Open Letter - Code of Conduct impersonation

[Daniel Pocock]

Please share:

https://danielpocock.com/open-letter-acm-codes-of-ethics-conduct/

If anybody would like to add any more examples please send them to me.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

legal verdict on WeMakeFedora.org - abuse of process

[Daniel Pocock]

This verdict sets a precedent: volunteers can register domain names
including open source trademarks like Fedora, Debian and Mozilla as long
as you are acting in good faith and doing so for a non-commercial reason.

https://danielpocock.com/harassment-decision-victory-for-volunteers-and-fedora-foundations/
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Fwd: FSF's New Executive Director

[Daniel Pocock]

On 06/03/2022 07:10, netcitizen wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, 4. March 2022 20:12, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
> 
> This is the message I sent to RMS.
> 
> *
> 
> I want to think you got explicit permission to post those messages here.
> 
> By the way, did FSFLA ever published something about Stallman's 
> cancelation in 2019 or 2021? I haven't seen any, but maybe there is.
> 
> Regarding my rather blunt response about RMS and LP,  I was shocked by
> your justification for not speaking up, but that is only because I tend
> to judge things according to my own values. I would swim oceans across
> and climb mountains on bare feet to help a friend in need. To put it on
> a more realistic scenario, I would even use some non-free tool. In fact,
> even Stallman had to do it in order to help us; we wouldn't have GNU
> otherwise.
> 
> "In 1983 I decided to develop the GNU operating system, as a free
> replacement for Unix. The feasible way to do it was to write and test
> the components one by one on Unix. But was it legitimate to use Unix for
> this? And was it legitimate to ask others to use Unix for this, given
> that Unix was proprietary software? [] The conclusion I reached was
> that using Unix to put an end to the use of Unix was legitimate for me
> to suggest to other developers. I likened it to participating in small
> ways in some evil activity, such as a criminal gang or a dishonest
> political campaign, in order to expose it and shut it down."

RMS has written an uncannily accurate description of the FSFE - when
exactly did he write those words?

-- 
Debian Developer
https://danielpocock.com
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: RMS Kicked Out - Supporters Silent

[Daniel Pocock]

On 01/03/2022 12:14, netcitizen wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, 28. February 2022 23:57, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
> 
> Ha anyone asked the organizers or RMS?
> 
> Looks like someone has:
> 
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2022-02/msg00072.html
> 
> But still no answer from the organizers or comments from Stallman's
> supporters.

LibrePlanet list is censored

https://danielpocock.com/what-does-fsf-censor/

GNU is also compromised: people with gnu.org email addresses are
prevented from subscribing to or receiving email from the
lists.fsfellowship.eu

These things are the very reason the community needs this list

Regards,

Daniel

-- 
Debian Developer
https://danielpocock.com
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: RMS Kicked Out - Supporters Silent

[Daniel Pocock]

On 01/03/2022 00:57, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
> El 2022-02-28 16:05, netcitizen escribió:
>> Stallman is conspicuous by his absence in this schedule
>>
>> https://libreplanet.org/2022/speakers/
>>
>> And his supporters --assuming he has any left-- conspicuously absent
>> in public discussion
>>
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2022-02/msg00068.html
> 
> Ha anyone asked the organizers or RMS?

RMS is just the canary in the coal mine

What this tells us is that LibrePlanet may be dead in 3 to 5 years from
now. Maybe it will only be attended by former FSF interns speaking about
safe spaces in an empty room.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...


> ___
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
> https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> 

-- 
https://danielpocock.com
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: WeMakeFedora is under attack

[Daniel Pocock]

On 23/02/2022 15:40, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
> Hi.
> 
>>> I don't support Fedora because it is not a free distro.
>>
>> Why do you say that Fedora is not a Free distro?
> 
> "Fedora does have a clear policy about what can be included in the
> distribution, and it seems to be followed carefully. The policy requires
> that most software and all fonts be available under a free license, but
> makes an exception for certain kinds of nonfree firmware. Unfortunately,
> the decision to allow that firmware in the policy keeps Fedora from
> meeting the free system distribution guidelines."
> Citation from https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html

The Fedora Foundations also claim that Fedora promotes free Content

The censorship of certain blogs from Planet Fedora and censorship of
certain developers on mailing lists proves that the foundations are not
being taken seriously

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/


-- 
Debian Developer
https://danielpocock.com
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

WeMakeFedora is under attack

[Daniel Pocock]

Please see my blog about the attack

https://danielpocock.com/wemakefedora-and-ukraine-under-attack/
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: [FSFLA] LibreJam - FSF* should host a Libre Game development tournament!

[Daniel Pocock]

On 02/01/2022 07:59, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
> Packaging a program in distros is crucial for the community because it
> leads to various teams that independently work on the program, and
> thus have a chance to make sure it is honest.  This is why free
> software tends not to be malware.

This does not happen in practice but it could happen.

In Debian I've observed that people put more scrutiny on each other than
on the code.

The words used in their most recent mob outbreak can be seen as a
confession that decisions are made by secret tribunals and secret
(fictional) evidence.

The mentality behind that needs careful analysis: they are saying "trust
us because we are a distribution".  Yet the moment we let our guard down
and give anybody absolute trust, they will change the rules.  It is
human nature and it happens in every domain.

Several character attack emails, including the anti-Appelbaum mob (2016)
and anti-RMS mob at Easter 2021, were linked to a Pentagon employee,
Paul Tagliamonte.  He was pictured with the chairman of the joint
chiefs.  We are asked to trust all the words of these mobs because "it
is Debian".  In Afghanistan, when they made a drone strike on a guy
transporting water bottles, the Pentagon also asked us to trust them,
their anonymous experts had confirmed he was a suicide bomber.

These people and their goals appear to be intent upon preventing
distributions from fully achieving their potential as independent and
trustworthy reviewers of code.  Above all else, they are creating a cult
around their name.  The code, even if it is better than malware, is
still second to their aggressive (anti-)social agendas.

> You may be right that it doesn't particularly help on other dimensions,
> but this one is a must.
> 
> Also, we in our community use distros of GNU/Linux, so if we sponsor or 
> promote
> a program (game or not) we will want it to be packaged for our distros.
> 
> 

-- 
Debian Developer
https://danielpocock.com
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Hong Kong's elections modeled on Free Software organizations

[Daniel Pocock]

Looks like FSFE and Debian, you can only vote for candidates approved by
Google / China

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/21/china-accuses-australia-of-violent-interference-in-five-eyes-response-to-hong-kong-election



-- 
Debian Developer
https://danielpocock.com
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Daniel Pocock with young Albanian women

[Daniel Pocock]

On 12/06/2021 18:42, aristo...@tutanota.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Jun 12, 2021, 15:22 by team@debian.community:
> 
> https://danielpocock.com/assets/img/slider/oscal-ham-radio.jpg
> 
> This picture captures the happy dandy with a bunch of women at
> least ten
> years younger.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a ham radio demonstration. The head of Kosovo's amateur radio
> society is also a woman.
> 
> 
> Excuses.
> 
> It is not really comparable to the photo of an intoxicated Matthias
> Kirschner who appears to be unable to look straight at the camera
> 
> 
> You hide your intoxicated eyes behind sun glasses.


FSFE man "aristocat" sees "Albanian women" in the photo

When I see the photo, I simply see a group of developers working
together on a demo.

The fact that they are Albanian and the fact they are women is not
relevant to their participation in a technical demo.

The only person in any of these photos who is not a developer is the
President of FSFE.

Regards,

Daniel

--
Debian Developer
https://danielpocock.com
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FSFE's Kirschner intoxicated with Albanian women

[Daniel Pocock]

On 08/06/2021 10:50, aristo...@tutanota.com (FSFE General Assembly) wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Jun 8, 2021, 08:41 by team@debian.community:
> 
> 
> mother is Albanian whore.
> 
> 
> Albanian whores do more work than anybody at FSFE
> 
> 
> [volunteer] asshole knows because dick in ass of Albanian whore

You employed a woman from Albania as an FSFE intern

The way that you German FSFE men conflate Albanian women with
prostitution is an incredible act of disrespect for every woman in the
developing world.

If you treat women with respect and dignity you would not need to pay
them to be your friends.

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Elections

[Daniel Pocock]

On 14/05/2021 23:54, aristo...@tutanota.com wrote:
> 
> 
> May 14, 2021, 20:38 by dan...@pocock.pro:
> 
> 
> Elections are always a great idea. Democracy. Bring it on.
> 
> 
> Fake democracy for fake elections for fake group.


What is the difference between Open Source and Free Software?

Open Source has fake leaders with fake principles

FSFE has a fake leader.  Matthias Kirschner never wrote any code.  He is
just a pocket-size nazi that Google found in the bargain sale.

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Elections

[Daniel Pocock]

On 14/05/2021 12:50, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The Council has once again failed to call elections, so I'd like to 
> announce my intention of standing for election to the Council. I'm a 
> former member of the FSF board of directors, a winner of the FSF Award 
> for the Advancement of Free Software, and I have spent a large amount of 
> time over the past few years writing free software to replace 
> proprietary components running in a variety of circumstances. I continue 
> to write free software and assist organisations in demonstrating that 
> vendors are failing to comply with the GPL. I am also an EU citizen, and 
> so am at no risk of jeopardising the right to use the fsfellowship.eu 
> domain.
> 
> Daniel, if nobody else is willing to do so, could you please run the 
> election again and include me on the ballot?



Elections are always a great idea.  Democracy.  Bring it on.

Fellowship elections are far more positive than the negativity of the
Debian vote on Dr Richard Stallman.

The Debian vote about Dr Stallman had all the negativity of an expulsion.

But Dr Stallman was never a member of Debian

How can you have an expulsion vote for somebody who is not a member?

It was not an expulsion.  Molly de Blanc and all those who seconded the
motion have endorsed the mindset of the acid attack.

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Pentagon linked to RMS, Jacob Appelbaum plots through Debian

[Daniel Pocock]

On 06/04/2021 02:44, Danny Spitzberg wrote:
> Oh funny... 
> 
> Is this a rendering of RMS in 2018 angrily yelling “we’re not licked
> yet!!!” from the back of the auditorium, and then rushing down the aisle
> to the stage to grab the mic and berate the speaker’s points about why
> the global free software movement might benefit some improvements? 
> 
> That outburst was when I first started to doubt if RMS deserved
> complete, unquestioned loyalty.
> 
> Unfortunately that part of the livestream was cut out but folks at
> LibrePlanet might recall.


Organizations need a process for evaluating incidents like this fairly
and objectively.

In hindsight, it is really hard to be sure for people who were not there.

For example, when Linus made some comments at DebConf there was a big
fuss.  Many people complained that nobody was willing to interrupt
Linus.  People want to have their cake and eat it too.

In parallel with all that, I feel it is important to help everybody
develop their own speaking skills.  When multiple people have the same
level of confidence as RMS it will do a lot more to help distribute
power.  These are positive strategies, better than a cancel mob.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Pentagon linked to RMS, Jacob Appelbaum plots through Debian

[Daniel Pocock]

Both RMS and Appelbaum cases... Pentagon, White House

You can't make this up

https://danielpocock.com/jacob-appelbaum-character-assassination-pushed-from-white-house/
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: billing Molly for wasted developer time?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 31/03/2021 20:58, Danny Spitzberg wrote:
> It’s interesting to think that Molly might be responsible for other
> people's choices on how they spend their time. 

Many people felt trapped for approximately 5 hours during the US Capitol
mob:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trapped+during+us+capitol+mob+hours=ffab=web

I don't think it was a choice.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

censorship or technical issues on fsf.org and gnu.org lists?

[Daniel Pocock]

Does anybody know what is going on with gnu.org and fsf.org?


I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.


: host eggs.gnu.org[209.51.188.92] said: 550 bad
domain - email sysad...@fsf.org for details (in reply to RCPT TO
command)



: host eggs.gnu.org[209.51.188.92] said: 550 bad
domain - email sysad...@fsf.org for details (in reply to RCPT TO
command)
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

WeMakeFedora.org - an alternative to FedoraPlanet.org

[Daniel Pocock]

Hi all,

FedoraPlanet.org stopped syndicating blogs from volunteers last week
during some major upgrade works

While it was not working, various news appeared about RMS

I made a fork at WeMakeFedora.org - please help raise awareness of this
site among Fedora users

https://WeMakeFedora.org

https://wemakefedora.org/rss20.xml

https://wemakefedora.org/atom.xml

They moved the fedora-council discussion list to a Discourse forum.
Since then, they have been trigger happy in deleting anything that is
inconvenient, especially posts about RMS.  I attach an example of a
censored post below.

With attitude like this, it is really important for people in the Fedora
world to follow the new site.

Regards,

Daniel


 Forwarded Message 
Subject:Flagged post removed by staff [Fedora] [PM]
Date:   Tue, 30 Mar 2021 16:51:25 +
From:   system via Fedora Discussion 
Reply-To:   system via Fedora Discussion

To: dan...@pocock.com.au



[system]system 
March 30

Hello,

This is an automated message from Fedora Discussion to let you know that
your post

was removed.

Your post was flagged as *off-topic*: the community feels it is not a
good fit for the topic, as currently defined by the title and the first
post.

This post was flagged by the community and a staff member opted to
remove it.

|I would not have posted about FSFE again spontaneously but nonetheless,
the recent debates about FSF and RMS and public statements compel me to
ask the question: if a woman was so concerned about FSFE that she took
them to court, why are they not being held to the same standards as RMS?
Red Hat is listed as one of their top sponsors. This particular post
summarizes the events in FSFE leading up to the woman's court case:

http://fsfellowship.eu/matthias-kirschner-jonas-oberg-fsfe-paternity-maternity-hypocrisy/

This is one reason why it is better for a large organization like Red
Hat or Fedora not to make public statements about FSF. Sooner or later,
somebody always finds a huge contradiction like this. |

Please review our community guidelines
 for details.



Visit Message



___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: NSA, GCHQ & Debian links, Jonathan Wiltshire, Tiger Computing?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 28/10/2020 23:49, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> The registrant information for danielpocock.com contains an address only 
> around 3 miles from the headquarters of MI6. Not only that, the same 
> address was the registered office for two fradulant companies 
> (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/high-court-orders-six-more-bogus-multi-million-pound-companies-into-liquidation).
>  
> Is it reasonable to conclude that you're operating on behalf of MI6?

Boring!

My post office box at Melbourne University was less than one meter from
Julian Assange of Wikileaks.  He was living a few hundred meters down
the road.

I spent four years living in St Albans, Herts, where Kim Philby
infamously plundered the MI6 archives.  Did you read his book?

