Re: FSFE-in-2020: Who are we?
Hi Mirko, Mirko Boehm writes: > I think we are getting numb to bullshitting. So let me rephrase this > in simple speech: The FSFE-in-2020 ground to a halt because the > decision makers (our GA and the president) did not prioritise it I'm sorry, but that is not my impression at all. The process had serious flaws from the get-go. The survey had no clear aim, multiple major statistical issues and as such was unable to produce any sort of reliable results. Multiple people pointed out those flaws in the beginning of the process, but they did not get corrected anyway by those in charge. The reason they gave was that this was only supposed to be the beginning of the process and it would give a very rough overview with a more refined process to be added later. However, at some point, we received a "final" report for the process that had a lot of claims in it that were not supported by the available data at all. By that point, the process had taken up considerable ressources and so last year at the GA, we had to decide between continuing the process by pouring more ressources on it and stopping it. Continuing would have meant pretty much starting over because of the huge flaws the process had. We also still didn't know the actual goal of the process, so we decided against it. The restructuring was largely independent of the identity process. There were two major obstacles there, though. One was that there was a pad with some notes on how to possibly restructure the FSFE, but the pad had no obvious structure and no clear suggestions. In preparation for the GA, Matthias asked mutliple times for actual motions or suggestions to be written, yet nothing happened. My impression was that you, Mirko, did not have the time to update the pad or something like that. At the same time, we had the problem of an abusive GA member and started to worry more about simply increasing the size of the GA. Happy hacking! Florian ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Old process (Re: FSFE-in-2020: Who are we?)
Am Mittwoch 09 Oktober 2019 10:02:16 schrieb Mirko Boehm: > So let me rephrase this in > simple speech: The FSFE-in-2020 ground to a halt because the decision > makers (our GA and the president) did not prioritise it They did indeed not, but for good reasons (which you don't seem to agree to, which is fine, though calling an explanation attempt bullshitting is something I don't get.). > and have no interest in the increased accountability and transparency > that would inevitably follow from any sort of modernisation of FSFE. In my point of view it wouldn't follow automatically from modernisation. Also the FSFE-in-2020 process was not aiming for increased accountability and transparency. If a process is taking a path that is not bound to get to the results, I think it is important to modify or stop it. Regards, Bernhard -- FSFE -- Founding Member Support our work for Free Software: blogs.fsfe.org/bernhard https://fsfe.org/donate | contribute signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: FSFE-in-2020: Who are we?
Hi, > On 8. Oct 2019, at 17:32, Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > >> Did the whole process grind to a halt, perhaps due to broader collaboration >> issues? > > in short: Yes. > > Though maybe "broader collaboration" is a bit coarse. > My personal take: the process was too heavy and it turned out it could not > deliver what was expected from it. We've also had less time of the people > available who were the ones driving it. Then other other distractions came > to be and the most important goal of FSFE is to help people learn about Free > Software, so we kept doing more for Free Software and less internal > organisational questions. (Again I believe all this to be normal for an > organisation, though we should aim for writing more about this. Sorry for not > doing so earlier and thanks for the question and reminder in the other > thread.) I think we are getting numb to bullshitting. So let me rephrase this in simple speech: The FSFE-in-2020 ground to a halt because the decision makers (our GA and the president) did not prioritise it and have no interest in the increased accountability and transparency that would inevitably follow from any sort of modernisation of FSFE. Best, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: FSFE-in-2020: Who are we?
Hi Paul, Am Freitag 08 Februar 2019 01:40:40 schrieb Paul Boddie: > On Friday 11. August 2017 12.54.53 Jonas Oberg wrote: > > https://fsfe.org/news/2017/news-20170811-01.en.html > > > > As you know, when the FSFE was founded, we put together a document > > describing our self conception. That was 16 years ago, and while I > > believe it to still be relevant, we'll be looking at making a new > > committment towards a revised organisational identity later this year. > > Did I miss the accompanying report about this activity? In the archives of > this list (that I have), I only see a couple of messages later in the same > year, one mentioning a survey and another asking a question about > responding to it. > > The team page on the FSFE Wiki seems to date from 2017: > > https://wiki.fsfe.org/Teams/FSFE-in-2020 > > I also didn't find anything on the main FSFE Web site, either. > > Did the whole process grind to a halt, perhaps due to broader collaboration > issues? in short: Yes. Though maybe "broader collaboration" is a bit coarse. My personal take: the process was too heavy and it turned out it could not deliver what was expected from it. We've also had less time of the people available who were the ones driving it. Then other other distractions came to be and the most important goal of FSFE is to help people learn about Free Software, so we kept doing more for Free Software and less internal organisational questions. (Again I believe all this to be normal for an organisation, though we should aim for writing more about this. Sorry for not doing so earlier and thanks for the question and reminder in the other thread.) Regards, Bernhard -- FSFE -- Founding Member Support our work for Free Software: blogs.fsfe.org/bernhard https://fsfe.org/donate | contribute signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: FSFE-in-2020: Who are we?
On Friday 11. August 2017 12.54.53 Jonas Oberg wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I wanted to point you to this open internship position at the FSFE: > > https://fsfe.org/news/2017/news-20170811-01.en.html > > As you know, when the FSFE was founded, we put together a document > describing our self conception. That was 16 years ago, and while I > believe it to still be relevant, we'll be looking at making a new > committment towards a revised organisational identity later this year. Did I miss the accompanying report about this activity? In the archives of this list (that I have), I only see a couple of messages later in the same year, one mentioning a survey and another asking a question about responding to it. The team page on the FSFE Wiki seems to date from 2017: https://wiki.fsfe.org/Teams/FSFE-in-2020 I also didn't find anything on the main FSFE Web site, either. Did the whole process grind to a halt, perhaps due to broader collaboration issues? Paul ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
