Re: Election rules

On 12/05/2019 18:05, Vitaly Repin wrote: > Hello, > > Yes. This is not elections in any sense. This is just an attempt to > pretend of being elected and represent FSFE fellows. If the Fellows give somebody their vote, that person has a mandate to represent them.  That is not pretending.  It is

Re: Matthias Kirschner, FSFE and Fraud in free software

On 24/05/2019 17:03, Eike Rathke wrote: > Hi, > > On Friday, 2019-05-24 10:13:57 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: > >> In Nazi Germany > > Godwin's law, you lost. https://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2012/05/adolf-hitler-and-double-standards.html To make it clear, cancelin

Re: Fellowship Council election results

On 11/06/2019 22:40, Johann Gross wrote: > This is now 2 weeks. What has happened? Has Daniel Pocock given the > power to the three elected? > Yes, I have done the following: - passed Fellowship records over to your new Fellowship council so they can contact you about their plans

Re: Fellowship Council election results

On 20/06/2019 21:18, Eike Rathke wrote: > Hi, > > On Thursday, 2019-06-13 20:28:13 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: > >> - passed Fellowship records > > What data exactly does a fellowship record include? You could ask priv...@fsfe.org - here is a boilerplate GDPR reques

Re: [nomination]for Fellowship Council renewal and activism

On 09/05/2019 09:42, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote: > Hello, > > next try for a posting: > > Am 08.05.19 um 19:16 schrieb Ingrid Schwarz: > >> "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 >>

Re: Election rules

On 11/05/2019 17:58, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > How does this vote work? Should I have gotten a ballot mail or something? Yes, they look like this: Subject:Poll: FSFellowship Council Election 2019 Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 10:11:21 -0400 From: FSFellowship Returning Officer (CIVS poll

Re: Council Nomination

On 11/05/2019 14:03, Erik Albers wrote: > On 10.05.19 18:56, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> If I am anti-something, >> it is probably Anti-Censorship, as demonstrated in my first email to >> this list. But we could also write that in a positive way: >> Pro-Freedom-o

Re: Election rules

On 11/05/2019 15:14, Joe Awni wrote: > I checked my spam folder and found about a dozen missing messages from > your list, but nothing about voting. I've tried to re-send your vote, did you receive it now? Please note it is not "my" list, it is the community's list. That is why the first

FSFE potentially major data breach, missed opportunities

Dear Fellows, Many of you expressed frustration that an organization like FSFE was distributing your email addresses to other members. Not all of you were warned about that when you joined the mailing list. Anyhow, it turns out that there was a rather serious missed opportunity to review that

Re: Election rules

On 10/05/2019 23:17, Johann Gross wrote: > I see that there is an election started, but I don't find the rules. How > will peoples vote? Will voters can only select one candidate or a list > of candidates? If Daniel Pocock writes that only peoples subscribed on 6 > May are allowed

Re: Election rules

On 11/05/2019 23:07, Johann Gross wrote: > You say that "a few people today" did not get the email for voting? I > think there is something very wrong with this election. > You make all the rules. You say who may vote and who may not. And even > people say they don't get the email they need to

Re: One more example of Censorship [Re: Free Software in Munich - FSFE thanks cabaret artist Christine Prayon]

On 15/05/2019 23:22, Besnik Bleta wrote: > > Hello, > > The following answer (to the stupid panegyric message) was apparently > blocked from reaching discuss...@lists.fsfe.org. I'm glad that they > found it dangerous to their official narrative. > More proof that the Fellowship was forced

Re: Council Nomination

On 10/05/2019 13:10, Hebbel wrote: > Dear readers, > > I nominate myself for the "Fellowship council". > > I see that many here are angry about being forcibly pulled into a > private war against FSFE, fought with illegal methods on the back of the As returning officer, I don't want to

Re: Election rules

On 12/05/2019 13:30, Johann Gross wrote: > Many people say they didn't get the email they need for voting. We > don't know how many got it, and who. Only you know. The voting system is the same system used before. It gives me a summary of bounce emails received from approximately 50 voters but

Re: Election rules

On 12/05/2019 17:56, Aleksandrs Fadins wrote: > I have got poll email thrice, despite trying to unsubscribe multiple times. > So, IMO, it's fair enough. People who unsubscribe are still eligible to vote.  The voting roll was extracted earlier and the email addresses on the voter list remain

Re: FSFE and censorship - not true?

On 07/05/2019 02:03, Besnik Bleta wrote: > On Mon, 6 May 2019 17:15:56 +0200 > Daniel Pocock wrote: > >> while 25% of the FSFE e.V. members have engaged in the discussion. > > > It’s simply because they have interest to maintain the current narrative > aliv

Re: obedience and control (was: ....)