It is always a pleasure to collaborate with my peers in the UK but I
have no respect for those who insult my family.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: NSA, GCHQ & Debian links, Jonathan Wiltshire, Tiger Computing?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 27/10/2020 05:15, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 10:30:57PM +0100, Debian Community News Team wrote:
>> Garfield is going to love this... Tiger Computing could be the link from
>> GCHQ to Debian
>>
>> https://debian.community/jonathan-wiltshire-debian-falsified-harassment-claims-tiger-computing-gchq/
> 
> Could you walk us through this a little more clearly? Is the suggestion 
> that GCHQ infiltrated DAM and that your expulsion from Debian was 
> encouraged by individuals working for the British signal intelligence 
> organisation?

Are you suggesting the individuals working for the British signal
intelligence organisation are lazy and never thought of infiltrating
Debian because they are busy doing crosswords?
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Black Ribbon Day & FSFEGoogle

[Daniel Pocock]

On 18/08/2020 10:30, aristo...@tutanota.com wrote:
> That again shows the sick mind of Daniel Pocock and his split personalities.


I'd rather have split personalities than be a slave to Debian/FSFE
groupthink and have no personality at all


___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

publishing a Fellowship keyring

[Daniel Pocock]

Hi all,

It is obvious that quite a few people downloaded the list of Fellows
when FSFE was making it available to all Fellows through mailman.

We've also seen a recent trend in some projects to push people into
using Discourse forums instead of mailing lists, all private messages
between members are forced to go through a central server where they can
be monitored or undermined.

Many people feel that if you are going to invest time participating in
an online community then it is important to know who you interact with
and have ways to communicate with other members directly.  You take a
big risk participating in any forum/bulletin-board, if the project is
forked, the server crashes or there is an outbreak of censorship, you
lose all your contacts on that platform.

In Debian, we have the Debian keyring and I feel that it might be a good
idea to put all the Fellowship email addresses on a single keyring too.
 Then any member can use the keyring to communicate with any other
member or the entire Fellowship.  I feel this will make the Fellowship
more equal.

I propose to publish the keyring in IPFS later this week but if anybody
wants to make any alternative suggestions, please do so.

Regards,

Daniel

--
Debian Developer
https://danielpocock.com


___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: close of nominations (was: Elections?)

[Daniel Pocock]

On 20/06/2020 10:11, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Do we have any results for the election?

There was one nomination and that implies they win by default.

Various people wrote to me privately and gave me their opinions on FSFE
and the Fellowship.  There is nothing new about it, it demonstrates that
free software (Stallman) and open source (FSFE) is only becoming more
polarized:

- people naive about the way FSFE has become a Google puppet resent the
idea of any independent discussion like this mailing list

- people who felt deceived by FSFE's fake fellowships/memberships don't
want to be indirectly reminded about FSFE any more.  An independent
fellowship is still a reminder of how they were sucked in by Matthias
Kirschner's ponzi scheme.  They would rather give their time and money
to other groups.  Some don't want anything to do with any group funded
by Google or anything about open source now.

These trends are not new though: you only have to read the resignation
of Armijn Hemel (copied below) to see that people have been abandoning
FSFE for a long time.  As Armijn puts it "FSFE gets very defensive, or
launches personal attacks ... vicious personal attack ... the negative
far outweighs the positive (because there is very little positive left
in my opinion)"

Regards,

Daniel




 Forwarded Message 
Subject: [Legal Team] leaving FSFE's legal team
From: Armijn Hemel - Tjaldur Software Governance Solutions

To: le...@lists.fsfe.org 
CC: g...@lists.fsfe.org

hello all,

I have decided to leave FSFE's legal team after almost 12 years. This
was not an easy decision to make and it has actually been on my mind for
many many months.

My frustration with FSFE has been growing for the last number of years.
When the new leadership team came on board it was to be expected that
some things would change but unfortunately it was not the change I had
hoped for. While there are many things that have contributed to my
decision there are a few core issues that are central. I am going to
explain these and hope that FSFE's leadership will (finally) listen and
take action.

* Decreased engagement of the legal team

Where before the legal team would be consulted for its opinion prior to
decisions regarding the legal strategy of FSFE or other issues affecting
the legal team it now seems that the legal team is merely informed of
the decisions made by FSFE's management. This has had profound effects
on the motivation of the legal team. While before there used to be a
flurry of activity this is no longer the case, and there are very few
conversations about real legal issues or discussions about legal
questions, and so on.

* Decreased visibility in the outside world regarding legal issues and
policy, no vision and forgetting about core goals

In the years prior to current management there was quite a bit of work
being done to collaborate with Brussels and international business
communities. This seems to have completely fallen to the side. Instead
FSFE seems to focus much more on short term goals like campaigns, which
will create a bit of press for a short time before moving on to the next
campaign. While campaigns are good they are short term and have limited
value without long term follow up. This part is missing.

There is no long term vision ("what do we want to achieve with FSFE in
the next 5 years?"), there are no ties being forged in the political
arena (apart from fringe parties like the Pirate Party or the Green
Party, which contributes to being ignored by others), and core goals
seem to be forgotten. Instead of working towards strengthening free
software's position in Europe and shaping how free software is perceived
(both I would consider core goals) the focus has shifted to goals like
gender diversity. While these goals are worthy they seem to have
replaced (instead of augmented) FSFE's original objective and I don't
think this is the right way forward.

* No knowledge being institutionalized

Knowledge about people, events, and political sensitivities, etc. is not
institutionalized. Several times when talking to the president and legal
coordinator about topics I became aware that we had already discussed
these matters before. However the information was treated as new to the
other party. Looking through my notes and e-mail archives later, and
talking to other people on the legal team, I confirmed that these topics
had indeed been covered already (one example was NIPA from Korea).

Additionally, the executive team and staff seem to be unwilling to
learn about the people and organizations active in the field (who is
who, what are their goals and motivations, where is their place in the
hierarchy and so on), despite being nudged repeatedly to be aware and
engaged by several people including me. Without this information it is
very difficult to operate effectively.

* Bad organizational management

FSFE feels like it is reverting back to being run like a student union,
whereas in the past people tried to 

Re: close of nominations (was: Elections?)

[Daniel Pocock]

Maybe we need a deadline

Nominations close Friday, 29 May 2020 at 12:00 UTC



On 25/05/2020 12:18, garfi...@tutanota.de wrote:
> 
> It can only be Monday
> 
> I hate Mondays
> 
> I nominate
> 
> My platform is a dog
> 
> https://garfield.com/comic/1981/07/29
> 
> I hate Mondays
> 
> 
> -- 
> Securely sent with Tutanota. Get your own encrypted, ad-free mailbox:
> https://tutanota.com
> 
> 
> May 25, 2020, 03:46 by mj...@srcf.ucam.org:
> 
> On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 08:38:51PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 03/05/2020 10:40, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > It's been a year since the announcement of the last set of
> elections for
> > the Fellowship. Will the elected representatives be calling new
> > elections?
> >
> 
> The Fellowship Council hasn't given any report on their progress
> so far.
> 
> Joe, Florian, Mr Garfield?
> 
> I volunteer to run the election again as I won't be a candidate
> myself.
> 
> 
> Three weeks without response - is it possible to unilaterally call an
> election?
> 
> -- 
> Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
> ___
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
> https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
> https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> 
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Elections?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 03/05/2020 10:40, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> It's been a year since the announcement of the last set of elections for 
> the Fellowship. Will the elected representatives be calling new 
> elections?
> 

The Fellowship Council hasn't given any report on their progress so far.

Joe, Florian, Mr Garfield?

I volunteer to run the election again as I won't be a candidate myself.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: $5, 000 troll bounty (was: Debian taking censorship to a new level)

[Daniel Pocock]

On 17/03/2020 20:45, (another) garfield wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
> 
> Why did you falsely claim that Sam Hartman sent an email to debian-private 
> titled "debconf19 diversity girls"? Do you think that lying about the 
> behaviour of other people is a good thing to do?


I didn't write it, now it looks like the trolls have been caught.

There you have it.  The trolls were using free software communities as a
training ground to prepare for the US elections.

Regards,

Daniel



https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/13/facebook-uncovers-russian-led-troll-network-based-in-west-africa

Quote:
During the cold war, the KGB sought to exploit smouldering racial
divisions in the US with a series of “active measures”. According to
Oleg Kalugin, Moscow’s former spy chief in America, the KGB carried out
a series of dirty tricks.
These included writing anonymous racist hate letters to African
diplomats in New York, purporting to come from American white
supremacists. Kalugin and his fellow KGB officers, posing as
journalists, published these letters, quoting them as examples of
rampant American racism.



___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: $5, 000 troll bounty (was: Debian taking censorship to a new level)

[Daniel Pocock]

On 13/03/2020 21:35, garfield wrote:
> On Thursday, March 12, 2020 9:37 PM, garfield  
> wrote:
> 
>> On Thursday, March 12, 2020 3:16 PM, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/03/2020 19:47, garfield wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, March 12, 2020 6:42 AM, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/03/2020 08:22, garfield wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:10 AM, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>> There is a discussion[1] now on debian-project about adding new
>>>>>>> moderation / censorship systems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>>> Could it be because of mails like 
>>>>>> https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/pipermail/discussion/2020-March/000803.html
>>>>>>  that you are sending to mailing lists with false identities associated 
>>>>>> with them? Why do you keep falsely accusing people of saying things they 
>>>>>> didn't say?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is kind of obvious that leak was not sent by Mark Shuttleworth, look
>>>>> at the sender address:
>>>>> shuttleworthl...@protonmail.com
>>>>
>>>> It claims to include a mail from Sam Hartman . Why 
>>>> did you fake that?
>>>
>>> Why do you believe I sent it?
>>
>> Because you sent it. Do you deny sending it?
> 
> I guess you don't deny sending it.

Cats kill so many things.  Do you deny a cat killed JFK?
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: $5, 000 troll bounty (was: Debian taking censorship to a new level)

[Daniel Pocock]

On 12/03/2020 19:47, garfield wrote:
> On Thursday, March 12, 2020 6:42 AM, Daniel Pocock  wrote:
> 
>> On 12/03/2020 08:22, garfield wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:10 AM, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> There is a discussion[1] now on debian-project about adding new
>>>> moderation / censorship systems.
>>>
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>> Could it be because of mails like 
>>> https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/pipermail/discussion/2020-March/000803.html 
>>> that you are sending to mailing lists with false identities associated with 
>>> them? Why do you keep falsely accusing people of saying things they didn't 
>>> say?
>>
>> It is kind of obvious that leak was not sent by Mark Shuttleworth, look
>> at the sender address:
>>
>> shuttleworthl...@protonmail.com
> 
> It claims to include a mail from Sam Hartman . Why 
> did you fake that?

Why do you believe I sent it?

The basic premise of the message appears to be Debian and Ubuntu had a
fight over a woman.  I suspect there are a lot of trolls who could make
up a plot like that, it is not exactly sophisticated.

A few weeks ago I saw a fake Greta Thunberg message here, maybe she was
using our list to warm up for this prank?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8102639/Prince-Harry-handed-Russian-hoaxers-mobile-phone-number-personal-email-address.html

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Debian taking censorship to a new level

[Daniel Pocock]

Hi all,

There is a discussion[1] now on debian-project about adding new
moderation / censorship systems.

In particular, they talk about a reputation scoring system that would
span multiple mailing lists.

This appears quite scary, the people who control the scoring would be
able to blackmail people.  They already send defamatory emails written
manually, a reputation scoring system would give them a way to undermine
a victim even more quickly.

Would they be tempted to use such mechanisms in political situations and
witch hunts, such as the next RMS lynching or the DebConf Israel
controversy?

Can anybody propose constructive alternatives?

Regards,

Daniel


1. https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2020/02/msg00117.html
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: fsfe still doing valentines

[Daniel Pocock]

On 11/02/2020 01:04, freeme...@tutanota.com wrote:
>> It adds to the perception of cult phenomena in some Free 
>> Softwareorganizations.  Cults often try to make their practices supersede 
>> normaltraditions.
> while i might agree with you that the fsfe is acting (increasingly) like a 
> cult, im not sure this is one of the reasons i would think so.

On its own, the Valentine's thing is just a bit odd.  When you put all
the different anti-features of the organization together, I see a cult.


> celebrating holidays, or even borrowing them for promotional purposes, is 
> pretty mainstream i think. a car dealer can have a valentines day sale, that 
> doesnt mean theyre trying to supersede the valentines day tradition. 
> valentines day mostly means "go buy a card, flowers, chocolate." say 
> something nice about someone who means a lot. 

The car dealer is encouraging you to buy the car as a gift

The messages from the retailers are not "I love cars" or "I love flowers".


> its not a very big deal culturally, except consumer-culturally-- in terms of 
> the shit youll be in if you neglect someone expecting some romantic overture 
> in "celebration."
> 
> ill be happy to pin blame on fsfe for the worst nonsense theyve done, but 
> this seems trivial. except of course, that talking about free software and 
> love so soon after stabbing the founder of the entire CONCEPT behind what you 
> do, seems very insincere, even cynical. if im going to critique them for the 
> entire idea itself, id rather know who came up with it and look at the 
> original intentions, not the intentions of the people running it now.

As you say, this particular point is trivial when looked at in isolation.

It is only evidence of a cult when you add all the characteristics of
the organization together
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

is it time for Matthias Kirschner to resign?

[Daniel Pocock]

After the scandal of the 2019 GA meeting, should Matthias Kirschner
apologize to the community and resign?
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Transitioning fsfellowship.eu infrastructure

[Daniel Pocock]

On 06/02/2020 01:20, garfield wrote:
> Fake garfield trying to stop the community running itself. Real garfield
> doesn't support dictators.
> 

Real Garfield?  Garfield is a cartoon

garfield_t_...@protonmail.com smells like some FSFE fiend trolling after
the death of our cat

https://danielpocock.com/rip-floe/

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Transitioning fsfellowship.eu infrastructure

[Daniel Pocock]

On 05/02/2020 20:31, garfield wrote:
> You didn't get elected to the council. You don't own the fellowship. It's not 
> your decision to make. Please forward the details to all council members 
> immediately and confirm that you no longer have access to the site.
> 

Please don't be a pussy, use your real name
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Transitioning fsfellowship.eu infrastructure

[Daniel Pocock]

On 05/02/2020 20:12, garfield wrote:
> Daniel Pocock has been posting to the fsfellowship.eu website without
> the approval of the council. I was elected on a platform of lasagna and
> hating Mondays (and not hating people), so I'm asking him to immediately
> stop misrepresenting himself as a spokesperson for the council and give
> us control of the website so we can hold fair elections later this year.
> 
> I still hate Mondays.
> 


You changed your email address again?  Or could you be Herr Hilter
impersonating a cat?

Can you prove you are the same Garfield?

How about we have a little summit at LinuxHotel in Essen

Garfield, Joe Awni and Florian Snow.  If you all agree how to control
the web site, I will pass over the keys immediately.

If you are really Garfield then I will personally pay the travel
expenses for all the participants, it would be such an honor to have a
selfie with you.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: distracting people with personal attacks

[Daniel Pocock]

On 04/02/2020 18:05, Joe Awni wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> I just got out of jail (which is something I do not want public). 

