitude, shows me that they were probably 
right in taking those measures. Now stop making us wasting any of our 
collective valuable time.





On 04/05/19 12:50, Daniel Pocock wrote:

(fixed address)

On 03/05/2019 23:30, Paul Schaub wrote:

Hello list,

as probably most of us I'm trying to get a clear picture of what
happened and why. On my quest to find answers, and to grasp the
situation as close to truth as possible, I have some questions to
officials of the FSFE.

For a start, are the allegations of "censorship" regarding the blog and
newsletters written by Daniel Pocock true? I dislike the word
censorship, as I can see valid reasons for moderation. Still, is it
true, that Pococks work in the FSFE is being "moderated" and if so,
based on what reasons?

How much moderation is happening on at the FSFE lists?




An email from Matthias Kirschner on 12 September 2018 states:

"Until further notice, your blog is removed from the FSFE's planet
aggregation,
... (snip) ...
we will put you on moderation on our mailing lists,
... (snip) ...
while you remain a member of the FSFE, the publication of our legal
demands would be considered further discrediting the FSFE and
damaging the bond of trust between the members, and as such, would be
considered in any current or future exclusion proceedings."

In other words:

- they censored the representative you elected (me)

- they told me that I can't tell you I was threatened or censored, or
there would be more legal proceedings - a threat on top of a threat

As your representative, it was my duty to tell you both good things and
bad things.  If telling the truth is a CoC violation, I'm guilty as
hell.  That was my duty.

For example, if you are buying a house and you pay a surveyor to inspect
it, do you want the surveyor to tell you about the defects or do you
want him to tell you nice things so that he won't offend the person
selling the house?

There is an attitude in some free software communities that we have to
hide defects, especially when it concerns money or governance.

What is more, the communities promise transparency.  FSFE has a
transparency page:
https://fsfe.org/about/transparency-commitment
and one of the pillars of the Debian Social Contract[1] is the claim "We
will not hide problems"

yet when people speak about problems, they are subject to censorship,
blackmail, veiled threats, humiliations, defamation, lynchings and
secret punishments.

Regards,

Daniel


1. https://www.debian.org/social_contract
___
Discussion mailing list
discuss...@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion


___
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: Request for Clarifications

[Paul Boddie]

On Saturday 4. May 2019 02.51.44 Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote:
> 
> The gist of it is:
> 
> - Elections pit contributors against each other, which is not in the
> spirit of collaboration.
> 
> - There are already other ways to become a GA member.
> 
> - And, if you ask me, the idea of a "fellowship representative" is a
> little bit silly---surely everyone on the GA aims to represent the
> interests of the Free Software community.

How do we know what the General Assembly members stand for, though? Unlike the 
Fellowship representative election candidates, they do not publish any kind of 
platform for others to review.

It isn't enough to claim that GA members want the best for Free Software, 
whatever that might be, let alone that they might represent "the interests of 
the Free Software community", as if such interests were uniformly shared 
throughout the community (although there might be a subset of interests that 
are). Furthermore, individuals may have other interests that, for them, 
override whatever interests they do happen to share with the community.

Naturally, supporters can judge GA members by their actions and complain if 
they feel misrepresented. This is precisely what has happened in feedback 
regarding certain campaigns and communications of the organisation. 
Unfortunately, without more transparency, the GA members have to be judged 
collectively which is usually far from optimal.

It may seem unfair to criticise those who are surely working hard towards a 
goal that they believe they share with the supporters. However, without broad 
engagement with supporters, the only mechanism left available to those 
supporters is that of criticising such work after the fact and hopefully 
avoiding misunderstandings or misrepresentation in future.

I would agree that formal democratic measures like votes are not necessarily 
constructive. Instead, the focus should be on consensus, understanding what 
the community's interests are, and offering a vision they can subscribe to. 
For this, the platforms published by Fellowship representative candidates were 
a rather useful tool of engagement.

I felt that in the last election there were several candidates who would have 
represented my views fairly well. It was a shame that such a wealth of 
experience and insight had to be squeezed through a narrow hole into a 
decision-making venue where such contributions seem rather likely to have been 
marginalised.

