Re: application for FSFE e.V. membership and resignation
Am Sonntag 02 September 2018 00:32:21 schrieb Besnik Bleta: > > Letting these opportunities pass and then opening countless disastrous > > discussions instead looks like nothing but trolling to me. > > Voting for something you judge wrong means giving it legitimacy, thus > going against yourself. The idea is to cast a vote, but vote against something you don't perceive as right... -- FSFE -- Founding Member Support our work for Free Software: blogs.fsfe.org/bernhard https://fsfe.org/donate | contribute 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
Re: application for FSFE e.V. membership and resignation
On Sat, 1 Sep 2018 12:42:27 -0300 Torsten Grote wrote: > On 08/30/2018 02:44 AM, Harald Welte wrote: > > It seems that you neither attended the 2017 GA, nor delegated your > > vote, while the Agenda (which I suppose was delivered as part of > > the GA invitation) clearly lists two topics directly related to the > > fellowship representative. > > > > So when looking at the record, a body of which you have been a > > member has decided to remove that role by a vote, and you didn't > > cast or delegate your vote. > > This is the crucial point! That would have been the opportunity to > influence and change how the legal body works. > > Letting these opportunities pass and then opening countless disastrous > discussions instead looks like nothing but trolling to me. Voting for something you judge wrong means giving it legitimacy, thus going against yourself. Now tell me that this looks nothing but trolling to you. Besnik ___ 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: application for FSFE e.V. membership and resignation
On 08/30/2018 02:44 AM, Harald Welte wrote: > It seems that you neither attended the 2017 GA, nor delegated your vote, > while the Agenda (which I suppose was delivered as part of the GA invitation) > clearly lists two topics directly related to the fellowship representative. > > So when looking at the record, a body of which you have been a member has > decided to remove that role by a vote, and you didn't cast or delegate your > vote. This is the crucial point! That would have been the opportunity to influence and change how the legal body works. Letting these opportunities pass and then opening countless disastrous discussions instead looks like nothing but trolling to me. ___ 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: application for FSFE e.V. membership and resignation
Hi Daniel, On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:12:14PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > If the abusive termination of somebody's membership by underhanded means > doesn't deserve a firm response, what does? Nobody argues against a *firm* response. You can be firm while still using constructive wording/language. > I would be just as outraged if any other member was subjected to similar > tactics by FSFE's executive and as fellowship representative, I would be > speaking up in their defence. I don't think there's anywhere near as much tactics or conspiracy behind it as you think. The point is, that the ultimate FSFE body responsible for making decision (the General Assembly) has cast a vote to change the internal structure of the organization, right? It is your right to protest against that, but ultimately, unless a majority of voting members is convinced by your arguments ahead of the vote, the decision is made. It seems that you neither attended the 2017 GA, nor delegated your vote, while the Agenda (which I suppose was delivered as part of the GA invitation) clearly lists two topics directly related to the fellowship representative. So when looking at the record, a body of which you have been a member has decided to remove that role by a vote, and you didn't cast or delegate your vote. > > What you are conveying with this kind of messages (to me) is that you > > feel personally injured and that you'd like to get as much attention > > to that. > > No, it is not about attention. As somebody else commented, that looks > like another attempt at character assassination. I am not attempting anything like that, I was merely reflecting on what impression your e-mails, blog-posts etc. of the past months are creating to me personally. > I simply feel that I have an obligation to the people who I agreed to > represented to tell the truth about the organization, for better or > worse. It is obvious that you have that feeling, as you have expressed in many ways. However, is that (subjective) feeling backed by actual support of at least a reasonable number of the former fellows and now supporters? > How come we never hear anybody suggesting that Tank Man was a selfish > attention seeker? I am sorry, I don't get the cultural reference / analogy here. I have no understanding who Tank Man is or was. > > As a side note, to put things into some perspective: To me, from the > > very beginning of the fellowship establishment, it was always *very* > > clear that being a fellow is not equal to being a voting member of the > > legal entity (e.V.). This model is quite commonly used in German > > e.V.'s, so no surprise at all. > > As the "E" in FSFE is for Europe and many members are outside Germany, > that may not be obvious to many of the people who have come into contact > with FSFE. That's correct. However, all related documents of FSFE have to my knowledge always been available in translated form to (at least) English. > Original