Great to have you back

Was Arjen Kamphuis on the same rendition flight with you?
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: distracting people with personal attacks

[Daniel Pocock]

On 03/02/2020 23:40, Johann Gross wrote:

> real name, but somebody tell me what Cock is translated, so now I see it
> is just a fake. Why do you give the true name from somebody else but not

That really makes your intentions clear, attack the person and ignore
the message.

The OP is right on the money

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_breach_notification_laws

https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=breach-notification=DE
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Cryptie @ FSFE == Amandine Jambert @ CNIL, France

[Daniel Pocock]

On 03/02/2020 21:45, Peter Wright wrote:
> 
> It's time for change.  Let's expose another scandal!
> 
> Cryptie is really a French Government spy.  The official story is that M. 
> Cryptie working at CNIL, the French state data protection agency.  
> https://www.cnil.fr and her real name is Amandine Jambert.  Lots and lots of 
> photos and videos to prove this.
> 
> Thanks to our amazing Fellowship representative, we all know that FSFE had 
> this big exposure of Financial Datas, bank accounts, credit cards, date of 
> birth, secret words, your fingerprints and your DNA.  They know your 
> favourite colour and the name of your cat.  Our Fellowship representative 
> told us that Matthias Kirschner and the FSFE Council decided not to report 
> the privacy incident.  Cover up.
> https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/pipermail/discussion/2019-May/88.html
> 
> This FSFE scandal is a blatant slap in the face of data protection laws.  
> Every privacy breach has to be reported to the victims.  This was an FSFE 
> e.V. cover up orchestrated from the top, right up in the FSFE council.  
> Criminals.  Prosecute them.
> 
> How can a CNIL employee sit there in FSFE GA fairyland and pretend everything 
> is OK
> 
> The mighty organization against a lone volunteer.  The organization used the 
> minutes of the annual meeting to publish malicious and vile personal attacks 
> on a volunteer.  This is an extraordinary act of abuse.
> 
> No organization can use the name of a volunteer in a public document like 
> that.
> 
> No CNIL employeee can touch the FSFE minutes with a ten foot pole!
> 
> Tell us, how can a CNIL employee be associated with this toxic bunch of Nazis 
> from Berlin, the FSFE?
> 
> Is Madame Jambert a collaborator with these Nazis, the Vichy administration 
> with Hitler and the SS reborn in 2020?  Does Madame Jambert live a double 
> life?
> 
> Is our Madame Jambert a French spy, penetration agent, sent to watch the 
> Germans doing all this abuse and report back to her masters in Paris?
> 
> Tell us.  This is too much.




Thanks for your comments joining the dots between these disturbing
privacy incidents.

Quoting[1] Matthias Kirschner, FSFE President:

"One general wish -- which I agreed with -- from Debian was to better
share information about people"

This appears to be fundamentally at odds with CNIL and European data
protection principles.  Jambert's own comments would be most welcome.

Regards,

Daniel


1.
https://fsfellowship.eu/fsfe-general-assembly-formalizes-stasi-harassment-campaign/
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: feedback on the FSFellowship stickers?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 30/01/2020 15:47, freeme...@tutanota.com wrote:
> i like the first one a lot.
> 
> i can relate to the others.
> 
> the bottom one works even better without the logo-- while still applying to 
> debian.

Debian and FSFE could make the stickers irrelevant by simply confirming
that all members have these rights:

- freedom of expression

- the right to vote

- the right to due process

As long as they deny these rights to their communities, the stickers are
there to remind them.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: more debian censorship: debian-project list

[Daniel Pocock]

On 27/01/2020 17:28, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> 
> 
> On 27/01/2020 11:50, freeme...@tutanota.com wrote:
>> https://debian.community/debconf20-palestine-messages-censored-debian-project/
>>
>> found via tuxmachines: http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/133356
>>
>>
>> "On 20 December 2019, a Debian Developer posted the message below to the 
>> debian-project mailing list, offering to give the same talk at both 
>> DebConf20 in Haifa, Israel and again in Palestine.
>>
>> The message never appeared in the list and can't be found in the list 
>> archive for December.
>>
>> Alexander Wirt (formorer) has previously declared that he will censor 
>> messages about Israel due to anti-semitism. Yet the message below doesn't 
>> include anything against Israel and doesn't mention the boycott campaign. It 
>> is simply a volunteer offering to give up more of his time to help a 
>> population in Palestine who suffer from extraordinary discrimination."
> 
> This is another genuine and very disturbing example of censorship
> 


Somebody posted it on Hacker News.

Notice there have been multiple attempts to censor it there, it had a
[flagged] marker added and then it was removed from the index there but
the discussion is still there, read it before that is censored too

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22160814

Notice how they try to avoid discussing the issues (Alexander Wirt
censoring Palestine) and make character attacks on me as a distraction.
 The character attacks are not accompanied by any evidence, much like
the frequent attacks here from ahilter / Florian Snow.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: more debian censorship: debian-project list

[Daniel Pocock]

On 27/01/2020 19:02, freeme...@tutanota.com wrote:
>> I agree that this "gutter nazi" (excellent choice of phrase) ought to be 
>> shut down.
> well, damn. to be honest, your suggestion IS a very common one among fans of 
> censorship-- and it was extremely unlikely in my opinion/experience that you 
> would respond as you did. but i knew it was a possibility, however remote.
> 
> ill have to offer my sincerest apologies then. i speak to people all the time 
> who love finding simple, obvious reasons why the global increase in 
> censorship is justified, and they are generally beside the point. 
> 
> it is nice (for me) when im wrong. though you do get in the habit of telling 
> people off. usually the apology isnt necessary.
> 
> sorry about that. 


I only looked at the intention of the statement, I felt that when you
talk about shutting him down you mean that he needs to be more accountable

I didn't assume you meant anything more than that, despite the choice of
phrase
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: more debian censorship: debian-project list

[Daniel Pocock]

On 27/01/2020 11:50, freeme...@tutanota.com wrote:
> https://debian.community/debconf20-palestine-messages-censored-debian-project/
> 
> found via tuxmachines: http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/133356
> 
> 
> "On 20 December 2019, a Debian Developer posted the message below to the 
> debian-project mailing list, offering to give the same talk at both DebConf20 
> in Haifa, Israel and again in Palestine.
> 
> The message never appeared in the list and can't be found in the list archive 
> for December.
> 
> Alexander Wirt (formorer) has previously declared that he will censor 
> messages about Israel due to anti-semitism. Yet the message below doesn't 
> include anything against Israel and doesn't mention the boycott campaign. It 
> is simply a volunteer offering to give up more of his time to help a 
> population in Palestine who suffer from extraordinary discrimination."

This is another genuine and very disturbing example of censorship

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: this used to be a place you could get answers

[Daniel Pocock]

On 26/01/2020 01:15, Adrienne G. Thompson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 6:01 PM  > wrote:
> 
> http://techrights.org/2019/10/15/uncertain-times-for-free-software/
> 
> 
> /"In 2019, rogue elements of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) staff
> used the same tactics to undermine their own founder, Richard Stallman.”/ 
> 
> Whom do you see as "rogue elements" of the FSF?


The quote was taken from me

The quote was written in reference to the way FSF and FSFE censored
their mailing lists:

- FSFE censored messages from the Fellowship representative elected by
the community

- FSF censored messages in support of RMS

John Sullivan, for example, wrote this nasty put down and immediately
censored any attempt to reply:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2019-09/msg00175.html

Censorship is covered by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.

https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

When John Sullivan decided to censor messages, he violated human rights.
 Calling him a "rogue element" is therefore an understatement.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: this used to be a place you could get answers

[Daniel Pocock]

On 24/01/2020 06:32, freeme...@tutanota.com wrote:
> every day i check this mailing list. posts do not get replied to.
>
> certainly i dont expect every email to be replied to, but the point of this 
> list, i thought, i was to maintain the fellowship programme.

Not exactly.

Maintaining the Fellowship program the way it was would mean the same
problems.  The list is here to facilitate reform.

> how is it the list has gone from so many posts to so few? how come nobody is 
> talking about anything now?
> 
> there is plenty going on.

That is the whole problem.  There is plenty going on but none of it is
productive.

The overwhelming feedback I get is that people are quitting FSFE and
after the RMS lynching, people are quitting FSF too.

These people who quit believe in free software but they don't see any
value in the existing institutions and they don't have the time and
energy to create new ones.  They simply join some other activity.

This was already a big trend with FSFE: over many years, each time
somebody found out the truth, they would quit FSFE and abandon free
software activism altogether because they were so disillusioned.  I've
heard the same thing from so many people.  Now we see the same pattern
with FSF, Debian, Ubuntu, Mozilla and all the other groups that have
treated their communities like commodities.

> going to be disappointed if this list / community is dead after just one 
> year. trying to get people to join, but even the people who are here arent 
> posting. its 2020-- what does the fellowship intend to do with this year?

Personally, I resigned as Fellowship representative but I may be willing
to run the elections again this year if people nominate.

Make the Fellowship great again!

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

submissions needed (was: Fwd: 25th session of the Working Group on Business and Human Rights and call for inputs)

[Daniel Pocock]

Would anybody be interested in making a submission about the influence
of corporations in the free software space?

The abolition of voting in FSFE and Linux Foundation, the secret
punishments in Debian, censorship and various other practices provide an
opportunity for serious reflection.

All these practices demonstrate a common trend: Google's influence rises
while volunteers lose their basic rights.



 Forwarded Message 
Subject:25th session of the Working Group on Business and Human Rights
and call for inputs
Date:   Thu, 16 Jan 2020 17:54:28 +
From:   WG-Business OHCHR 
Reply-To:   GARCIA TORRENTE Maria 



Dear Sir/Madam,

 

In preparation of its report to the 44^th session of the Human Rights
Council, the Working Group would like to invite you to participate in a
*multi-stakeholder consultation**on: “Connecting the business and human
rights and anti-corruption agendas”. *

* *

The discussionswill seek to clarify how corruption impacts rights
holders in terms of it being linked to, causing or contributing to human
rights abuses. 

 

The consultation will be held*on **6 February 2020 from 15:00 to 17:30
in room XXI, Palais des Nations, Geneva*.

 

In addition, the Working Groupis seeking written inputs from all
stakeholders to inform the drafting of the above-mentioned report.All
relevant information and the call for inputs are available at this link
.
 
Written submissions should be sent to wg-busin...@ohchr.org
 by 21 February 2020.

Please let us know if you wish to be taken off the mailing list for
updates on the Working Group on Business and Human Rights and the Forum,
by email to wg-busin...@ohchr.org
(indicating “Mailing list” in the subject
line).

 

Bestregards,

 

-

 

Madame, Monsieur,

 

Dans le cadre de la préparation de son rapport qui sera présenté à la
44^ème session du Conseil des droits de l'homme, le Groupe de travail
souhaite vous inviter à participer à une consultation multipartite sur
le thème : *« Relier l’agenda des entreprises et des droits de l'homme à
la lutte contre la corruption *».

 

Les discussions viseront à clarifier l'impact de la corruption sur les
détenteurs de droits, dans la mesure où elle est la cause, elle
contribue ou elle est liée aux violations des droits de l’homme. 

 

La consultation aura lieu le *6 février 2020, de 15h00 à 17h30, dans la
salle XXI du Palais des Nations, à Genève*.

 

En outre, le Groupe de travail sollicite les contributions écrites de
toutes les parties prenantes afin d'éclairer la rédaction du rapport
susmentionné. Toutes les informations pertinentes et l'appel à
contributions sont disponibles à travers ce lien
.
Les contributions écrites doivent être envoyées à wg-busin...@ohchr.org
 *au plus tard le 21 février 2020*.

 

Si vous désirez être retiré de la liste de diffusion pour les mises à
jour sur le Groupe de travail sur les entreprises et les droits de
l'homme et sur le Forum, veuillez nous envoyer un courriel à
wg-busin...@ohchr.org (en indiquant "
Mailing list " dans l'objet).

 

Meilleures salutations,

 

-

 

Estimado/a Señor/Señora,

 

En la preparación de su informe al 44º período de sesiones del Consejo
de Derechos Humanos, el Grupo de Trabajo desea invitarle a participar en
una consulta con múltiples partes interesadas sobre: *"Conexión de las
agendas de las empresas y los derechos humanos con la lucha contra la
corrupción*".

 

Las discusiones tratarán de aclarar cómo la corrupción repercute en los
titulares de derechos en lo que respecta a la corrupción que está
vinculada a los abusos de los derechos humanos, los causa o contribuye a
ellos. 

 

La consulta se celebrará el *6 de febrero de 2020 de 15.00 a 17.30
horas, en la sala XXI del Palacio de las Naciones, en Ginebra*.

 

Además, el Grupo de Trabajo está solicitando a todas las partes
interesadas que presenten sus aportaciones por escrito para contribuir a
la redacción del informe anteriormente mencionado. Toda la información
relevante y la solicitud de insumos están disponibles en este enlace
.
Las aportaciones por escrito deben enviarse a wg-busin...@ohchr.org
antes del 21 de febrero de 2020.

 

Si desea eliminar su dirección de correo electrónico de la lista de
distribución para no recibir noticias actualizadas sobre el Grupo de
Trabajo sobre las empresas y los 

best way to help free software in 2020...

[Daniel Pocock]

... is to encourage people to join this list

No one person or group is the authority on free software.  Certainly not
me.  Definitely not Herr Hilter and the FSFE.  Not even RMS.  All of you
matter.  That's why this list is not censored like the FSF, FSFE and
Debian lists.

Here is the link for people who want to subscribe:

https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: evil trickery and conspiracies

[Daniel Pocock]

On 07/01/2020 19:48, quil...@riseup.net wrote:
> 
> This sounds so over the top that nothing is believable from you. I
> really don't think you do any good to Daniel. In fact, I think you and
> Daniel are the same person with a different nick.
>

No, I am not Herr Hilter.  I simply don't need to use that level of
profanity to prove what needs to be said about FSFE.


> Anyway, I do think that this list deserves praise because it will not
> censor anyone and Daniel deserves a better attitude from FSFE.

Thanks for that feedback.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

giving Fellows a platform again

[Daniel Pocock]

This list wasn't created to ask for money nor was it created to spread
fake news or attack FSFE.

The reason FSFE e.V. has force-demoted Fellows like you to the Supporter
program is take away your platform.

This list and the fsfellowship.eu domain were created to give that
platform back to you.  That is all.

It is clear that ahilter is a mouthpiece[1] of FSFE.  They weren't happy
to destroy your platform once: ahilter's disruptive behavior
demonstrates that FSFE wants to burn your platform for good.

Why would FSFE want to burn your platform?

They give various shallow and condescending reasons.  They tried to tell
us that nobody really knows what the Fellowship is.

In fact, that is the root of all fake news.  It is the exact opposite
of the truth.

