<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
In the context of this thread I personally cannot see anything that
Daniel has said that may be considered as personally insulting.<br>
<br>
What I see is people choosing to take offence because particular
ideas and expressions have lead to increased ambivalence among
participants, but that is different.<br>
<br>
Much of this thread is informed, in good faith and well calibrated I
think and is a credit to those involved in topics that people are of
course passionate about. Rhetorical mood is perhaps the most
dominant form of political discourse online and helps to motivate
participation, and thus is a consistent strategy with the need for
more grassroots representation at the FSFE I think. The right to
take offence at the things people are saying is one thing, but
accusations of personal insults I think requires a much higher
standard of evidence and in absence of that ought to be discounted.
The currency of offence-taking is common in public discourse, and
while in many cases it is legitimate, in many others it is used to
shame people into silence, a kind of precursor to secretive meetings
by 'core groups' and a culture of stealth blocking and censorship...
none of which is in the spirit of open democracy.<br>
<br>
I switched my affiliation away from FSFE because of controversy and
contention but because controversy and contention seemed to
bemissing, being kept un-observed from view and so moderately heated
public discussion threads I believe are signs of a resurgence in
vibrant community relations and are just the thing that is needed
right now. Sweeping this stuff under the carpet only leads to an
accumulation and trip hazards later on.<br>
<br>
let's be **bold** in our thinking change, and in our talking change?<br>
<br>
The FSFE is a public-facing institution that appears to me to be run
more like a polite, private gentlemens club and whether my view is
actually accurate or not, that freely-formed suspicion, or
perception of the culture at least needs to change, surely?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.116.1529046692.28547.discussion@lists.fsfe.org">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap="">in your writing, so I am assuming it is serious. This is an incredibly
insulting statement to many people within the FSFE. You are supposed to
also represent FSFE Supporters like me and others who you insult on a
regular basis. I appreciate how seriously you take your responsibility
as a representative, but with your current communication style I have to
say you do not represent me because I stand for civil communication, not
for insults and attacks.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">For me, active representatives asking difficult questions are an
essential part of a democracy.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I agree with that statement. Please re-read my comment; I did not
complain about your questions. I don't like your insults, especially in
this case when they are also untruthful. You know I made several
suggestions to improve community involvement and influence in the GA, so
I will not stand for your personal attacks.
You are very much <span class="moz-txt-underscore"><span class="moz-txt-tag">_</span>not<span class="moz-txt-tag">_</span></span> the last man standing for democracy in the FSFE.
Democracy is not about who can yell the most or who can yell the
loudest. Your current actions are often disruptive and drown out other
people's ideas and voices in the GA. And when you ask questions, you
often fail to do so and follow up in any sort of structured way, and you
draw conclusions from details that often do not represent what the
majority in the GA actually think. Also, the last time you asked for
community feedback in person, you afterwards failed to answer any
questions about comparing your stated goal with the outcome and you
report stayed anecdotal. Please be more constructive; I want to work
with you, not against you.
Happy hacking!
Florian
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 07:15:41 +0200
From: Florian Snow <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:floriansnow@fsfe.org" moz-do-not-send="true"><floriansnow@fsfe.org></a>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discussion@lists.fsfe.org" moz-do-not-send="true">discussion@lists.fsfe.org</a>
Subject: Re: the questions you really want FSFE to answer
Message-ID: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:87tvq4aav6.fsf@familysnow.net" moz-do-not-send="true"><87tvq4aav6.fsf@familysnow.net></a>
Content-Type: text/plain
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Pocock <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:daniel@pocock.pro" moz-do-not-send="true"><daniel@pocock.pro></a> writes:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap="">While some people don't care about elections or proper membership,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Disagreement with a specific implementation of an idea does not mean not
caring about that idea.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap="">other people do care about it so much that they stopped contributing
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Perhaps I missed that and then I apologize, but did you bring that up to
the GA with specific examples?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap="">The constructive thing to do is get more people involved in the
discussion about what comes next rather than using a reference to the
CoC to censor how people discuss it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">A call to order is also a normal part of democracy because it keeps the
discussion civil. No one censured you; we are simply asking you to
refrain from attacks and insults.
Happy hacking!
Florian
------------------------------</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>