posts about the fellowship do talk about it being a class of > membership and words like "join" have frequently been used. Yes, a "supporting membership" is not a "voting membership" and of course you can join an entity in any kind of role. I'm confident that at no point it was marketed as "become a voting/general member of the legal entity"? > At least one article[1] in Linux Magazine talks about fellows having a > vote at the GA after 12 months. That is of course unfortunate, but if you have ever dealt with press, you will notice that often it is inaccurate and not representing facts correctly due to inadequate research or misunderstandings. It would be useful if somebody had noticed it at that time to request a rebuttal/correction. > It is remarkable to look at the way > fellows are described there and in this post[2] and then read Erik's > recent post[3] suggesting fellows are no more than another corporate > donor who didn't deserve elections any more. You cannot compare third party publications with publications of FSFE itself. Any third party can have written anything. The point is, whether or not the FSFE has ever in an way indicated that the fellowship is about becoming a regular/voting member of the legal entity. > > What I am missing in your communication and related threads is the clear > > evidence that a reasonable number of "fellows" are actually supporting > > your position in these arguments. Without the clear support from at > > least a number of fellows, I think your argument is moot. > > One other fact that is not made public anywhere is that > membership/fellowship numbers started dropping at the end of last year. > We are talking about hundreds of people who stopped participating in the > program, that is a fact. I don't know if those people sent a reason and > if they didn't, we can only guess: was it because the change from > "fellow" to "supporter" feels like a downgrade? Did some of them see > the motion passed at the annual general meeting
Re: application for FSFE e.V. membership and resignation
On 28/08/18 09:01, Harald Welte wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I have been watching your rants on FSFE list and in other places for > a significant amount of time. Like others, I do believe your intentions > are good, but your tone and behaviour is not constructive at all. > Actually, I think you're damaging/discrediting your own position by > the agressive tone. If the abusive termination of somebody's membership by underhanded means doesn't deserve a firm response, what does? I would be just as outraged if any other member was subjected to similar tactics by FSFE's executive and as fellowship representative, I would be speaking up in their defence. > What you are conveying with this kind of messages (to me) is that you > feel personally injured and that you'd like to get as much attention > to that. No, it is not about attention. As somebody else commented, that looks like another attempt at character assassination. I simply feel that I have an obligation to the people who I agreed to represented to tell the truth about the organization, for better or worse. If all I wanted was attention I would have sent the email (or a blog) a lot earlier but I deferred doing so in the hope that there would be some sign of reform. How come we never hear anybody suggesting that Tank Man was a selfish attention seeker? > I don't have as much insight into the activities of the FSFE e.V. or > into the fellowship to comment in extensive details on the facts. > However, I've been involved with Free Software for more than two decades > now, and consider myself as a friend and supporter of the FSFE without > ever having had any formal role or title in it, or ever being a member. > > As a side note, to put things into some perspective: To me, from the > very beginning of the fellowship establishment, it was always *very* > clear that being a fellow is not equal to being a voting member of the > legal entity (e.V.). This model is quite commonly used in German > e.V.'s, so no surprise at all. As the "E" in FSFE is for Europe and many members are outside Germany, that may not be obvious to many of the people who have come into contact with FSFE. Original posts about the fellowship do talk about it being a class of membership and words like "join" have frequently been used. At least one article[1] in Linux Magazine talks about fellows having a vote at the GA after 12 months. It is remarkable to look at the way fellows are described there and in this post[2] and then read Erik's recent post[3] suggesting fellows are no more than another corporate donor who didn't deserve elections any more. However, that is only one aspect of the issue. > What I am missing in your communication and related threads is the clear > evidence that a reasonable number of "fellows" are actually supporting > your position in these arguments. Without the clear support from at > least a number of fellows, I think your argument is moot. One other fact that is not made public anywhere is that membership/fellowship numbers started dropping at the end of last year. We are talking about hundreds of people who stopped participating in the program, that is a fact. I don't know if those people sent a reason and if they didn't, we can only guess: was it because the change from "fellow" to "supporter" feels like a downgrade? Did some of them see the motion passed at the annual general meeting (October) to begin the process of removing