The platform that is now burning was known and respected.  The platform
was helpful for many Fellows as you applied to speak at events or run
booths.  In some cases, events gave a speaking slot to a Fellow like you
and rejected a talk from an FSFE staff member.

On many occasions volunteers were introduced as FSFE Fellows when
speaking at events.  This is your platform.

Yet Fellows had a diverse range of views that FSFE couldn't control.

They didn't want anybody using the title of Fellow to support the views
of RMS or ask questions about sponsors like Google.

I'm not seeking a platform for myself.  I resigned as representative and
didn't contest the Fellowship Council elections.  This is a platform for
you.  How can we give all Fellows the best platform?

Regards,

Daniel

1.
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/pipermail/discussion/2019-November/000660.html
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: why is this lists messages marked as bad email?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 26/11/2019 16:36, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
> El 2019-11-24 08:10, Roland Häder escribió:
>> On 11/24/2019 09:08 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23/11/2019 15:59, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
>>>> Why are emails from this lists marked as bad (sp*am) by riseup dot net
>>>> mailserver?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Could somebody in their mail admin team have vested interests?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
>> @DanielPocock: Idiot.
> 
> I don't think so. Maybe rude. But not idiot.

Over and over again this year we've seen people in trusted admin
positions have done things like removing blogs from Planet sites or
censoring messages to some lists.  These cases didn't involve code of
conduct violations or spam, they were politically motivated acts of
censorship[1], such as the censorship of messages supporting RMS or the
censorship of questions about Google's $300,000 going into Debian.

It would not surprise me if some people who administer spam reporting
systems also try to use (or misuse) their powers in the same way.  I
don't have evidence that Riseup is doing that, it could also be in a
spam blocklist they rely upon.

Many of Quiliro's message to this list have had ***spam*** in the
subject line, indicating that it is a recurring problem.  It wasn't just
one message.  So it justifies closer scrutiny.

> 
>> @QuiliroOrdóñez: because of a "word" (read: token) analysis which is
>> checking everything on an email, including header lines.
> 
> Thank you for the tip. I think it makes sense.
> 
> How can I make the RiseUp mail server stop classifying it as bad email?

Please start by reviewing this:

https://riseup.net/en/spam

Please forward to me one of the messages you received, forward as an
attachment so that I receive full headers.  I can then help you examine it.

Regards,

Daniel

1. https://fsfellowship.eu/where-do-censored-developers-go/
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FSFE Regrets about ahitler/Florian Snow emails

[Daniel Pocock]

On 25/11/2019 00:09, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
> 
> More and more people are now asking FSFE the question:
> 
>   Is ahilter/hitler really Florian Snow?
> 
> Florian Snow resigned from the Fellowship mailing list and sent his last post 
> here on Friday, 4 October 2019 at 21:25
> 
> On Monday, 7 October 2019, at 10:49 ahilter gassed us with his rhetoric for 
> the first time.
> 
> Coincidence?


Looking at the logs, the overlap is very tight:

2019-10-04 21:25 Florian Snow informs[1] people he is leaving the list.

2019-10-07 10:23: subscription: "A.D. Hilter" 

2019-10-07 10:49: Herr Hitler greets[2] us for the first time.  98 more
messages follow.

2019-10-07 11:40: unsubscribe of florians...@fsfe.org


One of the key things I noticed about the ahilter emails is that they
always try to hijack threads and move discussion from the issues and
onto discussion about people with alternative viewpoints.

Many of Florian Snow's emails demonstrate exactly the same pattern.

Examples:

2019-09-30 Florian Snow making personal attacks[3]

2019-11-07 ahilter making personal attacks[4]

In both cases, he attacks me for being an outspoken representative, in
other words, doing what people elected me to do.

Regards,

Daniel


1.
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/pipermail/discussion/2019-October/000260.html
2.
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/pipermail/discussion/2019-October/000262.html
3.
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/pipermail/discussion/2019-September/000215.html
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Fwd: FSFE

[Daniel Pocock]

On 21/11/2019 01:26, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
> El 2019-11-18 11:41, The one with the questions escribió:
>> Nov 15, 2019, 13:26 by quil...@riseup.net:
>>
>>> El 2019-11-15 04:21, Daniel Pocock escribió:
>>>
>>>> Some people asked for the full email from John Sullivan confirming
>>>> that
>>>>
>>>> FSFE has not acted honestly in using the FSF name.
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for this document.
>>>
>>> I had these doubts about FSFE too. But I do not know for sure about
>>> acts
>>>
>>> that violate these conditions:
>>
>> just out of curiosity. Do you also have doubts regarding the mail
>> shared by Daniel,
> 
> Yes. That is exactly why I am asking. If I would be sure, I would not
> ask.
> 
>> especially as we know for sure that he faked
>> documents he shared here and in his blog before?
> 
> I do not know that HE faked anything. I don't understand who is "we" in
> your statement. It is possible that I would not trust someone. But I
> will not judge them guilty even if the law claims them offenders, unless
> I personally can see proof which convinces me. Anyway, the documents
> FSFE publishes are the best source.

FSFE had fake elections.  When Florian Snow, the candidate they wanted,
didn't win, they appointed him to the GA anyway and then used every
means at their disposal to impede and discredit the person the community
voted for.

Fake election indeed.

> 
>> Do you know that the
>> mailing list we are writing here is in no way affiliated with FSF*?
> 
> I know. The source of the information does not make it true or false.

Nobody claimed this is an FSF* list.  Many people see benefits in the
Fellowship operating independently now.

>> Most of us are probably just here because Daniel mass subscribed us
>> without our consensus.
> 
> I know that. I have not unsubscribed because I want to know both sides
> of the issues.

Nobody was subscribed without consent.

FSFE and Fellowship have diverged.  It is not the same thing as spamming.

Maintaining an on-topic Fellowship-oriented mailing list, while FSF and
FSFE censor their lists, has nothing in common with spamming.

>> As you are a FSFLA member. Did you reached out to your sister
>> organizations (FSFE, FSF US and maybe some colleagues at FSFLA) and
>> asked them about their opinion to get some first hand information?
> 
> Not FSFE, but the others yes. Nevertheless, they are very cautious about
> making public statements lately.

Are they still circulating defamation in private communications though?

An organization using their name to spread malicious defamation, whether
in public or in private emails, is wrong.

>> Did
>> you already reached out to John Sullivan pointing him to the mail
>> shared by Daniel and asked him if this is really what he wrote?> 
> 
> I might. This is not necessary at the moment because the issue is not
> John's email. The main issue for me is if FSFE is in fact working in the
> same direction that FSF has or it takes the direction of OSI. If it is
> the later, I or of any of the organizations I support would not make
> FSFE an allie.
> 
>> As you seems to be one of the last remaining rational people on this
>> list with a direct connection to the organizations it would be great
>> if you could get some first-hand information.
> 
> I think rationality is as important as feelings. If someone feels
> attacked, their feeelings are as valid as rationality, both if it their
> response is diplomatic or not. In fact, usually swindlers are very
> diplomatic and charismatic.
> 
> My connections to these organizations are as direct as yours. I am not
> searching for personal positions from the members of these
> organizations. I would like them to make their organizational position
> very clear regarding support for Richard Stallman and regarding their
> defense of freedom or just defense of price, quality and business (as
> OSI) with respect to software. These are very important issues for me.
> 
> It is also necessary to stop attacking Daniel because FSFE is a stronger
> party than him. It is not a fair fight. A mob attack is not good image
> for an organization. Rather, FSFE should concentrate on its transparency
> about how it handles affairs, instead of letting doubts arise by the
> secrecy.
> 
>> Just asking questions...
> 
> A lot of statements in your questions!

attack statements
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Fwd: FSFE

[Daniel Pocock]

On 16/11/2019 22:21, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:> El 2019-11-15 13:51, Daniel
Pocock escribió:
>> There is a lot of asymmetry when an organization chooses to attack an
>> individual volunteer
>>
>> Volunteers have a right to defend themselves, especially when the
>> organization is this corrupt and using the minutes of their AGM to abuse
>> people.
>
> I agree absolutely. If there is an asymmetry, then the strongest one
> must work to protect and not attack the individual. But how can we
> proactive do something about this?


A lot of people are sending private messages of support to the various
people who have been subject to shaming and blackmail by organizations
like FSFE or the Debian Account Managers.

Some even go further, revealing copies of the defamatory emails
circulated by people like Matthias Kirschner at FSFE or Chris Lamb at
Debian.

Some people resigned from FSFE this year, almost immediately after the
abusive motion passed at a general meeting.

More can be done though.


On 18/11/2019 17:41, The one with the questions wrote:
> 
> Nov 15, 2019, 13:26 by quil...@riseup.net:
> 
> El 2019-11-15 04:21, Daniel Pocock escribió:
> 
> Some people asked for the full email from John Sullivan
> confirming that
> FSFE has not acted honestly in using the FSF name.
> 
> 
> Thank you very much for this document.
> 
> I had these doubts about FSFE too. But I do not know for sure about acts
> that violate these conditions:
> 
> As you are a FSFLA member. Did you reached out to your sister
> organizations (FSFE, FSF US and maybe some colleagues at FSFLA) and
> asked them about their opinion to get some first hand information? Did

To save you the effort, I attach FSFE's own comment on John Sullivan's
request for FSFE to stop using the name.

Jonas Oberg was Executive Director of FSFE when he wrote "I can truly
see why the FSF believes we are in violation of the agreement" and "the
framework agreement, as it stands, is not being honored from any side"

> you already reached out to John Sullivan pointing him to the mail shared
> by Daniel and asked him if this is really what he wrote?

I put him on CC so he can tell the community when it is and isn't
permissible for other organizations to use names derived from FSF.

Could people also set up groups with names like Debian Europe, Mozilla
Europe, Fedora Europe, etc?

Regards,

Daniel
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Bernhard,

I largely agree with you, but I would like to ask for a clarification on
this part:

> I don't see why. We should ask them to establish the agreed cooperation.

If I take an honest look at the framework agreement, I believe it's
phrased rather favourable towards the FSF, and a lot of what we would
like to see -- such as joint decision making on important issues related
to Free Software -- isn't actually in the agreement aside from an intent
to develop such a way in some hypothetical future.

And I can truly see why the FSF believes we are in violation of the
agreement, at least on parts. Our work on the Radio Directive and other
policy work I believe is an example of work that according to the 
agreement should be carried out by the FSF, and not the FSFE.

Our work on standards for cloud services is close to what's reserved for
the FSF. On the other part, there are a number of activities envisioned
from the FSFE which we don't do, or never did: operate the GNU Business
Network, develop new free software, translate FSF position papers,
recruit more volunteers for the GNU project, resell FSF merchandise,
and so on.

So the framework agreement, as it stands, is not being honored from
any side. What I understand from you is that you think we can push
more on this:

   We intend, in the
   future, after we have gained experience working together, to develop a
   system wherein these decisions are approved jointly by a specific list
   of several major FSFs.

Essentially, our message could be that now, after 15 years, we have the
experience of working together. It's not been a pleasurable experience,
but we now know what the current tensions and activities are, which makes
this a good time to now negotiate what such a system for join decision
making would look like.

Is that close to what you intend?


Sincerely,

-- 
Jonas Öberg, Executive Director
Free Software Foundation Europe | jo...@fsfe.org
Your support enables our work (fsfe.org/join)

--- End Message ---
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Fwd: FSFE

[Daniel Pocock]

On 15/11/2019 13:26, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
> El 2019-11-15 04:21, Daniel Pocock escribió:
>> Some people asked for the full email from John Sullivan confirming that
>> FSFE has not acted honestly in using the FSF name.
> 
> Thank you very much for this document.
> 
> I had these doubts about FSFE too. But I do not know for sure about acts
> that violate these conditions:
> 
> *
> D. These things will never be done by any FSF:
> 
> 1. Distribute or develop non-free software or non-free software
>documentation.
> 
> 2. Promote or encourage the use of any non-free program or non-free
>software documentation.
> 
> 3. Formally ally itself with an organization or person that develops
>or distributes non-free software or non-free software
>documentation.

Did you see this?

https://fsfe.org/donate/thankgnus.en.html

What about the participants at LLW and the Legal Network?  Do they need
to comply with those terms?


> *
> 
> 
> The question of money is not really a big thing, considering that amount


This type of thing has a corrosive effect: somebody who only donates €10
this year might donate much more next year.  Or if they feel FSFE was
fast and loose with the truth, the same person might not donate ever again.


> Despite the enormous amount of mail I have lately read, I feel a big
> lack of truthful information. It all seems gossip and mutual discredit.


As far as I can tell, attempts to discredit the fellowship
representative were ongoing from early 2018.

Nothing was said publicly until more than 6 months later.

A lot of people have been very patient with FSFE before stuff started
appearing in public.


> I think we must come out of this passionate attack policy into making
> public personal and organizational intentions with respective
> documentation of past actions which prove which side we are on (beyond
> any doubt). These documentations must not prove others are wrong. But
> that we do what we say we do and that our allies also do.



There is a lot of asymmetry when an organization chooses to attack an
individual volunteer

Volunteers have a right to defend themselves, especially when the
organization is this corrupt and using the minutes of their AGM to abuse
people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Fwd: FSFE

[Daniel Pocock]

Some people asked for the full email from John Sullivan confirming that
FSFE has not acted honestly in using the FSF name.  It is below.

FSFE has received over €3 million in donations over 17 years, including
over €1 million from private donors and a €150k bequest, by using the
name of another organization, FSF.

Many people have volunteered for FSFE and then quit after discovering
the same stubbornness John Sullivan refers to below.

FSF decided not to speak out publicly.  But as the former Fellowship
representative, I feel there is no way this confirmation of the
situation can be withheld from Fellows any longer.

The ongoing attacks on the last Fellowship representative and the recent
trolling on this list are facets of the same problem: a chronic
deficiency of integrity from the top of FSFE.


 Forwarded Message 
Subject: FSFE
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 09:50:48 -0400
From: John Sullivan 
To: Daniel Pocock 

Hi Daniel,

Congratulations on your election to FSFE's general assembly!

I'm wondering, if as part of your new position, you have been briefed on
the current issues between FSF and FSFE.

I have been trying to discuss them with Jonas and Matthias for the last
several years, but have gotten nowhere, and in fact things are now much
worse than they were before. They made it clear at our last in-person
meeting in April that they do not intend to change anything.

In your post at
<https://danielpocock.com/risks-of-using-proprietary-software>, you
expressed some of the same concerns FSF has. So I'm reaching out to you
in the hopes that we might be able to figure out a solution, and also to
hear anything you can share about plans you have for trying to address
your concerns from your new position. We could arrange a call, or we
could discuss by email, if you are open to talking.

Will you be at Debconf in Montreal?

I am also attaching a copy of the agreement FSFE made with us in order
to use the FSF name, in case you have not seen it.

-john




FSF-Relationship-Framework.mdwn
Description: Binary data

-- 
John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: A462 6CBA FF37 6039 D2D7 5544 97BA 9CE7 61A0 963B
http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS

Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at
<http://my.fsf.org/join>.

