Re: Fwd: FSFE

[The one with the questions]

Hey Quiliro,

thanks for your response.


Nov 21, 2019, 01:26 by quil...@riseup.net:

>> 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.
>

I agree regarding the document source. That's the minutes FSFE published: 
https://fsfe.org/about/legal/minutes/minutes-2019-10-12.en.pdf


And that's the fake Daniel published in a way that it looks like the original 
and which he used to construct his 
story:https://fsfellowship.eu/assets/fsfe-minutes-2019-10-12.en.pdf

Before that there where more fake documents spread in this list. I asked him if 
he also created the other fake documents but he refused to answer.


>> 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.
>

please let us know if you have an answer.



>> 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.
>

Many arguments which might suggest that FSFE is no longer on track are based on 
documents and mails spread here. So I think the question whether they are true 
or if all the arguments are build on fake mails and documents is a crucial one.



>  If it is
> the later, I or of any of the organizations I support would not make
> FSFE an allie.
>

It seems like at the moment at least all the other FSF* consider FSFE still an 
allie, maybe that a more trustworthy source then a mailing list where it is 
proven that the main initiator spreed fake documents in order to support his 
arguments?


>
> My connections to these organizations are as direct as yours. I am not
> searching for personal positions from the members of these
> organizations. 
>

OK, then it was my misunderstanding. I thought you are an active FSFLA member 
with internal contacts.


>
> 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.
>

For me it is still not clear who attacks whom. If I look at all the mails here, 
the fake documents, the blog posts it looks like Daniel is attacking various 
free software organizations way more than the other way around.


>> Just asking questions...
>>
>
> A lot of statements in your questions!
>

But most of the time statements which carry a indirect question mark ;)


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

Re: Fwd: FSFE

[ahilter]

> 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.
>

His name is Florian Sow! Sow, like the squealing little pigs you talk about 
knifing, Daniel!




> Nobody was subscribed without consent.
>

All this shit about consent makes me want to puke anyway. If I ask a woman if 
she wants to fuck with me and we go to her, why should I ask again? She has 
already fucked others and agreed with it. She also said to me, yes, let's go 
and let's fuck, I need it today really hard, preferably from behind, because 
that makes me so horny. Then she can no longer say that I may not cum on her 
face! She likes it from behind and I like to cum on her in the face! One is the 
prerequisite for the other. We have the same situation here that people have 
agreed to receive mails from the FSF*. Then they must also want to be on this 
list. Exactly the same. You're right Daniel, as always, even if these 
brain-fucked idiots don't want to understand!
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Fwd: FSFE

[ahilter]

> It is also necessary to stop attacking Daniel because FSFE is a stronger
> party than him. It is not a fair fight
>


I really don't want to hear any more insults about Daniel! It is unbelievable 
how he is attacked from all sides here. We should support him, not weaken him! 
He is not as weak as you think. The wrong FSF* are attacking him all the time, 
but he's fine and has the advantage of publishing all information. The FSF* say 
they don't do that and that makes them weak. That's why Daniel can shoot back 
so well here. He has taken the community away from them and he makes sure that 
they don't do any more work, but only deal with him. This is a great 
achievement and I don't want you to defile Daniel's reputation here by calling 
him weak. He's much stronger than the wrong FSF* because they're too stupid to 
fight.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Fwd: FSFE

[ahilter]

> This funding that FSFE receives could reach the most needed.
>


That's a wonderful, fantastic idea! We should give the money to the poor. 
You're right, because the FSF* are rich shits. They're not part of the 1%, but 
they're just as shitty. So let's fight for them to give the money to the poor 
because they really need it. Maybe we should take some of the many millions 
they have so that we can get Daniel a bodyguard. Because Maffias Kirchner is a 
fast driver who likes to attack motorcyclists. I'm not even sure if this was an 
attack on Daniel, because maybe he always does it that way because he obviously 
enjoys hurting other people. But on the other hand it couldn't have been a 
coincidence with Daniel and I think Daniel wouldn't have written this here if 
he hadn't recognized Maffias and heard from him that it was intentional. Either 
way, Daniel urgently needs protection, because next time Maffias might not only 
be on the road with a car, but with a pistol or even a rifle. You can survive 
that, but not as easily as an attack from a car.