elections? I suspect the former has had more impact than the latter. Many people agree that there is a lot of good work being done at FSFE and that is why people are frustrated about the governance issues, every time there is some change (e.g. renaming fellows to supporters, cancelling elections, ...) a few more people silently quit. This is another reason why it is important for serious public discussion to start, the previous discussions about these things all happened in a bubble. Instead of choosing to stop supporting FSFE, I would encourage people to come to Berlin on 7 October for the annual general meeting[4] and ask to be accepted as equal members. Regards, Daniel 1. http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/index.php/layout/set/print/Online/News/Free-Fellowships-at-FSFE 2. https://fsfe.org/news/2008/news-20081210-01.en.html 3. https://fsfe.org/news/2018/news-20180526-01.en.html 4. https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20180827/ae43734e/attachment-0001.pdf ___ 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: please be excellent to each other (Re: application for FSFE e.V. membership and resignation)
Hi Daniel, On 28.08.2018 09:25, Daniel Pocock wrote: > On 27/08/18 16:02, Erik Albers wrote: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> I like to believe that your activities and communication are with good >> intention and you like to change things for the good. However, you should >> keep >> in mind that we are a organically grown organization with an established >> communication and community culture. And although we are in a process of >> change, the methods you use are currently maybe not the best approach to >> achieve your goals. >> >> In any case it would be helpful if you could to stick to our rules of >> communication and try to be excellent to each other. > > When council included a motion in the agenda of the extraordinary > general meeting calling for the immediate termination of my membership, > that was not "being excellent to each other". "being excellent to each other" does not mean that people should not argue or insist on different opinions. But they should do so with a respectful communication towards each other. > Council has unleashed this poison into the community and only the > president can drag us out of that by resigning. Trying to shift the > blame onto me won't make any difference. I have felt bad about this > organization ever since I saw that motion in the notice of meeting. Any > way you look at it, it is bullying and abusive behaviour. I am feeling sorry for you that you feel so bad since then but this seems to be a personal problem. 1) the motion you are referring to was changed after your first criticism and so is nothing to refer to. 2) it was one motion out of three to decide on. so why not telling the whole story and also cite the other two motions? 3) most important: the vast majority of the FSFE members voted for another motion. A motion to keep you in office for the whole 2 year-term! Everybody can read this in the offical minutes: "The current Fellowship representatives' membership ends as soon as the constitutional change is successfully registered, or 2 years after their election, whichever comes later." (https://fsfe.org/about/legal/minutes/minutes-2018-05-26.en.pdf, p. 9) this vote is the result of a weighing in the reasons that speak against keeping "the institution of a fellowship representative" and the benefits to keep you as a person inside the GA. Unintelligible, you feel personally attacked since then although people voted to keep you in. >>> For example, you previously wrote in a private GA discussion that my >>> communications to fellows should be censored to ensure that >>> communications maximize donations (your comment in February: "people >>> might even stop to support us financially" if I write emails to the the >>> people who I am mandated to represent). But that is nonsense: the role >>> of a representative is not to maximize donations, my role is to ensure >>> the money already given to you is being spent as well as possible. For >>> trying to fulfil that role, you immediately set up an illegal conspiracy >>> to stab me in the back, publishing an internal censorship policy for >>> future communications and calling an extraordinary general meeting[4] on >>> a Saturday while I was out in Kosovo doing real free software activities >>> and voting on a motion tacked onto the end of the agenda to immediately >>> terminate my membership without cause. It is never nice to write such >>> strong words, but in a case like this, fellows deserve to know the ugly >>> truth about FSFE Council's behaviour and as the elected representative I >>> would be negligent if I didn't blow the lid on this. As the #MeToo >>> movement has demonstrated, sometimes it is necessary to call out >>> obnoxious behaviour to begin a process of reform. >> >> You are using very offensive language here that is against our code of >> conduct: >> >> "To foster tolerance, respect and hospitality in our community, we >> agree not to engage in discriminatory, disparaging or offensive speech >> or actions" >> >> Please refrain from doing so. > > > This looks like another attempt at censorship, this time trying to use > the code of conduct as justification. No, it is not. If you trespass our community rules and I kindly ask you to stop it, this is not censorship! Just as it is not intolerant if someone does not tolerate offending behaviour. Actually, speaking up and making myself target of your aggressive language unfortunately becomes more and more an act of courage. Your offensive language has a chilling effect on our discussions and I represent a silent majority who simply feels threaten to object your messages. Best, Erik -- No one shall ever be forced to use non-free software Erik Albers | Communication & Community Coordinator | FSFE OpenPGP Key-ID: 0x8639DC81 on keys.gnupg.net ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