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: managing large volumes of email

[Daniel Pocock]

On 12/11/2019 02:03, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
> El 2019-11-07 11:30, Daniel Pocock escribió:
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> I've had feedback from a few people who value the informative emails on
>> free software mailing lists but also find it challenging to manage the
>> explosive threads.
>>
>> A few solutions come to mind:
>>
>> a) creating a fork of this list, a newsletter list, similar to a digest
>> but curated.  High value posts will be sent to the newsletter list and
>> the Reply-To header will be set to the discussion list.  People who
>> don't want the discussion can remain subscribed to the former and
>> opt-out of the latter
> 
> I do not agree with curation. I think that if you want to make a curated
> list, it should be on your blog, not on the mailing list which is a
> place for all to express what they feel, even if it is aggressive and
> disgusting (as it is with A.Hilter).

I'd like to clarify this point:

- if a curated list has a name like announce@ or news@ it is obvious to
the majority of users that the list is curated.  If somebody chooses to
spend time curating things and if users knowingly subscribe to read
curated content then there is no deception.

- when FSFE or LibrePlanet gives people a list with a name like
libreplanet-discuss@something or discuss...@lists.fsfe.org, people are
usually surprised to find some views are hidden by political censors.
Using names like that for censored lists is the problem that concerns me.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: evidence of FSFE & Debian blackmail conspiracies (was: more leaks of FSFE treachery and Daniel's heroism)

[Daniel Pocock]

On 08/11/2019 13:09, Patrick Driscoll wrote:
> When people attack you personally versus your points, that’s a dead giveaway 
> as to their motivations. Please don’t go quietly under the rug! Push the 
> broom back and spill all the dirt everywhere, Daniel.
> 
> I’ve heard theory after theory of how the sudden influx of social justice 
> people into open source - per your example of “pronoun policing” as a threat 
> to another member - is a thinly veiled effort by big business to control its 
> path. Daniel’s expulsion and the textbook DARVO responses of those he exposed 
> are the proof in the pudding.
> 

It is interesting to see that this sort of thing is going on around the
world, not just in free software

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/08/india-strips-citizenship-journalist-aatish-taseer-criticised-modi-regime

There are so many censored people now that we could organize a summit or
something

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: evidence of FSFE & Debian blackmail conspiracies (was: more leaks of FSFE treachery and Daniel's heroism)

[Daniel Pocock]

On 07/11/2019 21:19, ahil...@keemail.me wrote:

> From: Matthias Kirschner 
> 
> You have done so especially by publishing the following blog posts:
> 
> https://danielpocock.com/who-were-the-fsfe-fellowship
> https://danielpocock.com/an-fsfe-fellowship-representatives-dilemma
>

Oh no.  I was acting like a representative, telling people the truth.

What this email shows is that Herr Kirschner wanted me to lie to the
community.  I refused to spread lies for him so he engaged in character
assassination.  He made stuff up to censor my blog from Planet FSFE.

At no stage does he deny any of the facts in my blogs, he simply tries
to use various threats and blackmail to make me take them down.

Using my blogs to document my knowledge of the role so that the
community could take over now that there are no more elections.  That is
simply being a responsible representative.


> Furthermore, you have sent emails including or referencing internal
> information over public mailing lists:
> 
> https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2018-August/012440.html
> https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2018-August/012464.html
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2018-09/msg0.html
> 
> You have published information regarding
> 
> * Supporter contributions,
> * The number of FSFE supporters,
> * The structure of the supporters by country of origin,
> * The internal decisions making,
> * Financial contributions and financial expenditure,
> * And other internal information.
> 

You can find all that by scraping the FSFE transparency pages and other
sources.  We don't even need the mysterious Cornelia mails for that.

> The activities mentioned above are an infringement of the FSFE
> Constitution as well as of several German laws. 
> 

If that is a crime, here is the confession:

1. I used Mozilla to see the numeric values in the transparency pages
and other sources like the public results of elections

2. I copied and pasted them into LibreOffice

3. I then used the dark arts of computer hacking to convert those
numbers into pretty charts that Herr Kirschner has never seen before.
Maybe he wasn't even familiar with the raw data in his own transparency
pages and he was surprised about how it looks in my charts.

There you have it, being a criminal in the twisted mind of Matthias
Kirschner is as easy as 1, 2, 3.  You can even do it with Free Software.

Cutting and pasting from Mozilla to LibreOffice is not a crime in any
European country.  If one day it does become a crime here I can just go
back to Australia, it is not a crime there either.

The only evidence you are showing us is that FSFE's entire culture is
built on gaslighting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

> You have broken the bond
> of trust between the members.


The bond of trust was broken in May 2018, when the FSFE staff gathered
in Berlin to have that nasty EGM where they removed elections from the
constitution.

The email you leaked was sent 4 months later than that, in September 2018

How could I be guilty of breaking something that was already broken?



> We are expecting your statement until 20 September 2018 and will take it
> into consideration before we take a decision.

You also demonstrated the coordinated threats between FSFE and Debian on
the same day, 20 September.

The is both conspiracy and blackmail.

Conspiracy is a crime.  Blackmail is a crime.

The blackmailers behind this are Matthias Kirschner, Chris Lamb and
Debian Account Managers, Enrico Zini, Joerg Jaspert and Jonathan Wiltshire.

You can see plenty of real evidence of that when you read about what
they did to Norbert Preining and Martin Kraft, even on Christmas Day:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2018/12/msg00033.html

https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2018/12/msg00032.html


What sort of community blackmails their volunteers at Christmas?

This is how society at large sees people like the Debian and FSFE
blackmailers above:

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/more-jail-time-for-woman-who-blackmailed-couple-as-they-held-their-dying-baby-20191031-p5367k.html


> 
> Furthermore, please be aware that
> 1) this e-mail contains restatements of and/or references to internal
>  information that may not be published without the prior express
>  written permission of the FSFE (this obligation survives the
>  termination of membership);
> 2) 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.
>

That is an example of how Matthias Kirschner threatens people.

It is also more gaslighting:  you can't use email to send abuse to a
volunteer and then tell them they can't expose it because the abuse is
confidential.

As I wrote earlier, no GA members resigned because of anything I ever
did but 

managing large volumes of email

[Daniel Pocock]

Hi everybody,

I've had feedback from a few people who value the informative emails on
free software mailing lists but also find it challenging to manage the
explosive threads.

A few solutions come to mind:

a) creating a fork of this list, a newsletter list, similar to a digest
but curated.  High value posts will be sent to the newsletter list and
the Reply-To header will be set to the discussion list.  People who
don't want the discussion can remain subscribed to the former and
opt-out of the latter.

b) one or more blog posts documenting the way I've implemented filters
and the strategic considerations when deciding on an effective folder
structure.  Most of us already know how filters work, it is the folder
structure that really makes a difference.  Please follow my RSS feed[1]
if you want to catch those blogs.

Your thoughts on these and other possibilities are welcome.

Herr Hilter, I'm sorry if I can't reply to every one of your emails
personally but I'm down in the Balkans again with local free software
groups, doing things to make a difference in the world, just like the
weekend when the FSFE staff and core cabal members gathered[2] in their
Berlin office to vote on a constitutional change removing elections.

Regards,

Daniel


1. https://danielpocock.com/feed.xml
2. https://fsfe.org/about/legal/minutes/minutes-2018-05-26.en.pdf
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: more leaks of FSFE treachery and Daniel's heroism

[Daniel Pocock]

On 07/11/2019 14:11, ahil...@keemail.me wrote:

> But you could see this in the mail yourself.

Actually, most people, including me, couldn't see it.

Here is the defamatory accusation again:

> breakage of trust and privacy based on the fact that you have
> published internal conversations


Here is the leaked "internal conversation"

https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2018-January/012229.html

"I have learnt the FSFE is abolishing their community representatives in
their board (remember the Linux Foundation?)"

The Cornelia emails did appear at the same time as discussions on the GA
mailing list.

There is only one problem: my name is not Cornelia, it is Daniel.  Even
you know that Herr Hilter.

Nobody ever provided evidence connecting any GA member to the Cornelia
email account.

Simple evidence would be welcome.  Accusations and defamation, no matter
how many people put their names on it, are a waste of time.

Matthias Kirschner and every other person who put their name on that
email has the option to retract it and avoid further consequences.
Three members of the GA have already resigned.  That is fact.

One thing that you do prove with this thread: somebody who is a GA
member, maybe a staff member paid with funds from the community, has an
enormous amount of time to write defamatory, sexist and fascist rants
under the pseudonym ahilter.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: fall of Berlin Wall, rebuilt by FSFE?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 07/11/2019 02:43, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
> Resent with proper subject line.
> 
> El 2019-11-06 18:06, aristo...@tutanota.com escribió:
>> Nov 6, 2019, 11:12 by cyberc...@tutanota.com:
>>
>>> Are we just your sockpuppets in your fight against software freedom?
>>
>> Yes.
> 
> Wow! Is this fired by FSFE? I hope it is not.

Many people expressed frustration about the recent trolling on this list

Nonetheless, when you look at all those fascist and offensive messages
together and you contemplate that somebody at FSFE was writing them, how
does it make you feel about the organization?

Next time you see Matthias Kirschner speaking at an event or a volunteer
at an FSFE booth, will you think of ahilter and Florian Snow?

How many people are removing the FSFE stickers from their laptops now?
Please remember to recycle them, don't flush them in the toilet or this
might happen:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-41238272

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: the FSF / FSFE sister agreement (attached)

[Daniel Pocock]

On 06/11/2019 23:55, aristo...@tutanota.com wrote:
> 
> Nov 6, 2019, 17:28 by dan...@pocock.pro:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow this document is missing from the FSFE transparency pages
> 
> 
> FSFE does not publish documents you fake.
> 


Why do you call it fake?  Where is the real document then?
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: fall of Berlin Wall, rebuilt by FSFE?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 06/11/2019 15:19, br...@tracciabi.li wrote:
> Fuck this shitty blog.
> The published minutes
> https://fsfe.org/about/legal/minutes/minutes-2019-10-12.en.pdf
> contain none of the bullshit described in the shitty blog.
> 


The published minutes contain an acid attack on a volunteer

When somebody is assaulted 11 to 1 it is more like a gang rape than a
credible meeting.  The document on fsfe.org is a crime.

What level of force would a reasonable person be comfortable using to
stop a violent rape under such disproportionate odds?


___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FWIW: gnu-misc-disc...@gnu.org is premoderated

[Daniel Pocock]

On 06/11/2019 03:45, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
> El 2019-10-30 07:27, Jean Louis escribió:
>> * Quiliro Ordóñez  [2019-10-30 13:13]:
>>> Has censorship been confirmed on that mailing list or was it a
>>> misunderstanding?
>>
>> Moderation is happening on that mailing list. There is somebody,
>> unknown to me, who will reject messages.
> 
> Will you forward me any censored messages? Please prepend the subject
> line with: 'Censored:' so I can recognize them. Thank you very much.

Please feel free to encourage members of other censored FSF and GNU
lists to join here:

https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

and if you don't consent to censorship, you can use these techniques to
defend yourself and your freedoms:

https://fsfellowship.eu/freedom-and-censorship-on-mailing-lists/

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FWIW: gnu-misc-disc...@gnu.org is premoderated

[Daniel Pocock]

On 31/10/2019 09:07, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
> Quiliro Ordóñez  wrote:
>> Has censorship been confirmed on that mailing list
> 
> Yes, it has been confirmed on publicly the list itself.  If youʼve just 
> joined it, it worth importing archives [0] for the last month to catch up the 
> discussion.
> 
> [0] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/mbox/gnu-misc-discuss/
> 


Is the FSF giving the FSFE credit for this wonderful idea, censoring the
free software community?

https://debian.community/safety-or-a-fake-community/
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: A use for sockpuppets and trolls

[Daniel Pocock]

On 22/10/2019 23:24, Lori Nagel wrote:
> 
> It is time to move past the controversies and discuss the real issues,
> the issue of how to be more effective as free software advocates.
> Traditionally, various organizations advocating for social change have
> broken various social rules as part of advocating for social change.

This is very true.

FSFE's founder, Georg Greve, was quoted[1]:

"The Fellowship is an activity of FSFE, and indeed one of the primary
ways to get involved in the organisation. It is a place for community
action, collaboration, communication, fun, and recruitment that also
helps fund the other activities of FSFE, for example, the political work."

What is "community action"?  For me, after FSFE decided to abolish
elections, forking the mailing list was a legitimate and proportionate
form of community action.  A few people unsubscribed but the vast
majority remain interested in hearing the points of view that other
communities censor.

It is interesting to note that FSFE keeps giving people condescending
messages about how being a member of FSFE e.V. is not important for
volunteers, the e.V and the bank account are just some little legal
constructs in the corner that nobody needs to know about.  But when the
mailing list was forked, they squeal like stuck pigs and insist that
FSFE e.V. owns the list.  They can't have it both ways.  I'm happy to
expose their hypocrisy.

> Internet communities have their own social rules about what is allowed
> to be discussed, and what is off-topic or banned. If one person joins a
> community and starts trolling it, they often in the best case get
> ignored, and in the worst case just get banned.

If in fact the FSFE annual meeting minutes were produced by one of the
trolls then it is very well done, if there are awards for trolling maybe
they should be nominated.


> People go to various forums and communities to get help when proprietary
> software has let them down. Other people use proprietary software and
> are talking about about why they think it is good or useful. Free
> software activists should go into the enemy territory and post messages
> about why xyz piece of proprietary software is bad. They should do so in
> groups going into the same community so that it isn’t just one lone
> voice who is a troll. Non-technical users do not have to settle for DRM
> or take it when a proprietary software company takes their software and
> community out from under them. Many people hate these things but take it
> with some kind of acceptance, like it is a fact of life like eating or
> breathing air. It is not and the proprietary software industry does not
> have to exist.
> 

I'd like to promote another approach: people can simply become better at
positively promoting free software.

One of the things I've done over the last few years is joining a
Toastmasters club.  The Toastmasters system is very effective and also
provides people with good skills for working together.  That is much
better than the snake oil being promoted by people in various
"Community" teams, where they put on uniforms and run around tasering
people.

Regards,

Daniel

1. https://blogs.fsfe.org/fellowship-interviews/?p=27
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: censorship alternatives

[Daniel Pocock]

On 22/10/2019 13:45, br...@tracciabi.li wrote:
> I don't get what you mean with balloon/diplomats/bombs.


Diplomats would sit around the table and talk

Then the balloon was invented, military uses became apparent and it
wasn't necessary to talk to your neighbours any more.  You could just
fly balloons over their country.  Even if you had no bombs, people would
panic at the sight of a balloon.

In 1907 a treaty was created prohibiting the use of balloons to drop bombs:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/245

and then the diplomats could return to settling disputes through
dialogue... until aeroplanes and V2 missiles came along, they weren't
subject to the same treaty.