On 03/05/2019 12:35, Florian Snow wrote: > Hi Christian, > > I am also not directly involved in this, but I think legal action (snip) > > (snip) For example, anyone who wants to can file a GDPR violation with their > local data protection officer. > Thanks to Florian and Carmen for

Re: external request to leave the Discussion mailing list

On 06/05/2019 19:13, willi uebelherr wrote: > > Dear Daniel, > > thank you for the indirect distribution of my email. But, as a moderator > of this list, you block my email. Why? > > You wrote: > "So what you write appears to be rather defamatory and offensive but > also a bit ridiculous." >

Re: Request for Clarifications

icials of the FSFE. > > For a start, are the allegations of "censorship" regarding the blog and > newsletters written by Daniel Pocock true? I dislike the word > censorship, as I can see valid reasons for moderation. Still, is it > true, that Pococks work in the FSFE is b

Re: external request to leave the Discussion mailing list

> Paraguay account. In the email header, you can see the IP space. > > I am shure it has to do with the fsfellowship.eu-maillist from Daniel > Pocock. I don't know, who act on this criminal way. > I am sure anybody using that ISP in Germany can open this web page: https://lists.fs

Re: Request for Clarifications

On 06/05/2019 11:09, Mirko Boehm wrote: > Hi, > >> On 6. May 2019, at 04:36, Florian Snow > > wrote: >> >> Calling Daniel's behavior a symptom is a gross understatement. > > The symptoms of some ailments can be quite unpleasant, even icky. But I > see your point.

Re: FSFE and censorship - not true?

(a message that was sent to the old list on 17.09.2018 and blocked by FSFE censors, can you find any CoC violation in it? Or is it the golden rule of censorship: block any discussion about the censorship!) On 15/09/18 11:54, Andrej Shadura wrote: > On 14 September 2018 at 23:08, Michael Kesper

Re: external request to leave the Discussion mailing list

On 06/05/2019 13:48, Stephane Ascoet wrote: > Le 06/05/2019 à 12:50, Daniel Pocock a écrit : >> So what you write appears to be rather defamatory and offensive but also >> a bit ridiculous.  Just the type of thing that other people from FSFE >> have been doing with

Re: Request for Clarifications

On 06/05/2019 17:01, Eike Rathke wrote: > Hi, > > On Saturday, 2019-05-04 15:41:26 +0200, Diogo Constantino wrote: > > To: discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu, discuss...@lists.fsfe.org > >> [...] > > Interesting how that mail did not make it to Pocock's list, where every > mail now is

Re: [Discussion] unsubscribing and transparency

On 02/05/2019 12:12, Chris wrote: > As far as I understand it now: > > 1. Some time ago, you were given access to contact information in > confidence to fulfill your role as a representative. I have kept all private information in confidence. I have used it to perform the role as best as I

notice of Fellowship elections 2019, nomination deadline 10 May

While you elected me as your representative in 2017, that doesn't give me a mandate to be representative for life. While some outspoken people from the inner circle have been quick to speak up publicly about the independent Fellowship mailing list, people with other views have either contacted

Re: [Discussion] censorship in FSFE, Debian, Mozilla and other communities

On 02/05/2019 08:46, Reinhard Müller wrote: > 2. You subscribed the list discuss...@lists.fsfe.org to your new mailing > list, without any consent of the list administrator or the current list > subscribers of discuss...@lists.fsfe.org. This is *not acceptable*. > How does that differ from

[Discussion] unsubscribing and transparency

Hi all, I'm writing this to avoid people repeating questions, saving time for you, for me and for everybody else. Unsubscribing - there are multiple links for unsubscribing, it depends on which lists you subscribed to. For fsfellowship.eu lists please visit:

Re: FSF Resign Awards: Call for Nominations

On 28/09/2019 21:27, Adrienne G. Thompson wrote: > It is my sincere (dis)pleasure to make the following nomination for the > Free Software Foundation Resign Awards: > > For the internet drama "The Backstabber" > > Bradley M. Kuhn: > Best Director > Best Open Source advocate > > Calling on

best way to support Free Software financially?

Many people in FSF and FSFE have been reflecting on whether to donate again given the current problems in each organization. It is disturbing for me that I have now had quite a few discussions with people who donated to these groups in the past, stopped donating and then completely abandoned

unsubscribing from mailing lists

There were some complaints of people trying to unsubscribe and never receiving the confirmation email After investigating, we found the problem is not in this server (or any of the other lists) Here is what we found: a) user has a posteo.de address f...@posteo.de b) the user had at least

Re: consent to be deceived? (was: Re: best way to support Free Software financially?)

On 29/09/2019 10:03, Danny Spitzberg wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 12:42 AM Daniel Pocock <mailto:dan...@pocock.pro>> wrote: > > > > On 29/09/2019 02:07, Danny Spitzberg wrote: > > I did not subscribe nor c

consent to be deceived? (was: Re: best way to support Free Software financially?)

On 29/09/2019 02:07, Danny Spitzberg wrote: > I did not subscribe nor consent to be subscribed to this list > This is the same list with a new name, discussing the same topic, how we can support free software Censorship on the FSFE-operated list is a form of deception, it hides the views of

Re: transparency and succession

On 30/09/2019 23:03, Christopher Waid wrote: > more in tune with the ideologies expressed and beyond. The FSF has been > co-opted by people on the left to do things it shouldn't be doing. RMS > has always ensured it was a fairly neutral organization specific to > software freedom where all

Re: This mailinglist

On 01/10/2019 09:33, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote: > > To become productive: > > What are the topics ot be discussed here to improve the Free Software > movement in a productive way? > > How does the list become fruitful? > When I started the thread about who to give[1] money to, I did that

Re: spotting a cult (was: transparency and succession)

On 01/10/2019 04:20, Christopher Waid wrote: > On 2019-09-30 05:12 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> On 30/09/2019 23:03, Christopher Waid wrote: >> >>> more in tune with the ideologies expressed and beyond. The FSF has been >>> co-opted by people on the left to do

Re: Help undermine the censorship & defamation game

On 23/09/2019 22:20, Christopher Waid wrote: > I would like to welcome everyone here regardless of ones position to > call into any of three shows that I co-host to continue the RMS discussion. Did anybody already respond? I might be able to help you out. > This is just how extreme it can

FSFE GA meeting, 11-13 October, Essen, removing RMS from the constitution?

the significant sacrifices he has made for Free Software over so many decades. That is very disappointing. With what we saw in FSF recently, anything seems possible. Regards, Daniel Pocock 1. https://fsfe.org/about/legal/Constitution.en.pdf 2. https://fsfe.org/news/2019/news-20190917-01.en.html

Re: FSFE GA meeting, 11-13 October, Essen, removing RMS from the constitution?

On 26/09/2019 23:42, Reinhard Müller wrote: > Am 26.09.19 um 23:30 schrieb Daniel Pocock: >> Thanks for the fast response > > You're welcome. However, pointing out where your statements are > incorrect can be a time-consuming and tiring job, so plese don't be > disappointe

Re: Help undermine the censorship & defamation game

On 27/09/2019 01:20, Christopher Waid wrote: > On 2019-09-26 01:16 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> On 23/09/2019 22:20, Christopher Waid wrote: >>> I would like to welcome everyone here regardless of ones position to >>> call into any of three shows that I co-host to cont

getting your invitation to the FSFE e.V. annual meeting in Essen

Hi everybody, If you want to attend the annual meeting, have a vote, see the financial documents, resist Google influence and support RMS you can send the email template below. Free Software is all about the four freedoms, the rights you have as a user of software. Being an FSFE e.V. member is

Re: FSFE GA meeting, 11-13 October, Essen, removing RMS from the constitution?

On 26/09/2019 23:23, Reinhard Müller wrote: > Am 26.09.19 um 22:25 schrieb Daniel Pocock: >> I'm told that FSFE is organizing their Annual meeting (which they call >> the GA meeting) on 11-13 October in Essen and that they may be trying to >> remove RMS from their constituti

Re: how the RMS / FSF coup was exposed

On 23/09/2019 22:00, Aaron Wolf wrote: > John might not have said it right, but he was basically saying not to > use terms like "lynching" for this situation. That term refers to actual > murder. Thanks for clarifying what John might have intended, this wasn't obvious to me before but I can

[non-libre] unsubscribe help, too much Freedom de-tox anybody?

If anybody is sick of all the lynchings and gangster behaviour and simply wants to opt-out of all of it, these are the unsubscribe links for all the lists. You need to scroll down on each page to find the unsubscribe at the bottom. As we all contribute time and money into these organizations

Re: transparency and succession

On 01/10/2019 16:11, Lori Nagel wrote: > The FSF has a private associate members forum that is only for associate > members who pay their dues ($120 a year last I checked). > So yeah, for just $120 a year, no only do you get free libre planet > admission, but you get access to a private forum as

Re: anti-RMS / pro-RMS dichotomy (was: transparency and succession)

On 02/10/2019 02:44, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: > computational freedom feminist mob That could be insulting to feminists. The mob is just a mob. Selfish people after money, power and indulging themselves by making others suffer. More sadistic than feminist. Stealing credibility from a few

Re: best way to support Free Software financially?