Re: terminating memberships responsibly (was: please be excellent to each other (Re: application for FSFE e.V. membership and resignation))
Hi Daniel, [while I am quoting from this mail which I understand you have intended to be public, I only quote and respond on the points I believe the public can understand. My aim is to protect you, me and others from writing something in anger that afterwards cannot be retracted from public archives.] Am Dienstag 28 August 2018 22:05:05 schrieb Daniel Pocock: > On 28/08/18 09:27, Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > any organisation(+) reserves the right to exclude members that heavily > > obstruct the way it works. There is a point where this has to be done > > just so that people can go seperate ways. > > I would agree with that, but normally that involves a process of > mediation and then a specific communication with the member about it. What I've noticed in the e.V. interaction were that many people gave you feedback and offered help in getting your positions heard and acted upon. I did so on a number of occasions by mail. From what came out of if, I can only conclude that I was not good enough in helping you personally into the group and understand how it works. I'm sorry for this. > The FSFE constitution requires a member be given a reason for exclusion > and an opportunity to appeal. Those processes were not followed. [..] > It was attempted in [..] > an administrative motion tacked onto the last page of a 9 page notice > (attached), reading "The current Fellowship representatives' membership > ends immediately after the this extraordinary General Assembly." The other interpretation of the May assembly, that we wanted to be extra clear what happens to the existing fellowship representatives, so they are treated with respect and not having their term terminated by a formal oversight. In the end this documented that you and Mirko could stay longer (than some legal interpretations implied). > If people had differences of opinion with me, there have been many > opportunities to discuss that with me at events but for the record, I'd > like to make it clear no other member ever did so. Unfortunately we did not meet at events, because I rarely make it to events these days being a Dad, instead I wrote several emails stating my disagreement (or agreement) with your points. > However, even though I agree with you for the general case that a member > may need to be excluded from time to time, in this case we are talking > about an elected representative. As you can see from the email of our care team: You are sometimes perceived as being offensive and making information public that others trusted you with in private without a good reason they can understand. If a large majority of e.V. members believe this to be a major problem they could formally exclude you, no matter how you have become a member of the e.V. . So far, they haven't. > Also, it is not correct to moan about a democratically elected > representative "obstructing" anything: it is their responsibility to > speak up. An elected representative would have no reason to exist > otherwise, would they? It is helpful to have a different view on things, but if it is getting highly unconstructive I believe that a large majority has to make sure that other people's, ways of working and views within the organisation are protected as well. Speaking up in itself is not a virtue, bring up important points and convincing others to do something about them is. > So why is FSFE afraid to allow the full community to vote for president > or allow anybody from the community to nominate for the role of president? Essentially, because we are not a "state". I've explained this elsewhere. We cannot say who is part of the "demos". If we are open to everybody, we would have the majority opinion which for instance would mean a certain proprietary operating system on desktops. And FSFE is about a smaller group in society trying to convince others about Free Software, otherwise we would be unnecessary. > I feel a duty to see out the term for the benefit of those people > who don't have a voice in our general meetings or don't even get invited. Are you really helping other fellows by bringing up a number of motions where many others signalled you that this is a formal style that would not help the intended course? What do the heating and repeating formal discussions like this one do to help FSFE get better to help people get educated about Free Software? Everybody's opinion is invited in FSFE, and then we need to find a course of action making practically the best out of our limited resources. I am human, you are human we all are humans, we are making mistakes. Now we are here. It seems to not work out between you and FSFE, so my suggestion is let us agree on this and split. Best Regards, Bernhard -- FSFE -- Founding Member Support our work for Free Software: blogs.fsfe.org/bernhard https://fsfe.org/donate | contribute signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: please be excellent to each other (Re: application for FSFE e.V. membership and resignation)
