Thank you for your careful and civil contribution to this discussion, Paul.
Mirko. > On 28. Aug 2018, at 07:28, Paul Boddie <p...@boddie.org.uk> wrote: > > On Tuesday 28. August 2018 15.32.24 Reinhard Müller wrote: >> >> Am 2018-08-28 um 15:04 schrieb Joe Awni: >>> As far as I'm concerned, with out elections, my impression is it's a >>> staff-office in Berlin that is effectively domain-name-squatting on >>> fsfe.org <http://fsfe.org>. >> >> I guess that you know how offending this is to the numerous volunteers >> in FSFE, especially for those not based in Berlin - like, for example, >> myself. It does, however, speak for itself that such statements usually >> origin from people who have never participated in any of FSFE's activities. > > I wouldn't phrase my own thoughts in such terms, and I do recognise the effort > made by both staff and volunteers within the FSFE, but I do also recognise the > frustration some people have that their involvement with the organisation is > largely confined to paying their membership dues. > > Having begun my involvement with the FSFE in a fairly active way, only for > that involvement to gradually diminish over the years, I don't consider it > completely inappropriate for me to point out that the organisation struggles > to engage and empower its membership. > > Some of these struggles are matters of practicality. For instance, which tools > are available to supporters to amplify their own personal efforts to use, > develop and advocate Free Software? > > (We have, at the moment, an ongoing thread about not using GitHub in the face > of arguably overstated claims about that platform's "network effects", but > what kind of network effects does the FSFE offer?) > > Other problems arise from the organisation's positioning. While some people > may like the idea of the FSFE as a kind of "FSF light", others including > myself expect the organisation to take a principled and effective stand on > matters of software freedom and associated concerns. To do otherwise is to > misrepresent an entire family of related organisations. > > Luke wrote: >> I want to give my full support to Daniel Pocock and commend him for his >> tenacity in the pursuit of transparency and truth. It looks like the GA >> is full of yes-men but Pocock is the fiercely independent advocate that us >> fellows need. > > As the Fellowship did elect Daniel as representative, with various other > candidates expressing similar views, I find it disturbing that if these views > are dissenting then they will no longer find a voice in the leadership of the > organisation. While it may be claimed that others in the leadership do, in > fact, share his views on some matters, the rest of us are now obliged to take > those claims at face value. > > I can understand that the elections seemed like a distraction, especially > given a turnout of 265/1532 in the last one [1]. However, such disengagement > was probably informed by the fact that the Fellowship representatives are > vastly outnumbered in the governing body of the organisation, making their > only effective role as some kind of conscience of the membership. > > I don't agree with Daniel on everything, but I can sympathise with him here > given that his current predicament is practically a consequence of a number of > factors in the way this organisation is structured and run. And while people > might not want the obvious to be said out loud, the result will be that people > end up voting with their money instead. > > Paul > > [1] https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_29119d29f759bbf8 > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ 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