> Yes, wireless (and wired) communications changed the way people using
> them communicated. But only a slight minority used them, for a very long
> time. Italy in 1987 was not exactly a third-world country, still some
> people (a minority) starting a new family in a new home did not bother
> to install a telephone for some months. I consider this fact as an
> element suggesting phone penetration was not 100% and I'm sure those
> without a telephone did not use wireless 2-way communications. Broadcast
> is not relevant to "the way people [...] talked together". Furthermore,
> telephone calls are (almost) always 1-on-1. The only many-to-many mass
> technologies are tables and the public Internet.
> [An italian radio broadcaster, Radio Radicale, in 1986 for one month
> connected directly its voicemail to the antenna. For one month, messages
> registered by callers were broadcast without moderation. Some callers
> started replying to other callers. I'd consider this mass, many-to-many,
> not table, not internet, but it was an exception.]

The phenomena referred to is not simply about the Internet: it is a
combination of different things, for example, the mobile phone + the
Internet + social media together perhaps.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: minutes, surveys, polls and hoaxes

[Daniel Pocock]

On 21/10/2019 10:20, ahil...@keemail.me wrote:
> Oct 21, 2019, 07:31 by dan...@pocock.pro:
> Shane Coughlan and Hugo
> Roy were removed from the FSFE team[3] page.  We don't know if they
> 
> Maybe they're new supporters for us!

Maybe, like me, they have better things to do with their time

> 
>  ???I may have started the surveys/polls.???
> 
> Why are you hiding? Just say it straight! Not may!

You have misquoted me.  You do so using an anonymous identity too, so
nobody can play the same games with your own name and your words.

> We have almost completely driven out our enemies here. Now is the time to 
> stand by your glorious deeds. You've brought us logs of traitors, you've 
> brought us resignation emails, you've sent out a great poll with a summary, 
> and you've called for FSFE booths to be set on fire. That's good, because we 
> all want to see the traitors burn! They have treated you so badly and they 
> should feel your anger!


I've done none of those things.  A clever hoaxer may have cut and paste
things I really said and mixed in a few exaggerations (like setting a
booth on fire) to cause confusion.

Please don't play with matches.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

minutes, surveys, polls and hoaxes

[Daniel Pocock]

Hi all,

Three permutations of what we were told might be FSFE e.V. minutes
appeared last week (example[1]).  Two of them containing defamatory
information.  One of them had the name Matthias Kirschner in the
document properties, but that is easily forged so it doesn't prove anything.

Purported resignation emails[2] from two FSFE e.V. GA members were
circulated.  Once again we don't know if those emails are genuine.  The
only thing we can be sure of is that two people, Shane Coughlan and Hugo
Roy were removed from the FSFE team[3] page.  We don't know if they
resigned or if they were expelled.

Two surveys/polls were distributed.  One includes[4] a link to my blog,
the other even includes[5] my name.  The former asks people to send me
money.  Please note I'm not asking people for money: I've previously
suggested the best thing to do with your money is keep it in local
groups or give it to developers you know personally.

Hoaxes often cut-and-paste many things that are true to gain our
confidence and then change some minor details to exploit our trust.  For
example, maybe the minutes are 99% true but the results of the votes
have been changed.  The poll with various links includes a link to an
FSFE page about a Fellow who died but it doesn't include any proof that
the same person gave the bequest.  FSFE had 1500 Fellows at its peak,
mostly white German males between 30 - 50 years old.  Actuarial tables
tell us that age group has a 0.2% rate of death: in other words, 3
Fellows die each year, so the probability that the named Fellow gave the
bequest may be less than 33%.  The use of my name, links and phrases
cut-and-pasted directly from previous emails/blogs has prompted some
people to assume I may have started the surveys/polls.  This is exactly
how a hoaxer would want you to feel.

The only thing we can be sure of is that some people have a lot of time
for these games.

Regards,

Daniel

1.
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/pipermail/discussion/2019-October/000401.html
2.
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/pipermail/discussion/2019-October/000460.html
3.
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/pipermail/discussion/2019-October/000462.html
4. https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/vote.pl?id=E_cf5958c1e22be80a
5. https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/vote.pl?id=E_498921e2e7e431e9
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Can I block this sender? Was: Re: FSFE minutes, or a vendetta?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 19/10/2019 02:04, aristo...@tutanota.com wrote:
> 
> Oct 18, 2019, 09:53 by ahil...@keemail.me:
> 
> Daniel. He brought us the minutes of FSFE
> 
> 
> Did he?
> 

I wasn't there

Pleas remember we don't even know if these minutes that keep appearing
(we've seen 3 permutations so far) are even real or a hoax

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: the FSFE resignations (was: Fwd: where there's smoke, there's fire)

[Daniel Pocock]

Can you please tell us if the people who resigned have requested anonymity?

Anybody can work out who they are by comparing the team page to an
archived copy:

https://web.archive.org/web/20191001042154/https://fsfe.org/about/team.en.html

https://fsfe.org/about/team.en.html

I chose not to repeat their names, they are on BCC and invited to come
and speak on their own, if they haven't already been participating here
with anonymous identities.

What would be more interesting is the audio recordings from the meeting
and the names of people voting for and against particular motions.

Regards,

Daniel

On 18/10/2019 14:15, Chelsea Snowden wrote:
> 
> -- Original Message --
> From: Chelsea Snowden 
> To: discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
> Date: October 18, 2019 at 2:57 PM
> Subject: where there's smoke, there's fire
> I want to put the rumors to rest. Here is a clean version as proof. Even
> at the risk of being exposed.
> 
> 
> -- forwarded message --
> Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 21:41:57 +0200
> Subject: [GA] Withdrawal from the association
> [additional headers redacted]
> 
> Dear Matthias,
> 
> I write to you, in your role as President of the Free Software
> Foundation e.V., to declare my withdrawal from the association,
> effective today.
> 
> Dear members,
> 
> I have reached a point in my involvement, where I have decided it is
> time to move on. This decision reflects the reality that both people and
> organizations change in their priorities.
> 
> In terms of free software, I will continue to apply myself, but I have
> to find new partners.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> [redacted]
> 
> ___
> This internal mailing lists for members of the FSFE e.V.
> 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
> 
> 
> -- forwarded message --
> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 19:59:37 +0900
> Subject: Withdrawal from the association
> [additional headers redacted]
> 
> Dear Matthias
> 
> I am writing to you, in your role as President of the Free Software
> Foundation e.V., to declare my withdrawal from the association, FSFE
> team and FSFE legal team, effective today.
> 
> Dear GA Members, Members of FSFE Team, FSFE Legal Team
> 
> After 12 years in the General Assembly of FSFE, and 13 in FSFE team and
> the FSFE legal team, I have decided it is time to move on. This decision
> reflects the reality that both people and organizations change in their
> priorities and their application of scarce resources such as time.
> 
> In terms of open access and open technology, I will continue to apply
> myself activities such as the OpenChain Project and spaces of shared
> knowledge such as the Legal Network and the Asian Legal Network.
> 
> I can be contacted, as always, at [redacted]
> 
> Regards
> 
> [redacted]
> ___
> This internal mailing lists for members of the FSFE e.V.
> 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
> 
> ___
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
> https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> 
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: on SJWs and feminists

[Daniel Pocock]

On 18/10/2019 10:06, Christian Imhorst wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Am 18. Oktober 2019 09:47:09 MESZ schrieb Christian Kalkhoff 
> :
>> I hardly can imagine how fearful it has to be for you wimpy whiners to
>> see the 
>> world your dads showed you through their eyes to change to something
>> you can't 
>> understand out of your holes and echo chambers. 
> 
> It's worse then that. People like him,  ahilter and others on this list are 
> spreading fascist Propaganda. They are hyping up fascists and want to send 
> people with a different opinion into gas (this cannot be misunderstood with 
> 'farting'). And they think that's freedom of speech. Disgusting.
> 
> Good luck with them, Daniel.
> 


As a native English speaker, I'll simply comment that some people do
generally use the word "gas" in that context
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

on SJWs and feminists

[Daniel Pocock]

Hi all,

Bradley Kuhn and I both received part of our education in Jesuit
institutions.  Social justice is an important part of the Jesuit tradition.

The label SJW is an insult to social justice and those who pursue it in
a meaningful and credible way.

The way the feminist label is used is an insult to many women who work
hard.  Those women cringe at the "feminists" who try to talk on their
behalf in our community conferences.

The problems we see in free software communities don't relate to social
justice or feminism.  The problem today is greed, opportunism and ego. A
feminist with an ego problem, a woman with an ego problem or simply a
person with an ego problem: is it their gender or political leaning that
is the problem, or is it just their ego?

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FSFE minutes, or a vendetta?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 17/10/2019 21:26, Jean Louis wrote:
> * Daniel Pocock  [2019-10-18 01:28]:
>> The second document also appears to contain two resignation emails.
>> I've heard that there have actually been more resignations than
>> that.
> 
> So you also say that those could be real.
> 
> I have published few pages:
> https://pleroma.gnusocial.club/notice/9o1eDIfG9fZIxb2zLM on FSFE
> social account, nobody yet answered anything.
> 
> The stamp "CONFIDENTIAL" is not real, it is placed there
> digitally. But could be anything. The stamp DRAFT looks more real.
> 
> That knife is there, says that document was tampered by
> somebody. Fine. But overall it looks genuine.
> 
> However, the writings and changes of Articles are carefully edited and
> they cannot be fake.
> 
> The changes mentioned in overall document are consistent with each
> other.
> 
> That looks as real document to me.
> 

I'm not sure that a German e.V. would have a "DRAFT" or "CONFIDENTIAL"
stamp.  The stamps would use the equivalent German words.

Notice the headings on the left and right side of the constitutional
change, item #13, both are the same: "Current Preamble".  I resigned
more than a year ago but FSFE is still benefiting from my attention to
detail.

Overall, the document is simply outrageous.  While there isn't a lot of
trust between Matthias and myself right now, if he publicly denounces
this document, I will accept it was nothing more than a hoax.


>> Ultimately, the authenticity of either document can't be confirmed
>> unless they are published by FSFE.  Otherwise it could be fake news.
> 
> It could be, but then it would be wasted for what reason? To attack
> your writings? I don't think so. I do not know that you said anything
> so bad that somebody starts writing this type of document and making
> it fake issue. It would look so genuine and then again wasted
> effort. It is not balanced.
> 
> I think that is real draft. But what is real decision, I do not know.
> 
> I have seen many fake documents in last 17 years, and I can spot
> things. I think this is genuine draft.
> 

A hoaxer would want us to distribute a fake document.  We would then
lose our own credibility.

Fake letters created by students changed the course of an Australian
federal election:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-02/jeff-kennett-letter-1996/10862172

They used stolen letterhead from the office of the Victorian state
premier to make it look real.

>> If FSFE was to publish a set of minutes containing a malicious and
>> abusive act of character assassination then it would create a lot of
>> problems.
> 
> They did not mean to publish it.
> 
> I am sure that they have many other decisions which are not
> transparently published. Obviously they publish only annual
> meetings. But what about the "annualy made decisions" - those are not
> published. Thus there is no transparency in FSFE.
> 

Each year they have a weekend meeting and only publish minutes for
approximately 30 minutes out of the 48 hours.


>> If they are authentic, which we don't know, then the conduct of rogue
>> individuals at the annual meeting is extraordinarily abusive.
> 
> But which one?

Anybody who doesn't resign.

> 
>> Even without those circumstances, no organization would pass such a
>> motion in a public meeting and record it in their minutes.
> 
> It was not "public" meeting. You should know it better if you were in
> the FSFE.
> 
> If you know at least one decision that was not published online, then
> you know that this is possible.
> 

It is public in the sense that everybody attending the meeting knows the
minutes will be published.  People submit proposals for the agenda with
the intention that the motion and the vote will be published.

The person submitting a rogue motion does so hoping that it will be
published on the FSFE web site.


>> Such matters are usually handled discretely by the executive and
>> under proper legal advice.
> 
> Document looks like they wanted to handle it discreetly.
> 
> Even if fake, it is time NOW to publish that document.
> 

Please be careful.  You risk your own credibility.  If you publish them,
do so with a disclaimer that their authenticity is not confirmed.

The thing to do is to ask m...@fsfe.org to denounce the documents that
appeared today.


>> The motion in these potentially fake minutes doesn't look like the
>> work of a lawyer, it looks like a vendetta sketched on the back of a
>> napkin.
> 
> I have worked with lawyers, the minutes are minutes, everybody can
> write it, but the modifications in Articles look as carefully drafted.
> 

Motion #15, the hysterical call for legal action a

Re: Can I block this sender? Was: Re: FSFE minutes, or a vendetta?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 17/10/2019 21:04, Roland Häder wrote:
> Is there a way where I can setup a personal (non-global) block against a
> specific sender? Starting to become anoying what this one (you know who)
> writes. To much BS for me.
> 


Great question

"you know who" is somewhat ambiguous, everybody has a different
perspective.  As the saying goes, you can't polish a turd.  But drug
dealers sometimes conceal some very valuable products in those spaces.
I'm simply amazed at how many FSFE GA members are operating under
anonymous identities on this email list.  We can all thank Cryptie for
her leadership in the use of anonymity, she was first and I won't be the
one to compromise her real name.

Personally, I feel that your question gets to the heart of the
censorship issue: it is up to each list subscriber to decide what they
do and don't want to read.  A moderator will always have a bias.  See
the very first message[1] on this list.

You may be able to use a tool like procmail or the Thunderbird message
filters to help you.

Regards,

Daniel


1. https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/pipermail/discussion/2019-May/00.html
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

FSFE minutes, or a vendetta?

[Daniel Pocock]

Hi all,

Two different documents appeared today claiming to be minutes of the
FSFE e.V. annual meeting

I haven't compared them line by line to see if they are the same.

The second document also appears to contain two resignation emails.
I've heard that there have actually been more resignations than that.

Ultimately, the authenticity of either document can't be confirmed
unless they are published by FSFE.  Otherwise it could be fake news.

If FSFE was to publish a set of minutes containing a malicious and
abusive act of character assassination then it would create a lot of
problems.

If they are authentic, which we don't know, then the conduct of rogue
individuals at the annual meeting is extraordinarily abusive.  I
resigned from my role at FSFE and reduced my involvement in other
volunteer activities at an acute time of grief and personal tragedy.
The way certain animals behaved after that brings the entire free
software concept into disrepute.

Even without those circumstances, no organization would pass such a
motion in a public meeting and record it in their minutes.  Such matters
are usually handled discretely by the executive and under proper legal
advice.  The motion in these potentially fake minutes doesn't look like
the work of a lawyer, it looks like a vendetta sketched on the back of a
napkin.