Hi Daniel, Am Dienstag 28 August 2018 09:25:08 schrieb Daniel Pocock: > When council included a motion in the agenda of the extraordinary > general meeting calling for the immediate termination of my membership, > that was not "being excellent to each other". any organisation(+) reserves the right to exclude members that heavily obstruct the way it works. There is a point where this has to be done just so that people can go seperate ways. (+) <> It seems some people were asking the question if you were obstructing the FSFE from the inside for example with numerous motions that were hard to understand and never had a chance to pass because you were not able to convince others about them. Putting this to an explicit vote in May gave you security that you could stay in the FSFE for good. Otherwise if it had been time to end the relationship, maybe it is better to part ways for both parties. This may hurt your feelings, but it may also protect you from getting deeper into a bad relationship. The good part about an NGO is: You can leave and join a different one. > Council has unleashed this poison into the community and only the > president can drag us out of that by resigning. It would be unhelpful for a president that is supported by the majority of e.V. members to resign. Matthias is doing very good work for Free Software and FSFE, in my eyes. > How am I to communicate with the people who voted for me to represent > them? Do I have to send documents through wikileaks instead of using > the mailing list? Wouldn't that be absurd for an organization like FSFE? It is a matter of privacy and about understanding each other. Without context a statement can be missunderstood easily. It makes sense that within FSFE we educate each other, so we must be able to say and write "temporary" opinions just to get them corrected. Of course our internal invitation to e.V. members is internal, so we can have an effective internal meeting. There are many other occasions that are open to the public. Maybe it helps if you imagine sending an invitation to three friends for a meeting and someone makes this a social media invitation public for all. To me it would be rude. > The document in question is simply the invitation to our annual general > meeting and I would encourage everybody to attend a meeting like that. We don't, it is an internal meeting, we need work to get done. To participate you need to have a lot of context, something that cannot be provided on the spot. We took a great effort to help you have and understand this context (as we do with all new members to the e.V.). > I'm a member of many other groups and they all gain legitimacy by > engaging as many people as possible in their annual meetings. (I doubt it, most organisations have internal meetings, even public political parties. But this is beside the point I guess.) > What has FSFE got to hide and why? At the core (and simplified): FSFE has to maintain a way to work constructively. > I feel betrayed, both as the representative and also as an > ordinary fellow who didn't get to vote again this year. > > Fact: you can't tell me and other fellows how to feel > > But facts aren't everything. I do respect your feelings and kindly ask you to respect the feelings of others in the FSFE. As one of the founding members I feel it to be my duty to keep FSFE together as an organisation that can do work towards Free Software (and a better society as a result). Unfortunately I feel that many of your inputs over the last months have been overly bureaucratic and in cases unrespectful about other people within FSFE and their work. So it maybe better if you would leave FSFE. Best Regards, Bernhard -- FSFE -- Founding Member Support our work for Free Software: blogs.fsfe.org/bernhard https://fsfe.org/donate | contribute 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
Re: application for FSFE e.V. membership and resignation
Hi Daniel, I have been watching your rants on FSFE list and in other places for a significant amount of time. Like others, I do believe your intentions are good, but your tone and behaviour is not constructive at all. Actually, I think you're damaging/discrediting your own position by the agressive tone. What you are conveying with this kind of messages (to me) is that you feel personally injured and that you'd like to get as much attention to that. I don't have as much insight into the activities of the FSFE e.V. or into the fellowship to comment in extensive details on the facts. However, I've been involved with Free Software for more than two decades now, and consider myself as a friend and supporter of the FSFE without ever having had any formal role or title in it, or ever being a member. As a side note, to put things into some perspective: To me, from the very beginning of the fellowship establishment, it was always *very* clear that being a fellow is not equal to being a voting member of the legal entity (e.V.). This model is quite commonly used in German e.V.'s, so no surprise at all. What I am missing in your communication and related threads is the clear evidence that a reasonable number of "fellows" are actually supporting your position in these arguments. Without the clear support from at least a number of fellows, I think your argument is moot. So to summarize: * please change your tone to a less aggressive one * please allow the larger audience to understand if there are really a [significant] number of fellows that make the complians you raise, or whether you are making those complaints merely based on your own understanding of what your role as [former] fellowship representative should be? Regards, Harald -- - Harald Weltehttp://laforge.gnumonks.org/ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6) ___ 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: please be excellent to each other (Re: application for FSFE e.V. membership and resignation)