Paul
___
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: Request for Clarifications

[Mirko Boehm]

Hello,

> On 4. May 2019, at 02:51, Carmen Bianca Bakker  wrote:
> 
> Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 23:30 +0200, Paul Schaub skribis:
>> For a start, are the allegations of "censorship" regarding the blog and
>> newsletters written by Daniel Pocock true? I dislike the word
>> censorship, as I can see valid reasons for moderation. Still, is it
>> true, that Pococks work in the FSFE is being "moderated" and if so,
>> based on what reasons?
> 
> I believe the chief complaint is that the FSFE was restructured such
> that there are no longer elections for a fellowship representative.
> Because Daniel was the representative at the time this decision was
> made, he felt that this was an act of censorship.
> 
> The rationale for the change was not censorship. It can be found here:
> 
> https://fsfe.org/news/2018/news-20180526-01.en.html 
> 
> 
> The gist of it is:
> 
> - Elections pit contributors against each other, which is not in the
> spirit of collaboration.
> 
> - There are already other ways to become a GA member.
> 
> - And, if you ask me, the idea of a "fellowship representative" is a
> little bit silly---surely everyone on the GA aims to represent the
> interests of the Free Software community.

I think most of us are aware of the communicated rationale. There is however 
reality, and it does not fully agree with the PR that was created around this. 

The change to remove the fellowship seats was supposed to go hand-in-hand with 
a broadening of the general membership of FSFE and more accountability of the 
organisation. The stated reason to rush it was to get it done so that we can 
focus on the restructuring that was given to the president as a mandate by the 
GA. However, while the abandonment of the fellowship proceeded swiftly, the 
restructuring of FSFE in general never even started. The executive director 
position, which served as another check to keep the president accountable, was 
also removed.

I urge everybody to make up their own opinion. I do not condone Daniel’s 
activities. However to act as if Daniel is the problem, instead of a symptom of 
the underlying problem, may not be good enough.

Best,

Mirko.
-- 
Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V.
FSFE Team Germany
Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer
Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm

___
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: Request for Clarifications

[Carmen Bianca Bakker]

Hi Paul,

Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 23:30 +0200, Paul Schaub skribis:
> For a start, are the allegations of "censorship" regarding the blog and
> newsletters written by Daniel Pocock true? I dislike the word
> censorship, as I can see valid reasons for moderation. Still, is it
> true, that Pococks work in the FSFE is being "moderated" and if so,
> based on what reasons?

I believe the chief complaint is that the FSFE was restructured such
that there are no longer elections for a fellowship representative.
Because Daniel was the representative at the time this decision was
made, he felt that this was an act of censorship.

The rationale for the change was not censorship. It can be found here:

https://fsfe.org/news/2018/news-20180526-01.en.html

The gist of it is:

- Elections pit contributors against each other, which is not in the
spirit of collaboration.

- There are already other ways to become a GA member.

- And, if you ask me, the idea of a "fellowship representative" is a
little bit silly---surely everyone on the GA aims to represent the
interests of the Free Software community.

Whatever the case, Daniel strongly disagreed. I don't know the full
details of the kerfuffle, but Daniel started a campaign against the
FSFE over this incident, and it hasn't been pretty. Every time we think
it's resolved, something like this happens again.

Daniel was barred from the Debian project over similar behaviour.

> How much moderation is happening on at the FSFE lists?

We have a Code of Conduct[1], but it doesn't see much enforcement to
the best of my knowledge, because most people are excellent people :-)

I hope that clears some confusion. I can't give a more detailed
explanation without either sounding biased or filling in details I
don't actually know.

With kindness,
Carmen

[1]: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
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

Request for Clarifications

[Paul Schaub]

Hello list,

as probably most of us I'm trying to get a clear picture of what
happened and why. On my quest to find answers, and to grasp the
situation as close to truth as possible, I have some questions to
officials of the FSFE.

For a start, are the allegations of "censorship" regarding the blog and
newsletters written by Daniel Pocock true? I dislike the word
censorship, as I can see valid reasons for moderation. Still, is it
true, that Pococks work in the FSFE is being "moderated" and if so,
based on what reasons?

How much moderation is happening on at the FSFE lists?

I want to be clear that I don't want to blame anyone, just understand
the situation.

Happy Hacking!

___
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