So who can take on the work?
___
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

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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

Re: Fwd: FSFE

[The one with the questions]

>
> 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.
>

Is it FSFE's own comment? Or your fake like your fake of the GA minutes which 
you presented as the true one to us? Is even the initial request by John 
Sullivab true? I would prefer if Quiliro could check this with his internal 
contacts.


>
> 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.
>

I expect that FSF would have done something against it if they didn't agree. 
Also both the page of the FSFE and the FSFLA speak about this "sister 
organization"-thingy. Maybe Quiliro can say something about it, I trust him 
more then you at the moment, sorry.


>
> Could people also set up groups with names like Debian Europe, Mozilla
> Europe, Fedora Europe, etc?
>
asks the one who plays word games like fsfellowship.org to confuse people? Put 
articles on the same page which look like they link to the real GA notes while 
it is a gigantic fake... All really trustworthy.

___
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

[The one with the questions]

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, especially as we know for sure that he faked documents he shared here 
and in his blog before? Do you know that the mailing list we are writing here 
is in no way affiliated with FSF*? Most of us are probably just here because 
Daniel mass subscribed us without our consensus.

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 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?

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.

-- 
Just asking questions...

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

Re: Fwd: FSFE

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

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?

This funding that FSFE receives could reach the most needed. The
strongest projects should receive the least and the others should
receive the most. But after all, I don't think anything can be done by
us. I cannot be sure of the destinations of the funds. But the names of
the companies should be a good map to show it. They are not the best
defenders of freedom. They will always privilege business to freedom. So
this does not sound very good for FSFE's name.

I think that it would be desirable that FSFE would be transparent in
order for people to see them being in reality what they say they are. It
would benefit FSFE also.

Someone that stands up deserves my support. Not everyone has the courage
to do it. Do you have proposals for actions that I can collaborate with
to make a fairer position for you?

Another thing is that it would be good that FSFE would make their
position about Richard Stallman public, as well as their alignment or
not with FSF's policies. These are very gray areas (as I have read by
your comments on previous emails). Their policies about these topics are
not public or are not very visible.

I think that what is happening today is about the same as had happened
when OSI was founded in 1998; same trick, new generation: developers
resented because Richard is not very diplomatic and has his own opinions
(like everyone else) and by the fact that he is very transparent about
them. Those developers are not as freedom-centered as Richard, but they
are very business-oriented. They believe money, amount/quality of code
and popularity are more pragmatic than freedom. So they want to take
control of the movement. I think (as proposed by A. Hilter) that the
free software movement should be controlled by users and not by
developers. But that requires very conscious users and their money or
other resources.

I hope you understand better my proposals now. I am sorry if I have not
explained well before.

Happy hacking!
Quiliro
___
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

Re: Fwd: FSFE

[Quiliro Ordóñez]

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.
*

I am a little worried about this situation because FSFE has had a good
presence and has a big advocacy infrastructure, which is important for
using towards freedom. We (FSFLA) have our server hosted by FSFE. I have
always thought about self-hosting. But I have not yet figured out how to
do it on our own machines. I prefer not to do it on a VPS. I am just an
activist.

The question of money is not really a big thing, considering that amount
of money is not high in such a region or time span. I think that money
could be better used for funding much more activism on countries with a
much less expensive living costs. It can be a problem for FSFE if that
money has not been handled correctly, though.

I think don't have a personal continued communication with these people.
So I cannot have my own opinion about their procedure regarding their
defense of freedom. I can only refer to bits and pieces of their emails
which I have received from other people. I have had some evasive
responses from FSFE representatives in the past. But I cannot assert
myself if they have had frontal attacks on freedom. It is all very
deceptive.

I think that your position is not very advantageous for speaking with
them, considering the past grudges. But attacking them is also dividing
the free software movement. Unless they are absolutely against the
movement, I do not think it wise for me to take a contrary position to
them.

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.
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.

I do not think that it is wise to quench the passion. Just to make it
come under our own personal rational judgement before pressing the send
button. I was taught this by Richard because I made many errors when
sending emails (and still do, sometimes). He asked me to re-read my own
emails before sending them. But now I try to also re-read them until I
think they would produce the effect I intended them to. This is a
product of aging.
___
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
, 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
.

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