On 27/08/18 16:02, Erik Albers wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I like to believe that your activities and communication are with good > intention and you like to change things for the good. However, you should keep > in mind that we are a organically grown organization with an established > communication and community culture. And although we are in a process of > change, the methods you use are currently maybe not the best approach to > achieve your goals. > > In any case it would be helpful if you could to stick to our rules of > communication and try to be excellent to each other. When council included a motion in the agenda of the extraordinary general meeting calling for the immediate termination of my membership, that was not "being excellent to each other". Council has unleashed this poison into the community and only the president can drag us out of that by resigning. Trying to shift the blame onto me won't make any difference. I have felt bad about this organization ever since I saw that motion in the notice of meeting. Any way you look at it, it is bullying and abusive behaviour. > > On 27.08.2018 13:19, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> The notice of meeting for 2018 (attached) > This message was sent internally to all (temporary) members of FSFE. It is not > allowed on FSFE mailing lists to forward private notes without prior consent > of the original author. > This looks like another attempt at censorship How am I to communicate with the people who voted for me to represent them? Do I have to send documents through wikileaks instead of using the mailing list? Wouldn't that be absurd for an organization like FSFE? The document in question is simply the invitation to our annual general meeting and I would encourage everybody to attend a meeting like that. I'm a member of many other groups and they all gain legitimacy by engaging as many people as possible in their annual meetings. What has FSFE got to hide and why? > If you like to make a point about something having been discussed in a private > channel, you can paraphrase the content but you are not allowed to forward it > to one of FSFE's public mailing lists that is even publicly archived [1] and > therewith available for everyone with an Internet access. > > Such an activity, I guess, is illegal in many jurisdictions as a potential > invasion of privacy. Definitely it is forbidden on our lists. Where is the private content in the notice of the meeting? Everything in the notice of meeting eventually appears in the minutes which are published on the FSFE web site. Please stop trying to scare people with censorship, the FSFE community is not that gullible. > > >> For example, you previously wrote in a private GA discussion that my >> communications to fellows should be censored to ensure that >> communications maximize donations (your comment in February: "people >> might even stop to support us financially" if I write emails to the the >> people who I am mandated to represent). But that is nonsense: the role >> of a representative is not to maximize donations, my role is to ensure >> the money already given to you is being spent as well as possible. For >> trying to fulfil that role, you immediately set up an illegal conspiracy >> to stab me in the back, publishing an internal censorship policy for >> future communications and calling an extraordinary general meeting[4] on >> a Saturday while I was out in Kosovo doing real free software activities >> and voting on a motion tacked onto the end of the agenda to immediately >> terminate my membership without cause. It is never nice to write such >> strong words, but in a case like this, fellows deserve to know the ugly >> truth about FSFE Council's behaviour and as the elected representative I >> would be negligent if I didn't blow the lid on this. As the #MeToo >> movement has demonstrated, sometimes it is necessary to call out >> obnoxious behaviour to begin a process of reform. > > You are using very offensive language here that is against our code of > conduct: > > "To foster tolerance, respect and hospitality in our community, we > agree not to engage in discriminatory, disparaging or offensive speech > or actions" > > Please refrain from doing so. This looks like another attempt at censorship, this time trying to use the code of conduct as justification. > > >> Personally, I feel that my highest responsibility is to those who >> elected me and gave me a mandate and I do not wish to be in a position >> that puts me above the rest of the wider FSFE community > Then please consider your audience and as a representative of our community, I > kindly ask you to help establish a friendly and peaceful environment for every > participant. > > Personally, in times of fake-news, populism and attention economy, this is > something that I would love to see the Free Software community to excel: > transparent, fact-based discussions with respect towards each other. Fact:
Re: application for FSFE e.V. membership and resignation
Hi list, I was the first elected fellowship representative and am still part of the legal body FSFE e.V. where I had to see this kind of trolling for way too long already. Lots of time and energy wasted that could otherwise have been spent to further Free Software. I'll personally back out of this "discussion" again and focus on the latter. Kind Regards, Torsten ___ 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
application for FSFE e.V. membership and resignation
Hi Matthias, I am writing to you directly, with CC to the FSFE community, as this is the procedure for membership described[1] in the constitution of FSFE e.V. I understand that previous Fellowship representatives have written to you privately on this basis and been granted FSFE e.V. membership beyond their two year term as a Fellowship representative. FSFE e.V.'s recent decision to remove[2] the Fellowship and Fellowship elections from the constitution creates a difficult situation for me. As a member of the Fellowship, elected by fellows, I have a responsibility to the Fellowship. As long as two or more people consider themselves fellows, the Fellowship still exists as an organization because that is the definition of a fellowship. Removing it from the constitution doesn't make it go away. FSFE e.V.'s meeting in 2017 recognized (item 15 in the minutes[3]) that contributors are not members and despite a split of the GA, it was resolved to bring them in as members, yet nothing has been done to implement this motion. The notice of meeting for 2018 (attached) suggests that out of 1,700 fellows, only one person has been proposed for FSFE e.V. membership and I feel this makes a mockery of the motion passed in 2017. Last year's decision and the lack of effort to implement it further emphasises the fact that fellows and volunteers are a separate group, not being members. You view us as a resource to be exploited rather than equal participants. As FSFE e.V. and the Fellowship are now separate bodies with no defined relationship, there is clearly a conflict of interest for somebody elected by one organization (the Fellowship) to be a member of another organization (FSFE e.V.). Therefore, I want to make it clear to everybody that where my obligations to the Fellowship are not aligned with obligations to the residual members of FSFE e.V., I will be putting my obligation to fellows first as that is the only responsible thing an elected representative can do. Some members of FSFE e.V. have expressed resentment about this situation but the fact is, fellows were promised representation and they need good representation now more than ever. For example, you previously wrote in a private GA discussion that my communications to fellows should be censored to ensure that communications maximize donations (your comment in February: "people might even stop to support us financially" if I write emails to the the people who I am mandated to represent). But that is nonsense: the role of a representative is not to maximize donations, my role is to ensure the money already given to you is being spent as well as possible. For trying to fulfil that role, you immediately set up an illegal conspiracy to stab me in the back, publishing an internal censorship policy for future communications and calling an extraordinary general meeting[4] on a Saturday while I was out in Kosovo doing real free software activities and voting on a motion tacked onto the end of the agenda to immediately terminate my membership without cause. It is never nice to write such strong words, but in a case like this, fellows deserve to know the ugly truth about FSFE Council's behaviour and as the elected representative I would be negligent if I didn't blow the lid on this. As the #MeToo movement has demonstrated, sometimes it is necessary to call out obnoxious behaviour to begin a process of reform. People are asking how FSFE e.V. can raise[5] almost EUR 650,000 in one year and spend barely EUR 37,000 on producing merchandise. The public pages about financial transparency don't give enough information to answer that. With well over half of the funds now coming from the corporate sector and the two most senior staff enjoying lengthy periods of paternity leave in 2018, people are also asking whether it is reasonable for volunteers to contribute their time and personal funds at all. There are many organizations in the free software world who we can contribute to and FSFE e.V. should not take us for granted. Personally, I feel that my highest responsibility is to those who elected me and gave me a mandate and I do not wish to be in a position that puts me above the rest of the wider FSFE community by accepting a "regular" membership of FSFE e.V. if other members of the Fellowship and volunteers are excluded from the same membership. In fact, I feel it would constitute an act of betrayal for someone elected to represent the community to suddenly transition to being a member of an elite, unelected group before their term as representative had even finished. Membership is critical for all members of our community because that gives everybody the right to attend the annual meeting, to propose motions for the agenda, to nominate for roles in council and to hold council responsible to the whole community. In other words, membership is the only basis for good governance. The constitution empowers you to grant all fellows and volunteers membership
