Re: the questions you really want FSFE to answer
On 15/06/18 18:28, Torsten Grote wrote: > On 06/14/2018 07:25 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> There are currently no other elected representatives of the community in >> the General Assembly > > I am a bit surprised by this claim. What do you consider "the community" > and do you think I am part of it? The role itself is an institution, bigger than either you or I. Your term finished, you applied for and were accepted as an ordinary member of the General Assembly so you no longer occupy the role of a representative. That is not to question the involvement of ordinary GA members in the community. However, only the currently sitting representative(s) have the responsibility and mandate that comes with a representative role. 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 06/14/2018 07:25 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > There are currently no other elected representatives of the community in > the General Assembly I am a bit surprised by this claim. What do you consider "the community" and do you think I am part of it? ___ 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: > On 14/06/18 21:58, Florian Snow wrote: >> 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 agree with that statement. Please re-read my comment; I did not complain about your questions. I don't like your insults, especially in this case when they are also untruthful. You know I made several suggestions to improve community involvement and influence in the GA, so I will not stand for your personal attacks. You are very much _not_ the last man standing for democracy in the FSFE. Democracy is not about who can yell the most or who can yell the loudest. Your current actions are often disruptive and drown out other people's ideas and voices in the GA. And when you ask questions, you often fail to do so and follow up in any sort of structured way, and you draw conclusions from details that often do not represent what the majority in the GA actually think. Also, the last time you asked for community feedback in person, you afterwards failed to answer any questions about comparing your stated goal with the outcome and you report stayed anecdotal. Please be more constructive; I want to work with you, not against you. 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 Daniel, Daniel Pocock writes: > While some people don't care about elections or proper membership, Disagreement with a specific implementation of an idea does not mean not caring about that idea. > other people do care about it so much that they stopped contributing Perhaps I missed that and then I apologize, but did you bring that up to the GA with specific examples? > 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. A call to order is also a normal part of democracy because it keeps the discussion civil. No one censured you; we are simply asking you to refrain from attacks and insults. 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
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