On 02/10/2019 11:04, John Rooke wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > thanks for your response. > > On 30/09/2019 10:44, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> I agree that was a very simplistic example, it was intended to get >> people thinking about the case of donating to not profits so

Re: Feminists (was: anti-RMS / pro-RMS dichotomy)

On 02/10/2019 09:04, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: > Daniel Pocock wrote: >> On 02/10/2019 02:44, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> >>> barely known to the agnostical to computational freedom feminist mob >> >> That could be insulting to feminists. > > It

Re: consent to be deceived?

On 29/09/2019 22:26, Christopher Waid wrote: > While I didn't sign up for this list, and understand the argument to the > extent that signing up random people who have no desire to be on the > list shouldn't be signed up that isn't what happened here. If you can't > see that its because of

FSFE's €150,000 bequest

Hi all, There has been ongoing speculation about the €150,000 bequest for some time FSFE asserts that the will prohibits them from naming the person. I personally haven't sought to distribute the person's name and I don't know if there is a compelling reason to do so anyway. So I feel it is a

Re: unsubscribing from mailing lists

On 29/09/2019 11:46, Eike Rathke wrote: > Hi, > > On Sunday, 2019-09-29 09:55:54 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: > >> d) but f...@posteo.de is the address that is really subscribed >> e) f...@posteo.de appears in the headers of messages they receive >> f) inte

Re: transparency and succession

On 30/09/2019 21:53, Brendan Kidwell wrote: > To be clear: I have no personal conflict with you right now over politics and > I have no ongoing protocol issues relating to MY email addresses, but please > understand that breaking protocol in email or anywhere else is not a good way > to win

Re: transparency and succession

On 30/09/2019 22:20, Brendan Kidwell wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019, at 16:08, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> On 30/09/2019 21:53, Brendan Kidwell wrote: >> >>> To be clear: I have no personal conflict with you right now over politics >>> and I have no ongoing pro

Re: transparency and succession

On 30/09/2019 12:10, Florian Snow wrote: > Hi, > > In the interest of transparency, I as one of Daniel's successors in > whatever this here is [0], would like to point everyone, but especially, > the new suscribers here to the full story so that everyone can make up "Full story" is

Re: best way to support Free Software financially?

On 29/09/2019 10:11, John Rooke wrote: > Daniel, > > Just a comment on your market model > > On 29/09/2019 00:23, Daniel Pocock wrote >> Imagine you need a surgery. Will you choose: >> >> a) the doctor with the lowest number of dead patients? >> b)

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

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

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

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

managing large volumes of email

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.

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

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, >>

Re: fall of Berlin Wall, rebuilt by FSFE?

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

Fwd: FSFE

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

Re: Fwd: FSFE

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 >

Re: managing large volumes of email

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 >&g

Re: Fwd: FSFE

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. > &g

Re: the FSF / FSFE sister agreement (attached)

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?

Re: fall of Berlin Wall, rebuilt by FSFE?

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

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

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

Re: Fwd: FSFE

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

Re: on SJWs and feminists

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

Re: FSFE and proof

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

Re: minutes, surveys, polls and hoaxes

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 >

minutes, surveys, polls and hoaxes

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

intervening against abuse from FSFE

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

some advice from Barack Obama to Free Software communities?

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.

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

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

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

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

Re: intervening against abuse from FSFE

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

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

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 w

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

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

Re: censorship alternatives

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

Re: A use for sockpuppets and trolls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FSFE minutes, or a vendetta?

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

Re: FSFE minutes, or a vendetta?

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

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

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

on SJWs and feminists

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

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

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

giving Fellows a platform again

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.

Re: FSFE Regrets about ahitler/Florian Snow emails

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,

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

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 >

Re: Radbot is a winner!

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

Re: Removal of A.Hitler

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

working around censorship on FSF, FSFE and LibrePlanet lists

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

Re: Radbot is a winner!

On 03/10/2019 10:22, Damon Hart-Davis wrote: > (Radbot is the open-source-based https://github.com/opentrv/ smart > radiator valve that can save ~30% of your heating carbon footprint and > bills.  I can be reached at dhd at exnet.com .  Offer > expires 8th Oct: I’ve been out

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

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 star

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

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 >> simil

Fwd: [GA] 2018 budget proposal & 2017 results

Hi everybody, With the FSFE annual meeting (GA meeting) happening[1] this month (11-13 October, Essen, Germany), there will be no fellowship representative formally recognized by FSFE e.V. Therefore, it is up to every individual fellow to represent themselves in the meeting. The FSFE e.V. web

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

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 >> agains

  1   2   >