The only thing for FSFE to do right now is to confirm that those
documents are fake and that no such motions were passed at the annual
meeting.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FSFE GA minutes, fake or proof? (was: Fwd: Joint statement on the GNU Project + gnu-system-discuss)

[Daniel Pocock]

On 17/10/2019 07:51, wikile...@mailo.com wrote:
> 
> On 17/10/2019 00:39:54 Europe/Paris Jean Louis wrote:
> 
>> RMS was smart
> 
> rms was deleted
> 
> now you have it
> 
> ultimate humiliation
> 


Thanks for sharing.  If this is fake news it is very well made, somebody
should get a prize for their efforts, maybe even the FSF award[1]?

It has some mistakes in it though so maybe it is fake.  It also strikes
me as odd that any organization could pass motions changing the quota
requirements so dramatically without any opposition from members.

Why would they increase the president's term from 2 years to 6 years?

It seems incredible that a bunch of 11 people travel to Essen to have a
meeting and pass motions like this.  We just have to wait and see when
FSFE makes an official publication on their web site, they have a
Transparency page for things like this.

Regards,

Daniel

1. https://danielpocock.com/what-does-fsf-censor/
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FSFE and proof

[Daniel Pocock]

On 16/10/2019 16:23, ahil...@keemail.me wrote:
> What is this shit? It won't come out! The link sucks!

Is this the link?

https://fsfe.org/picturebase/events/201910-fsfe-ga-meeting-participants.jpg

They look so happy.  Maybe they were so inspired by that €150,000
bequest that they did something really positive, like writing their own
wills.

> We have the total war now!

But they look so happy.  When you go to war, the army makes you write a
will during your enlistment.

How many GA members include a bequest to FSFE in their will?  How many
staff?

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: some advice from Barack Obama to Free Software communities?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 16/10/2019 14:40, Anco Dapo wrote:
 For example, do you know how many people made secret
 recordings of the FSFE annual meeting with their phones?  I
 believe one of them was even
 using a Free Software app that I contributed to:
>>>
>>> I call your bluff. Publish the recording or shut up.
>>
>>
>> Use your real name or shut up
> 
> So as always, you have nothing. All you can do is evade questions like a 
> shady politician. You know you are wrong. You know you have nothing. You 
> evade questions instead of showing proof.


You've just given us the proof that you are a troll.  Have a nice day.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Aw: Re: some advice from Barack Obama to Free Software communities?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 16/10/2019 14:04, Anco Dapo wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
>> Romans used lions and tigers to kill their slaves, now it is email
>> lynchings but isn't it the same mindset?
> 
> All I can see is that they removed a disruptive element from their 
> organization. That is sensible.
> 
> 
>>> It is unlikely that all these organizations who kicked you out did so 
>>> without reason.
>>
>> I wasn't kicked out, I resigned:
> 
> Well, you resigned just before they could kick you out. So that is 
> essentially the same. And I also wrote about other 

Multiple people have resigned from FSFE in recent times.

Like Florian Snow, you are trying to put all the attention on me
personally to avoid the real issues.  Your emails are thick on character
assassination and void of any constructive solutions.

> They do great work and you took up too much of their time. 
> 

Rogue elements of Debian blackmail volunteers at Christmas.  I'm happy
to take up their time if it stops them blackmailing more volunteers.
They also host libel on Debian infrastructure, like this:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2019/01/msg00170.html

Is that what you call "great work"?  Most people call it cyberbullying.

> 
>> Censorship.  Smoking gun.
> 
> I was talking about your recent accusations of the FSFE. So again, you have 
> no proof.

A journalist only needs two sources to publish a story.  I have far more
than that.  If I haven't published proof, what makes you think I haven't
seen or heard it in some form?

For example, do you know how many people made secret recordings of the
FSFE annual meeting with their phones?  I believe one of them was even
using a Free Software app that I contributed to:

https://github.com/Kaljurand/Diktofon/graphs/contributors

https://f-droid.org/wiki/page/kaljurand_at_gmail_dot_com.diktofon

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: some advice from Barack Obama to Free Software communities?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 16/10/2019 13:49, Jean Louis wrote:
> * Daniel Pocock  [2019-10-16 18:03]:
>> It isn't just the FSFE.  Back in Roman times they would demote people
>> to be non-citizens and take away their vote, like demoting the Fellows
>> to be Supporters.  Every now and then they would kill some slaves to
>> keep all the other slaves in fear.
>>
>> Romans used lions and tigers to kill their slaves, now it is email
>> lynchings but isn't it the same mindset?
>>
>>> It is unlikely that all these organizations who kicked you out did so 
>>> without reason.
>>
>> I wasn't kicked out, I resigned:
>>
>> https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2018-September/012650.html
> 
> What is fellowship? Any reference to it?


https://fsfellowship.eu/2018/09/08/who-were-the-fsfe-fellowship.html

> 
>> A few weeks later Matthias Kirschner had a meeting with Chris Lamb
>> (Debian) in Italy somewhere and decided to make ongoing hostilities.
>> Why this vendetta, why didn't they let sleeping dogs lie after I
>> resigned?
> 
> Which hostilities, any reference?
> 


An email circulated by Matthias Kirschner contains the quote: "One
general wish -- which I agreed with -- from Debian was to better
share information about people".  The email went around privately, as it
is mostly defamatory I'm not planning to publish it publicly.

People who know the history of the Stasi, blacklisting and such are
horrified at these conspiracies against volunteers.


>> Look at the FSF archives and see if you can find the message I posted in
>> support of RMS:
>>
>> https://danielpocock.com/what-does-fsf-censor/
>>
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2019-10/index.html
>>
>> Notice that messages posted by Jean Louis and I today don't appear there
>> either.  Censorship.  Smoking gun.
> 
> That is moderated, censored, forbidden, for reasons that they will
> simply say it is off-topic. Maybe even Richard Stallman is censored
> too.
> 
> They censored many of my messages, and I was just answering to
> people. I am not even initiating the conversation. Just
> answering. 
> 
> But Guix leaders' statement was off-topic for GNU project and nobody
> is censoring their page. That is my point, I would not say anything
> would there be 1 (one) person responsible to keep GNU project
> apolitical or to supervise websites according to GNU kind
> communication guidelines.
> 
> Basically everything that RMS said that relates to GNU project and
> free software represents free software philosophy. That includes GNU
> kind communication guidelines and the point that GNU shall remain
> apolitical, and that only politics shall be free software and related
> human rights.
> 
> So if there is no inner moderation of politics and bad conduct, then I
> am protesting.
> 
> And even Guix developers think that it is off-topic to post it to
> Guix-devel and help-guix mailing lists, I think it is very on-topic as
> they started posting off-topic defamation of the RMS on Guix pages.

What you describe is politics 101: the people who control the
infrastructure will do what they want, rule by decree and use codes of
conduct as a justification for whatever they want to do anyway.  These
are more arguments for changing the structure of FSF and GNU.

While some people speak up publicly about these concerns, there are many
more who recognized these games and simply quit.  Better things to do
with their time.

Regards,

Daniel

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: intervening against abuse from FSFE

[Daniel Pocock]

On 16/10/2019 12:00, Anco Dapo wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
>  all you have are emails you decorated with images and lists of subject 
> lines, but nothing about the content.

The subject lines you mention[1] make the point.

In many cases, I deliberately obscure names because these are not
personal issues with people, it is an organization behaving badly[2] and
I'd like to minimize the inconvenience for those people who get sucked
into a lynching and then realize their mistake later.

Several people have already retracted things they said during past
lynchings and I hope we will see more of that as first step towards a
healthier community.

Regards,

Daniel

1. https://danielpocock.com/codes-of-conduct-and-hypocrisy/
2. https://fsfellowship.eu/2019/01/26/fsfe-behavior-standards.html
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: some advice from Barack Obama to Free Software communities?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 16/10/2019 08:21, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Am 16.10.19 um 09:06 schrieb Jean Louis:
> 
>> I would not bash them for that, but then we shall promote free
>> software philosophy without politics.
> 
> IMO that is not possible.
> 
> May be one thinks, (s)he can promote "open source philosophy" without
> politics, but not Free Software philosophy.
> 
> Promoting freedom has necessarily political implications.
> 

When Kirschner asserts[1] that free software and open source are the
same thing, he appears to be demoting and subverting the philosophy,
denying it is important, maybe even ridiculing it.  It is like diluting
fuel with methanol or some other cheaper substance.

In a free world, he is free to talk about open source and his own
philosophy.  As my new blog post asserts[2], I'm not keen on censoring
people.

When he uses the FSF*derivative name and his title to demote the
philosophy, that is rather unpleasant.  People see the FSF* name and
some think it represents the same philosophy as FSF.

Doing a combination of changes to an organization's constitution and
doing them at this particular point in time would also be a calculated
insult to the founder of the movement.  Kicking a volunteer while he is
down.  It is a particularly nasty type of organization that harasses
volunteers even after they have resigned.

It only adds weight to the assertion that FSFE is an organization
founded on a grudge, not on the Free Software philosophy.

If you add up their financial disclosures, you find they raised
approximately €3 million in the last 15 years using the FSF* name, a
name taken from the person they are insulting.  How could they be more
ungrateful?

Regards,

Daniel


1.
https://k7r.eu/2-percent-discussion-free-software-or-open-source-software/
2. https://danielpocock.com/where-do-censored-developers-go/
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

some advice from Barack Obama to Free Software communities?

[Daniel Pocock]

I hear that the FSFE annual meeting recently decided to make various
changes to their constitution, removing Richard Stallman's name and
inserting Open Source, then extending the 2 year term of Matthias
Kirschner indefinitely so he can be president for life.

Let's hope it is all fake news.

Here is what Obama tells us:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjaY6ybk178
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

intervening against abuse from FSFE

[Daniel Pocock]

Hi all,

It has been communicated to me that the FSFE e.V. annual meeting
discussed motions abusive to two volunteers.  There were already some
hints about this on the Fellowship list.

In over 20 years doing free software, I've never seen anything so
hideous.  I sincerely hope that this email turns out to be fake news but
I have seen enough evidence to suspect the reports are accurate.

The two volunteers have been committed to Free Software throughout their
entire professional lives.

The nature of the motions are purely destructive and intended to cause
personal harm.  They bring no benefit to free software.  The documents
I've seen show only one thing: a vendetta.

Multiple GA members have resigned.  Other members and staff are
contemplating a similar response.  The resignations may not appear
publicly but you will be able to detect them when their names are
removed from the FSFE e.V. "Team" page:

https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://fsfe.org/about/team.en.html

When other organizations have pursued similar courses of action,
including vendettas and other gross acts of bullying it has led to
physical violence, suicides and other acts that have done far more than
simply bringing the organization into disrepute.  The information I've
been shown suggests that some members of FSFE e.V. seek to take the
organization down that path.  People have speculated this vendetta is
being pursued with the zealousness of the final solution, which is a
horrible analogy but nonetheless it reflects the entirely destructive
intentions.

Abusing a volunteer is incredibly serious.  There is no positive
outcome, the only question is how much harm will FSFE do now.  The
organization will also suffer increased cost and inconvenience when
staff members quit and sponsors withdraw.

If these reports are true, then I would reconsider my previous call for
Matthias Kirschner to resign, it would be better for the whole
organization to be disbanded.

Regards,

Daniel


___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FWD: Your message to Discussion awaits moderator approval

[Daniel Pocock]

On 14/10/2019 17:10, quil...@riseup.net wrote:
> On Mon, October 14, 2019 10:53 am, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14/10/2019 16:48, quil...@riseup.net wrote:
>>> Is this list censored (what many call moderation) too? Please tell me
>>> the
>>> truth: Yes or No.
>>>
>>
>> Sometimes people submit an email using an email address that isn't
>> subscribed and it goes in the moderation queue.
>>
>> Then they send the same email again from their usual email address and
>> it is distributed normally.
>>
>> Some people even feel this is helpful as it helps them avoid exposing
>> other email addresses that haven't been harvested yet.
>>
>> Mailman also tries to catch unsubscribe messages and sends back help.
> 
> So this means no messages that are from people which are subscribed to
> this list are blocked or pre-approved before reaching the other
> subscribers?
> 

No.  Feel free to post some fake news and try it

On the topic of technical solutions to censorship, it also occurred to
me that it would be useful to have some censorship-detection plugin.  It
would scan the Received headers to see if messages from certain senders
are being delayed and display a warning for both sender and receivers.

A more sophisticated approach might store checksums of sent messages in
a blockchain and then alert recipients if they are not receiving
messages from some people.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: censorship alternatives (was: Re: )

[Daniel Pocock]

On 14/10/2019 16:50, Jean Louis wrote:
> * Daniel Pocock  [2019-10-14 20:57]:
>> When I wrote re-think the whole platform, I meant either finding a
>> de-centralized way to distribute control of list membership or an
>> alternative technology.  I wasn't just thinking about everybody
>> endlessly moving from one list server to the next.
> 
> That should be so, if mailing list is set up for discussion of certain
> subject and anything related to that subject, an ethical administrator
> shall allow people to communicate.
> 
> That is expected from a mailing list.
> 
> For example GNU project is not political, and Guix people are making
> it political for their agenda, but not allowing people to speak to
> Guix people about the same issue they have started talking inside of
> Guix space.
> 
> That is censorship, not just moderation of off-topic communication.
> 
> But setting up such system in place would be something similar to
> Bitcoin block chain that makes sure that certain emails are always
> there INSIDE of the block chain, but some are on topic and visible and
> some are off-topic and not visible.
> 
> Verification of the block chain could make sure that everybody knows
> who wrote what to the mailing list even if some emails were marked as
> off-topic. 
> 
> Something like that.

I started thinking that maybe some of this could be done with a
Thunderbird plugin, managing a BCC list in any block chain or
distributed data structure.

There are various questions:

- does the data structure store the list of subscribers or the actual
messages or both?

- how do people add and remove themselves?  I suspect this won't be
completely immune to abuse, some users could potentially hang on to the
addresses of people who unsubscribe.

- which headers does the plugin need to set, e.g. just the List-Id header?

- how to handle bounces?

There are also some answers: for example, any individual user can make a
decision to block email from another user.  It is therefore a personal
decision and not a moderator decision.  The solution will not attempt to
re-create moderation facilities.

Regards,

Daniel


___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FWD: Your message to Discussion awaits moderator approval

[Daniel Pocock]

On 14/10/2019 16:48, quil...@riseup.net wrote:
> Is this list censored (what many call moderation) too? Please tell me the
> truth: Yes or No.
> 

Sometimes people submit an email using an email address that isn't
subscribed and it goes in the moderation queue.

Then they send the same email again from their usual email address and
it is distributed normally.

Some people even feel this is helpful as it helps them avoid exposing
other email addresses that haven't been harvested yet.

Mailman also tries to catch unsubscribe messages and sends back help.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: working around censorship on this list

[Daniel Pocock]

On 14/10/2019 16:24, ahil...@keemail.me wrote:
> Oct 8, 2019, 21:36 by dan...@pocock.pro:
> 
>> It wouldn't be hard to make a Thunderbird plugin or a script on the mail
>> server to automatically add the necessary headers and operate parallel
>> lists.
>>
> Can you do it automatically so we can bypass the censorship on this list? You 
> have announced the censorship.
> 

I didn't announce censorship.  Give me $300,000 and I will consider
censoring the list, that is all I wrote.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

censorship alternatives (was: Re: )

[Daniel Pocock]

On 14/10/2019 16:15, Jean Louis wrote:
> * Daniel Pocock  [2019-10-14 19:36]:
>> On 14/10/2019 14:49, ahil...@keemail.me wrote:
>>> Oct 14, 2019, 13:42 by stefan.fr...@gmx.de:
>>>
>>>>
>>> we are protected from censorship.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, you're not.  Do you really believe I wouldn't consider censoring
>> this list if somebody from Google arrived on my doorstep right now
>> and handed me $300,000 to do so?
> 
> Well, that is matter of integrity.
> 
> People with integrity have no price.
> 
> Without integrity, the limit can be lifted, it is just matter of price
> for them.
> 
> But people with integrity have something much more valuable inside,
> for eternity.
> 
>> If you want protection from censorship then it is necessary to
>> re-think the whole platform, not just move to another list.
> 
> "censorship" more relates to governments, private mailing lists are
> always censored.
> 

When I wrote "re-think the whole platform", I meant either finding a
de-centralized way to distribute control of list membership or an
alternative technology.  I wasn't just thinking about everybody
endlessly moving from one list server to the next.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re:

[Daniel Pocock]

On 14/10/2019 14:49, ahil...@keemail.me wrote:
> Oct 14, 2019, 13:42 by stefan.fr...@gmx.de:
> 
>>
> we are protected from censorship.



No, you're not.  Do you really believe I wouldn't consider censoring
this list if somebody from Google arrived on my doorstep right now and
handed me $300,000 to do so?

If you want protection from censorship then it is necessary to re-think
the whole platform, not just move to another list.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: RMS resigned, why not Matthias Kirschner too?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 14/10/2019 11:25, lists...@netcologne.de wrote:
>> Daniel Pocock  hat am 12. Oktober 2019 um 21:16 
>> geschrieben:
>>
>>
>>
>> The case for Matthias Kirschner's resignation as FSFE president is more
>> serious than the case for RMS's resignation.
>>
>> Does anybody agree that at least one of the points on this list is more
>> serious than all the false allegations misquoting RMS combined?
>>
>> If so, should Kirschner resign too?
>>
>> Here is the charge sheet:
>> ...
> 
> The events of 2016 would be added. (Sorry long threats and in German.) I'm 
> thinking since 2016 whether my money for the FSF and FSFE memberships should 
> not go better to the Debian Project and/or the CCC. Both do more for free 
> software and internet freedom!

Debian changes leader every year.  Debian has also refused to discuss
the secret Google donations[1] or the last Debian Project Leader, Chris
Lamb and his girlfriend Molly de Blanc ("Mollamby") going together[2] to
an event in Australia.

 My suggestion is to pool your money in local groups with people you can
meet in person from time to time.  You can also send money directly to
the developers of any project you really want to support.  I'm not
asking for your money but I might make some more suggestions soon.

> 
> 7. The closure of the FSFE office in Düsseldorf, system administration and 
> merchandising concept.
> 
> ¹https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/private/rheinland/2016q1/003135.html
> ²https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/private/rheinland/2016q2/003242.html

Can you summarize, how many people stopped donating?  How many stopped
volunteering?  Where there any other measurable consequences of the
decision to close Düsseldorf?

Regards,

Daniel

1. https://danielpocock.com/google-money-censorship-free-software/
2. https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/thank-you-linux-conf-australia
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: RMS resigned, why not Matthias Kirschner too?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 12/10/2019 21:31, aristo...@tutanota.com wrote:
> 
> Oct 12, 2019, 19:16 by dan...@pocock.pro:
> 
> 
> Does anybody agree that at least one of the points on this list is more
> serious than all the false allegations misquoting RMS combined?
> 
> No false allegation point on your list is more serious than all the
> false allegations misquoting RMS combined.
> 


In a world where trial-by-social media is the norm, isn't everybody now
guilty until proven innocent?
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

RMS resigned, why not Matthias Kirschner too?

[Daniel Pocock]

The case for Matthias Kirschner's resignation as FSFE president is more
serious than the case for RMS's resignation.

Does anybody agree that at least one of the points on this list is more
serious than all the false allegations misquoting RMS combined?

If so, should Kirschner resign too?

Here is the charge sheet:

1. the fellowship / supporter financial data vulnerability.
Organizations have on obligation to report breaches but FSFE chose to
hide their issue[1] last year, potentially violating the law.

2. participants were not informed that their email addresses were
available[2] for all other participants to download, some people seemed
surprised at this.

3. the vendetta against the last Fellowship representative, including
two formal attempts to remove the representative within a space of 5
months, does anybody doubt that this confrontational approach was the
trigger for all subsequent animosity, airing of dirty laundry, etc?

4. the botched[3] force-migration of Fellows into the Supporter program.
 Many fellows chose not to renew and total membership and revenue from
the Fellows was reduced.

5. the failure to correctly deal with conflicts of interest, as
reported[4] on the fellowship blog

6. the false, malicious and defamatory claims that German authorities
are making an investigation in the Fellowship representative


Regards,

Daniel


1. https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/pipermail/discussion/2019-May/88.html
2. https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2019-May/012696.html
3. https://fsfellowship.eu/2018/09/08/who-were-the-fsfe-fellowship.html
4. https://fsfellowship.eu/2019/01/26/fsfe-behavior-standards.html

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

working around censorship on FSF, FSFE and LibrePlanet lists

[Daniel Pocock]

Hi all,

I put together some more detailed notes to help people work around
censorship in mailing lists

https://danielpocock.com/freedom-and-censorship-on-mailing-lists/

It wouldn't be hard to make a Thunderbird plugin or a script on the mail
server to automatically add the necessary headers and operate parallel
lists.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Removal of A.Hitler

[Daniel Pocock]

This looks a lot like the conflict that arises from time to time on
every list.

Can I suggest an alternative way forward: if you are having difficult
with communications from any other list user, here are some things that
you could try

Try to find another way to communicate, for example, ask if they live
nearby and want to meet for a coffee

Look for something positive in their contributions and reaffirm that,
especially if you agree with the comment/idea

Suggest a way they can improve

Avoid generalizations.  E.g. using the word "spam" is a generalization.
People sometimes call something spam when it is off-topic: in that case,
it is better to say off-topic.



On 08/10/2019 17:23, David wrote:
>  Following the addition of this list member discussion has been
>  overwhelmed by disgraceful posts and gross aggravation and
>  aggressiveness towards other list members. This members spam level has
>  also been, simply, ridiculous and noxious.
> 
>  I don't see a list option for adding a poll but, in its absence, please
>  will other members signify their approval or disapproval with a motion
>  to request a permanent ban on member A.Hitler ahil...@keemail.me . I
>  hope that the list owner might be willing to abide by the decision of
>  the members.
> 
> Approve:
> 
> 1
> 
> Disapprove:
> 
> 
> Many thanks to all who take part.
> 
> David
> ___
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
> https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> 
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Radbot is a winner!

[Daniel Pocock]

On 08/10/2019 11:48, ahil...@keemail.me wrote:
> Why are you advertising your products here? I thought this was about free 
> software, not advertising. Or was it a distraction?


The hardware and software have both been developed using open source
principles

Personally, I welcome examples like this as it provides an interesting
model for other people to start businesses

I didn't see this as advertising: winning an award like that shows that
an open product can be perceived as superior to proprietary products.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Fwd: [GA] 2018 budget proposal & 2017 results

[Daniel Pocock]

On 04/10/2019 21:25, Florian Snow wrote:
> 
> 
> On October 4, 2019 8:27:17 PM GMT+02:00, Daniel Pocock  
> wrote:
>> Stasi[1] HQ
> 
> Thank you for reminding me of the reason I stopped debating with you a while 
> ago and why I shouldn't have started again.

You started again on Monday opening a thread with an email that appeared
very personal.  There was nothing about free software in there, it was
all about me in a role I resigned from over a year ago.

> And just for everyone else who is wondering: I am a volunteer, like many 
> others that Daniel attacks, calls terrorists, spies, and bribed by Google. 
> But I guess the negative salary that the FSFE pays me is so heavily 
> influenced by Google that I just don't realize how wrong I am.

If we set aside the terrorist stuff, how can you say Google is not spying?

Bribing and corporate influence are not the same thing, I've only
alleged the latter.  The fact that Google has their own line in the
spreadsheet shows that their interests are at the front of everybody's
minds in FSFE.

9 November is the 30th anniversary of the Berlin Wall coming down.  To
celebrate, why not send Google's money back to them?

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Fwd: [GA] 2018 budget proposal & 2017 results

[Daniel Pocock]

On 04/10/2019 19:39, Florian Snow wrote:
> 

> 
> Exactly. So why did you choose to do that anyway?


Why do you keep trying to pivot the thread back to personal questions
and avoid the topic at hand, money and influence from Google?

Its almost amusing that an organization headquartered in what was once
east Berlin, just 8 metro stops from the Stasi[1] HQ, is so keen to
avoid discussion of their funding from an entity that would be every
Stasi officer's wet dream.

Regards,

Daniel



1.
https://www.minareport.com/2018/11/11/make-sense-google-offered-stasi-hq-for-its-berlin-office/
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Fwd: [GA] 2018 budget proposal & 2017 results

[Daniel Pocock]

On 04/10/2019 16:11, Florian Snow wrote:
> 
> 
> On October 4, 2019 3:45:10 PM GMT+02:00, Daniel Pocock  
> wrote:
>> Volunteers are not obliged to inform FSFE e.V. about their family life.
> 
> I did not claim otherwise.
> 

Yet a strongly-worded email criticizing volunteers for not being able to
follow through on everything may create the impression that absences
have to be explained.

> 
>> There are many private situations where a volunteer would not be able
>> to disclose any details at all.
> 
> I would imagine that in such a situation, said volunteer would not attack 
> others for ..

This wasn't just about any one volunteer, I mentioned the names of
various volunteers who were attacked recently.

What about the volunteer who was forcibly excluded from his local FSFE
group after distributing a leaflet about Google?  Seeing that Google's
financial contributions are so large to justify their own entry in the
budget shines a new light on the concerns that volunteer was trying to
raise and the huge conflict-of-interest staff had when deciding to
punish him.


> 
>> While these things are ongoing, while various mailing lists are
>> actively
>> censoring mail about conflicts of interest and Google
> 
> I am not sure which mailing lists you mean, but I can tell you that none of 
> the FSFE mailing lists do that.  And from what I have seen on the FSF mailing 
> lists, I don't have that impression either.
>

My own blog was removed from Planet FSFE when I asked questions about
conflicts of interest.  I was simply trying to perform my role as a
representative.  Any attempt to send email to lists.fsfe.org lists is
also censored, you personally used your role as moderator there to
reject a message that I sent giving a long explanation about it.  The
correct thing to do would have been to answer the question publicly.

Regards,

Daniel

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Fwd: [GA] 2018 budget proposal & 2017 results

[Daniel Pocock]

On 04/10/2019 15:15, Florian Snow wrote:
> 
> 
> On October 4, 2019 2:59:59 PM GMT+02:00, Daniel Pocock  
> wrote:
>> I told people that I withdrew from some of my activities due to family
>> reasons, including the death of my father and other matters of a
>> similar
>> level of tragedy.  A few days later your email appears complaining I
>> didn't do everything I should have done as a volunteer.  It wasn't just
>> unsympathetic, it was a horrendous way to respond.
> 
> 
> This is a lie by omission. You did not tell us about any family issues. In 
> fact you told us we hadn't tried to talk to you. Some of our responses said 
> that we tried to talk and you didn't show up. That is all it was: Responding 
> to one of your accusations. I am sorry about the timing.
> 

Volunteers are not obliged to inform FSFE e.V. about their family life.

Over the last year, I withdrew from FOSSASIA, DebConf and RHL19 and
reduced my RMLL trip to a single day.  Nobody actually asked why, people
just complained and some of them continue to sustain that hostility.

There are many private situations where a volunteer would not be able to
disclose any details at all.


> 
>> There seems to be some pattern,
> 
> Yes, a pattern of you publishing selective information. My summary may not be 
> perfect, but I tried to give it neutrally and look at it from different 
> sides. I defended your behavior when a lot of people had given up. But you 
> don't publish any information that shows how you acted. Instead, you claim 
> "other people told me" and "people ask" and show screenshots of email 
> subjects that say nothing about the content so you can then claim something 
> improper went on.  It is difficult to defend against FUD.
> 
> I am always willing to forgive and move on. If you are interested, please let 
> me know. I tried in the past to work with you. Perhaps you can go through 
> your email archive and try to remember.

At a distinct time of personal tragedy, people went to extraordinary
lengths to suggest that there was wrongdoing that nobody can actually
identify, even removing me from the Debian keyring as I was about to go
on vacation.

Even after I resigned from my role at FSFE e.V., I still get regular
reports of gossip emails that people sent or continue to send.

During this time, other volunteers (Norbert Preining, Richard Stallman)
have also been subjected to extraordinary abuse as well.

While these things are ongoing, while various mailing lists are actively
censoring mail about conflicts of interest and Google, it is hard to
talk about forgiveness.  The perception I have now is that bad actors
are deciding who to attack next or how to push the knife deeper now that
RMS is gone.

If individual members of the community are willing to distance
themselves from that rogue behaviour then that might offer opportunities
for forgiveness at a personal level.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Fwd: [GA] 2018 budget proposal & 2017 results

[Daniel Pocock]

On 04/10/2019 14:51, Florian Snow wrote:
> 
> 
> On October 4, 2019 2:13:10 PM GMT+02:00, Daniel Pocock  
> wrote:
> 
>> The highly defamatory emails sent by Matthias Kirschner and
>> Florian Snow recently are examples of Google-sponsored terrorism
>> against
>> people who question Google's influence.
> 
> This is almost funny. For someone who claims to fight for fair exchange of 
> thoughts, Daniel is doing a fair amount of name-calling. I don't understand 
> how posting a summary is defamatory, but lying, calling people terrorists and 
> bullies is not. Perhaps I should be used to Daniel's hypocrisy by now.


terrorism = promoting fear by hurting people

I told people that I withdrew from some of my activities due to family
reasons, including the death of my father and other matters of a similar
level of tragedy.  A few days later your email appears complaining I
didn't do everything I should have done as a volunteer.  It wasn't just
unsympathetic, it was a horrendous way to respond.

Many people write to me privately telling me that they are happy to see
someone asking questions but they are afraid to ask the same questions
because they don't want vicious personal attacks like that in response.

There seems to be some pattern, large donations from Google to Debian,
the donations also hidden from public scrutiny and at the same time, an
increasing level of hostility emerges.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion