Hi list,
the Fellowship elections 2017 are over and the winner is Daniel Pocock.
https://fsfe.org/news/2017/news-20170425-01
I like to thank all candidates for bringing life into this years election and every voter for rewarding our candidates' activities by participating in the elections.
Unfortunately, we only had a participation of around 17 % which seems to be the lowest participation since we record participation (2014). Many of the list subscribers here have had the possibility to vote, so I like to ask for explanations and possibilities how we can raise participation?
The low amount of participation leaves me in particular wondering as this year we had 7 candidates, each of them with a short representation in out wiki [1], public hustings [2] and a reminder three days before the end of elections.
However, former elections with only one (!) candidate and without reminders and no public hustings (2016 and 2014) have had more participation ...
Why is this? Please help us to understand what FSFE can do to make the electiosn more appealing or raise participation? Or help us to understand what was the reason that this year there was such a low amount of participation?
Thank you very much, Erik
[1] https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/Election/FellowshipElection_2017 [2] https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/Election/FellowshipElection_2017#Hustings
On Tuesday 25. April 2017 13.00.51 Erik Albers wrote:
Hi list,
the Fellowship elections 2017 are over and the winner is Daniel Pocock.
https://fsfe.org/news/2017/news-20170425-01
I like to thank all candidates for bringing life into this years election and every voter for rewarding our candidates' activities by participating in the elections.
Congratulations to Daniel!
Unfortunately, we only had a participation of around 17 % which seems to be the lowest participation since we record participation (2014). Many of the list subscribers here have had the possibility to vote, so I like to ask for explanations and possibilities how we can raise participation?
As a quick response, I would suggest the following...
* A misleading process whereby the hustings were announced for one date and held on another. And I'm still not sure whether the hustings were announced by mail or not because I was renewing my Fellowship at around the time any mail might have gone out. (They were tucked away on a "migrated" wiki page, which is where I found out about them.)
* A lack of a decent venue for discussion with the candidates. Apparently, we have this mailing list and yet it isn't certain that the candidates are subscribed to it. Now although I might be concerned that my own rants on this list might go out to hundreds or even thousands of people, would it be too much to expect that people wanting to interact with the organisation's membership participate in this list or other services provided by the organisation?
* Uncertainty about the relevance or importance of the Fellowship representatives. With a much larger board and perhaps less transparency than might be achieved, one wonders what influence the representatives have.
Now, onto a broader but still relevant point...
I don't know how much the Fellowship is responsible for funding FSFE. It isn't apparent from the Web site [1,2] and I can only estimate a minimal sponsor funding figure of 102240 EUR, which would be less than a quarter of the organisation's total income:
28 * 480 + 12 * 2400 + 5 * 12000 = 102240
There were 265 votes cast, which at 17% participation suggests a total Fellowship population of 1500. It seems likely that this body of individuals collectively contributes more than the sponsors.
But since one of the candidates brought up the matter of one's contribution only being the start of one's participation in the organisation, I think it is worthwhile considering whether this perspective is too simplistic and that some people actually donate to delegate instead of participate. Such behaviour isn't unreasonable because one cannot personally get involved in every good cause, and money is a good substitute for effort.
That said, it is a mistake to interpret every financial contribution as a message to "keep up the good work" and to assume a general lack of interest in directing that work. Some people may be contributing to get a seat at the table. And I have previously mentioned that organisations like FSFE should be amplifying volunteer efforts, which I don't really think is occurring effectively today. Maybe general disillusionment is another factor.
Paul
[1] https://fsfe.org/about/funds/funds.en.html [2] https://fsfe.org/donate/thankgnus.en.html
Hi Paul,
I don't know how much the Fellowship is responsible for funding FSFE.
In 2015, the contribution of the Fellowship was about 40% of our finances. Sponsorship is difficult to say something about: the figure on the web pages is right, but it also includes sponsorship for specific activities. Still, the Fellowship does represent a significant part of our funding and is more important than corporate sponsorship.
worthwhile considering whether this perspective is too simplistic and that some people actually donate to delegate instead of participate.
I absolutely think you're right about that, and there are also many people who contribute in a volunteer capacity to the FSFE but who aren't financially supporting the organisation. So contributing financially is only one of the ways in which people support the FSFE, and it's not certain those who do so seek representation in the General Assembly.
- A misleading process whereby the hustings were announced for one date and
held on another. And I'm still not sure whether the hustings were announced by mail or not because I was renewing my Fellowship at around the time any mail might have gone out. (They were tucked away on a "migrated" wiki page, which is where I found out about them.)
The main announcement was on the front page of fsfe.org with the correct date. A mistake only occurred in the wiki page. A general e-mail to all Fellows was not sent out because we have past experience where some Fellows have been very unhappy to receive frequent communications from us. I decided that an e-mail just to announce the hustings was not warranted. If enough people say they would have preferred a direct mailing, we shall keep that in mind for the next year.
Hi Paul,
Thank you for making very specific points in your criticism. I think we can take away quite a few improvements from your comments.
Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk writes:
- A lack of a decent venue for discussion with the
candidates. Apparently, we have this mailing list and yet it isn't certain that the candidates are subscribed to it.
I think an easy fix would be to require candidates to subscribe here next year. You received a few responses here when you asked about the elections, but I think this is what we should tell people right away, in the first email about the elections: "These are the candidates, you can reach then via discussion@, and there will be hustings on IRC at this date."
- Uncertainty about the relevance or importance of the Fellowship
representatives. With a much larger board and perhaps less transparency than might be achieved, one wonders what influence the representatives have.
Agreed. I think we need better transparency about the work of the GA, perhaps more detailed minutes can be a start. That way, we can say who gets which kind of input. We would also see more clearly what kind of decisions the GA makes.
some people actually donate to delegate instead of participate.
That may very well also be the case. The question would be how many people see things that way. However, since voter turnout was much higher in the past, I think there must be some other reasons that affected this election.
Happy hacking! Florian
On 25/04/17 13:00, Erik Albers wrote:
Hi list,
the Fellowship elections 2017 are over and the winner is Daniel Pocock.
https://fsfe.org/news/2017/news-20170425-01
I like to thank all candidates for bringing life into this years election and every voter for rewarding our candidates' activities by participating in the elections.
A big thanks to all those people who voted and the other candidates and Erik for organizing this process. I hope I'll be able to make a positive contribution.
Unfortunately, we only had a participation of around 17 % which seems to be the lowest participation since we record participation (2014). Many of the list subscribers here have had the possibility to vote, so I like to ask for explanations and possibilities how we can raise participation?
The low amount of participation leaves me in particular wondering as this year we had 7 candidates, each of them with a short representation in out wiki [1], public hustings [2] and a reminder three days before the end of elections.
However, former elections with only one (!) candidate and without reminders and no public hustings (2016 and 2014) have had more participation ...
Why is this? Please help us to understand what FSFE can do to make the electiosn more appealing or raise participation? Or help us to understand what was the reason that this year there was such a low amount of participation?
Maybe fatigue with a long campaign and an increasing volume of email in general? The original email about the elections was in January but voting didn't start until April. By that stage, maybe some people had tuned out from the emails.
Developer and volunteer burn out is one thing I would be keen to hear more about during my term in this role. Email is only one part of the problem and a strong community (with a real world presence) can be part of the solution.
Regards,
Daniel
On 25.04.2017 14:37, Daniel Pocock wrote:
Why is this? Please help us to understand what FSFE can do to make the electiosn more appealing or raise participation? Or help us to understand what was the reason that this year there was such a low amount of participation?
Maybe fatigue with a long campaign and an increasing volume of email in general? The original email about the elections was in January but voting didn't start until April. By that stage, maybe some people had tuned out from the emails.
thanks for bringing this up, this was also one point I was considering it could be a downer. Hence, I already proposed to shorten this time significantly. Can someone second this thought?
Best, Erik
Hi Erik,
Erik Albers eal@fsfe.org writes:
thanks for bringing this up, this was also one point I was considering it could be a downer. Hence, I already proposed to shorten this time significantly. Can someone second this thought?
Seconded. Once the candidates are known, we don't need a whole lot of time to start voting. It's not like we are going to need a lot of time for campaigning. The only campaigning appears to be questions from potential voters and other volunteers and statements on the Wiki from candidates. I like this kind of campaign and it doesn't take a long time. Perhaps extending the time people have to cast their vote is an idea worth considering as well.
Happy hacking! Florian
Hi Erik and list,
Op dinsdag 25 april 2017 13:00:51 schreef Erik Albers:
the Fellowship elections 2017 are over and the winner is Daniel Pocock.
Congratulations to Daniel Pocock!
However, former elections with only one (!) candidate and without reminders and no public hustings (2016 and 2014) have had more participation ...
Why is this? Please help us to understand what FSFE can do to make the electiosn more appealing or raise participation? Or help us to understand what was the reason that this year there was such a low amount of participation?
I can only speak for myself. Earlier there was talk that FSFE made the decision that in the course of this year, the Fellowship is going to be ended, and we'll all just be supporters. I almost did not vote because of this, but in the end I did, just to let my voice heard.
Best regards,
Hi André,
On 25.04.2017 17:13, André Ockers wrote:
Op dinsdag 25 april 2017 13:00:51 schreef Erik Albers:
However, former elections with only one (!) candidate and without reminders and no public hustings (2016 and 2014) have had more participation ...
Why is this? Please help us to understand what FSFE can do to make the electiosn more appealing or raise participation? Or help us to understand what was the reason that this year there was such a low amount of participation?
I can only speak for myself. Earlier there was talk that FSFE made the decision that in the course of this year, the Fellowship is going to be ended, and we'll all just be supporters. I almost did not vote because of this, but in the end I did, just to let my voice heard.
thank you very much for your feedback. Unfortunately, it seems that there is some communication issue about the fellowship -> supporter change.
We have been hearing couple of times in the past that "Fellowship" is a word that is hard to understand from the outside and people do not intuitively understand that a "Fellow" of FSFE is someone who is supporting the FSFE. Many people actually understood it the other way round, that a Fellow must be someone who is supported by the FSFE. This is mainly due to academic speech, where a "Fellow" uses to be someone who is financially supported by a research or educational institution to facilitate his studies.
When we are now transforming our language from Fellow to Supporter, this is only a name change, not more. All future supporters will keep the benefits of a Fellow.
In this sense, the name "Fellowship elections" this year seemed to be kind of anachronistic to this decision. But as the name of our community election is written into the constitution it will need a rewriting of our constitution to reflect this change. This, however, was not possible in time for the 2017 elections.
Best regards, Erik
On 25/04/17 18:26, Erik Albers wrote:
Hi André,
On 25.04.2017 17:13, André Ockers wrote:
Op dinsdag 25 april 2017 13:00:51 schreef Erik Albers:
However, former elections with only one (!) candidate and without reminders and no public hustings (2016 and 2014) have had more participation ...
Why is this? Please help us to understand what FSFE can do to make the electiosn more appealing or raise participation? Or help us to understand what was the reason that this year there was such a low amount of participation?
I can only speak for myself. Earlier there was talk that FSFE made the decision that in the course of this year, the Fellowship is going to be ended, and we'll all just be supporters. I almost did not vote because of this, but in the end I did, just to let my voice heard.
thank you very much for your feedback. Unfortunately, it seems that there is some communication issue about the fellowship -> supporter change.
We have been hearing couple of times in the past that "Fellowship" is a word that is hard to understand from the outside and people do not intuitively understand that a "Fellow" of FSFE is someone who is supporting the FSFE. Many people actually understood it the other way round, that a Fellow must be someone who is supported by the FSFE. This is mainly due to academic speech, where a "Fellow" uses to be someone who is financially supported by a research or educational institution to facilitate his studies.
When we are now transforming our language from Fellow to Supporter, this is only a name change, not more. All future supporters will keep the benefits of a Fellow.
In this sense, the name "Fellowship elections" this year seemed to be kind of anachronistic to this decision. But as the name of our community election is written into the constitution it will need a rewriting of our constitution to reflect this change. This, however, was not possible in time for the 2017 elections.
I can understand the logic for moving away from the word fellow, but I think the word "supporter" might not be ideal either. One challenge with the word "supporter" is that it implies supporters are on the outside of the organization.
Is there a list of all the words that have been considered or links to any discussions about this?
Regards,
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
Is there a list of all the words that have been considered or links to any discussions about this?
I was running that process and the words that came up for discussion were:
- Patron - Donor - Member - Supporter - Contributor - Fellow
The discussion was had jointly between the Coordinators Team and Core Team. Ultimately, Supporter was chosen by a majority vote of those teams. Then we had a concluding vote in the same teams regarding whether to adopt the proposal to replace the term "Fellow" with "Supporter" (YES) or not (NO) which resulted in 31 votes in favor (YES), 6 votes against (NO).
Sincerely,
On 25/04/17 19:07, Jonas Oberg wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Is there a list of all the words that have been considered or links to any discussions about this?
I was running that process and the words that came up for discussion were:
- Patron
- Donor
- Member
- Supporter
- Contributor
- Fellow
The discussion was had jointly between the Coordinators Team and Core Team. Ultimately, Supporter was chosen by a majority vote of those teams. Then we had a concluding vote in the same teams regarding whether to adopt the proposal to replace the term "Fellow" with "Supporter" (YES) or not (NO) which resulted in 31 votes in favor (YES), 6 votes against (NO).
If there were new words to consider, could the discussion be re-opened?
How about:
- activist
- volunteer and/or donor (e.g. some people would be both, some just one or the other)
I understand there is also a related topic of the legal status of a "member" and the question of what to call Fellows/Supporters is related to whether they are members or not. Has this been discussed again recently in the same context as the renaming of Fellowship? Is there any documentation on the wiki or in previous emails that summarizes that situation? It might be worth having a fresh look at that before implementing the name change for Fellowship.
Regards,
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
If there were new words to consider, could the discussion be re-opened?
I would be hesitant about having a new discussion, at least one which we would need to spend staff time on. If there would be a more complete proposal made for a new direction, then this would of course be easier to base a new discussion or vote on.
I understand there is also a related topic of the legal status of a "member" and the question of what to call Fellows/Supporters is related to whether they are members or not.
Fellows/Supporters are not members. Members are those who have applied to be so and there's information about who should become a member and how to do so on our Wiki:
https://wiki.fsfe.org/Teams/GA
There was a brief discussion about whether Fellows/Supporters should be members, but I believe the rough consensus was to consider Fellows/ Supporters as those financially supporting the organisation, and have "Member" of various kinds for people who are part of the work: member of the organisation, member of the coordinators team, member of the French team, and so on.
Sincerely,
On 25/04/17 19:32, Jonas Oberg wrote:
Hi Daniel,
If there were new words to consider, could the discussion be re-opened?
I would be hesitant about having a new discussion, at least one which we would need to spend staff time on. If there would be a more complete proposal made for a new direction, then this would of course be easier to base a new discussion or vote on.
I wonder if FSFE could get a summer intern to look at this specific question, look at the models used by other non-profit organizations, survey volunteers and donors and prepare a shortlist of options?
I understand there is also a related topic of the legal status of a "member" and the question of what to call Fellows/Supporters is related to whether they are members or not.
Fellows/Supporters are not members. Members are those who have applied to be so and there's information about who should become a member and how to do so on our Wiki:
Understood, that is why I put the word member in the double quotes, I realize it would cause confusion if the word "Fellow" and "member" were used interchangeably in the current structure.
There was a brief discussion about whether Fellows/Supporters should be members, but I believe the rough consensus was to consider Fellows/ Supporters as those financially supporting the organisation, and have "Member" of various kinds for people who are part of the work: member of the organisation, member of the coordinators team, member of the French team, and so on.
How soon did you want to implement the change from Fellow to Supporter? Could this be deferred for another 3 months, for example, to let more Fellows give feedback?
Regards,
Daniel
On Tuesday 25. April 2017 22.16.16 Daniel Pocock wrote:
How soon did you want to implement the change from Fellow to Supporter? Could this be deferred for another 3 months, for example, to let more Fellows give feedback?
As far as I remember, the Python Software Foundation chose to introduce membership classes, and this is apparent from their site:
https://www.python.org/psf/membership/#what-membership-classes-are-there
Fellows of the FSFE would be "supporting members" in that terminology system. For reference, I would probably be a Fellow of the PSF if I had remained a member.
But is it worth spending so much time on the naming? I would rather see the communications channels improved and perhaps some kind of survey being done - possibly informal, in order to spare us from those survey sites that just marshal feedback into a collection of "metrics" that tend to promote inaction - to figure out what everyone's motivations are, whether they are content with their involvement, whether they see potential for more involvement, and perhaps some idea of what kinds of things the FSFE could do to get them more involved.
Paul
On 25/04/17 23:08, Paul Boddie wrote:
On Tuesday 25. April 2017 22.16.16 Daniel Pocock wrote:
How soon did you want to implement the change from Fellow to Supporter? Could this be deferred for another 3 months, for example, to let more Fellows give feedback?
As far as I remember, the Python Software Foundation chose to introduce membership classes, and this is apparent from their site:
https://www.python.org/psf/membership/#what-membership-classes-are-there
Fellows of the FSFE would be "supporting members" in that terminology system. For reference, I would probably be a Fellow of the PSF if I had remained a member.
Another pattern is for people to be full members of a local or national association and then each of those associations sends a delegate to a peak body such as FSFE. In that case, no individual person would really be a "member" of FSFE any more, the members (for legal purposes) would be the national organizations and their delegates would be the only ones who vote on things.
One benefit of this model is that the delegates are likely to have met many more people in person in their own country/region and so they open up more communication.
But is it worth spending so much time on the naming? I would rather see the communications channels improved and perhaps some kind of survey being done - possibly informal, in order to spare us from those survey sites that just marshal feedback into a collection of "metrics" that tend to promote inaction
- to figure out what everyone's motivations are, whether they are content with
their involvement, whether they see potential for more involvement, and perhaps some idea of what kinds of things the FSFE could do to get them more involved.
A survey could look at some of the following:
- volunteer or donor (Jonas already answered in another email that about 20% are volunteers and 80% donors)
- what other organizations are people involved in? (e.g. national equivalents to FSFE)
- if there was an AGM, would they attend in person?
Not too many questions in fact
Regards,
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro writes:
Another pattern is for people to be full members of a local or national association and then each of those associations sends a delegate to a peak body such as FSFE. In that case, no individual person would really be a "member" of FSFE any more, the members (for legal purposes) would be the national organizations and their delegates would be the only ones who vote on things.
If I am not mistaken, this is the model the FSFE has just moved away from. There is FSFE e.V., a non-profit under German law that served as the head of a group of associations. However, only one local chapter ever formed, also in Germany and it was liquidated about a year ago.
Happy hacking! Florian
On 27/04/17 06:23, Florian Snow wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro writes:
Another pattern is for people to be full members of a local or national association and then each of those associations sends a delegate to a peak body such as FSFE. In that case, no individual person would really be a "member" of FSFE any more, the members (for legal purposes) would be the national organizations and their delegates would be the only ones who vote on things.
If I am not mistaken, this is the model the FSFE has just moved away from. There is FSFE e.V., a non-profit under German law that served as the head of a group of associations. However, only one local chapter ever formed, also in Germany and it was liquidated about a year ago.
There is a distinction though: I think the previous model was about establishing organizations that look like FSFE. My suggestion is that the member organizations would probably be existing organizations with their own name, identity and governance structure. The only thing they would have in common with FSFE would be an adherence to the same principles.
Regards,
Daniel
Hi everyone,
There is a distinction though: I think the previous model was about establishing organizations that look like FSFE. My suggestion is that the member organizations would probably be existing organizations with their own name, identity and governance structure. The only thing they would have in common with FSFE would be an adherence to the same principles.
Indeed, and the original FSFE model was even more unorthodox as it envisioned the members being members of both the FSFE "Hub", and the local chapters. I'm glad to have gone away from that model and I'm vary of establishing own organisations for the FSFE again. But I do like the idea of working with existing organisations that already serve specific geographic areas (or topics?) -- which is somewhat what we try to do with our associate organisation program.
Hi Daniel,
I wonder if FSFE could get a summer intern to look at this specific question, look at the models used by other non-profit organizations, survey volunteers and donors and prepare a shortlist of options?
That's a good idea. In a separate mail you elaborated on another model for non-profits, and there are certainly many of them. You also started with some of the questions worth asking and Paul also felt the need for an (informal) survey to find everyone's motivation and to use this as the basis for our further development.
This is also my feeling at the moment: before we talk about whether to adopt model A or B or C, we should know more about our current community and take a deep and hard lock at some of the tensions which define how the FSFE is positioned and structured.
I also believe that as we learn more, we will uncover more questions which we would like to have answers to. On my side, I've actually also started to work out a few (more analytical) questions which I would like to know the position of the FSFE (our community; members, fellows, volunteers).
So I think we could perhaps start with defining the process we'd use to find these answers, ideally starting with a few short and brief questions to engage people, and which we then follow up on. This could include needing to take on an intern for this work.
(There's absolutely no problem having an intern, we just need to find the right candidate / announce the position)
How soon did you want to implement the change from Fellow to Supporter? Could this be deferred for another 3 months, for example, to let more Fellows give feedback?
This is part of a larger work which Erik and I are starting which include working through our communication more generally: our news section on the web site, our newsletter, our website, automated emails, and so on and so forth. The change from Fellow to Supporter isn't first on our agenda, but I expect to get to it within the next months -- so not immediate, but I also wouldn't want to delay it much.
On 26/04/17 08:36, Jonas Oberg wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I wonder if FSFE could get a summer intern to look at this specific question, look at the models used by other non-profit organizations, survey volunteers and donors and prepare a shortlist of options?
That's a good idea. In a separate mail you elaborated on another model for non-profits, and there are certainly many of them. You also started with some of the questions worth asking and Paul also felt the need for an (informal) survey to find everyone's motivation and to use this as the basis for our further development.
This is also my feeling at the moment: before we talk about whether to adopt model A or B or C, we should know more about our current community and take a deep and hard lock at some of the tensions which define how the FSFE is positioned and structured.
I also believe that as we learn more, we will uncover more questions which we would like to have answers to. On my side, I've actually also started to work out a few (more analytical) questions which I would like to know the position of the FSFE (our community; members, fellows, volunteers).
So I think we could perhaps start with defining the process we'd use to find these answers, ideally starting with a few short and brief questions to engage people, and which we then follow up on. This could include needing to take on an intern for this work.
(There's absolutely no problem having an intern, we just need to find the right candidate / announce the position)
Another idea might be having another Summit event, perhaps aligned with some other event such as FOSDEM, at the start of the process (for brainstorming ideas) and at the end of the process (for ratifying a proposal).
How soon did you want to implement the change from Fellow to Supporter? Could this be deferred for another 3 months, for example, to let more Fellows give feedback?
This is part of a larger work which Erik and I are starting which include working through our communication more generally: our news section on the web site, our newsletter, our website, automated emails, and so on and so forth. The change from Fellow to Supporter isn't first on our agenda, but I expect to get to it within the next months -- so not immediate, but I also wouldn't want to delay it much.
Given that this naming issue would be a moot point if the representative structure changes, would you consider putting the name change on hold until after the process for discussing representative structure?
Regards,
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
Another idea might be having another Summit event, perhaps aligned with some other event such as FOSDEM, at the start of the process (for brainstorming ideas) and at the end of the process (for ratifying a proposal).
That's not a bad idea, but it depends on the budget we can allocate to it. Let me circulate a first proposal for this to you and the other Fellowship representative, together with a few others, and then develop this to a more concrete proposal together. As I said: while the process might be longer, I would favour something which we can start on quite soon and get some immediate results from sooner rather than later.
Given that this naming issue would be a moot point if the representative structure changes, would you consider putting the name change on hold until after the process for discussing representative structure?
I don't think it makes sense to stop working just because of something which may or may not happen in the future. But we can prioritise work on more immediate issues around our communication before touching the naming issue.
Sincerely,
Hi Daniel,
I appreciate your effort here, but I would advise to perhaps not re-open this topic again already. The change away from Fellow to some other term has been decided twice already to my knowledge. The first time, the decision was communicated but afterwards pretty much ingored which lead to a lot of inconsistensies in written texts. The second time around, there was a longer list and while my personal preference ("associate member" which is the term the FSF uses) was not directly on the list (only by proxy within the term "Member"), I am glad there was a decision.
I am not generally against re-evaluating previous decisions, but in my opinion, we need to set up a process to make such decisions first. Part of the reason why I ran for a GA seat was because I was frustrated with how oftentimes, when we needed to make a decision, we would debate for a very long time, not really reach a concensus, but also have no clear path to resolve such a situation. So often, nothing happened which is also a decision of sorts, but always for the status quo. So in a way, we have a super-filibuster here and I think that is not a good situation. (I am not trying to imply people tried to filibuster decisions here on purpose.)
So we need to improve governance here and set a clear policy who gets a say in what kinds of decisions. I think the Debian project could serve as a model here in some respects. Not everyone needs to be involved in every decision, but there needs to be a path and a structure to pass on a decision to a wider community outside of the GA and then actually get a result back from that wider community. Right now, legally, the GA has all the power, so this structure needs to be implemented from within the GA, but we need a good mechanism to resolve disagreement so we will still be able to make decisions at all.
Without a clear path to decisions, we will just ask the same questions over and over again.
Happy hacking! Florian
On 27/04/17 06:46, Florian Snow wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I appreciate your effort here, but I would advise to perhaps not re-open this topic again already. The change away from Fellow to some other
I'm not suggesting to re-open it immediately, rather, to put it on hold while the bigger question is looked at.
After that bigger question is resolved, the term "Supporter" may still be relevant and it may not be.
Regards,
Daniel
Hi,
I can understand the logic for moving away from the word fellow, but I think the word "supporter" might not be ideal either. One challenge with the word "supporter" is that it implies supporters are on the outside of the organization.
If we accept that Fellows by and large consider their involvement in the FSFE to be a monetary one, then it follows naturally that the voting turnout will be lower, and indeed, that "fellows" are somewhat "outside" the organisation.
There is some basis for this conclusion: in 2014, we did a stakeholder survey as part of a strategy group work. One of the questions asked was "How did you participate / contribute in FSFE?"
Among the Fellows, about 80% answered "Donation" to that question, and the rest "Volunteer". So the active volunteers in the group of Fellows is about 20%.
On 2017-04-25, at 13:00, Erik Albers wrote:
Unfortunately, we only had a participation of around 17 % which seems to be the lowest participation since we record participation (2014). Many of the list subscribers here have had the possibility to vote, so I like to ask for explanations and possibilities how we can raise participation?
Dear Erik,
if you want to know something from the fellows, why do you not ask them? (I’m a fellow, and I’m surprised by your choice of communication channel.)
The low amount of participation leaves me in particular wondering as this year we had 7 candidates, each of them with a short representation in out wiki [1], public hustings [2] and a reminder three days before the end of elections.
I found the wiki page to be very helpful. Many thanks to everybody who contributed!
However, I didn’t see an announcement for the hustings. The first e-mail addressed to me as fellow matching “husting” is one from you sent on April 9. I recommend to inform fellows ahead of time, not after the fact.
I voted, though. Congratulations, Daniel Pocock!
Best wishes Jens
Hi Jens,
On 25.04.2017 20:19, Jens Lechtenboerger wrote:
On 2017-04-25, at 13:00, Erik Albers wrote:
Unfortunately, we only had a participation of around 17 % which seems to be the lowest participation since we record participation (2014). Many of the list subscribers here have had the possibility to vote, so I like to ask for explanations and possibilities how we can raise participation?
Dear Erik,
if you want to know something from the fellows, why do you not ask them? (I’m a fellow, and I’m surprised by your choice of communication channel.)
Which way would you propose when you talk about "asking Fellows"? By a mail to all Fellows?
I chose this channel because I expect 50% or more of the list subscribers to be Fellows (although I have no number at hand) and - to not "overload" our Fellows with a mail to all Fellows - to enable an open discussion where people can react on each other's comments and motivate each other in participating. - a community topic is best discussed inside the community
The low amount of participation leaves me in particular wondering as this year we had 7 candidates, each of them with a short representation in out wiki [1], public hustings [2] and a reminder three days before the end of elections.
I found the wiki page to be very helpful. Many thanks to everybody who contributed!
glad to hear that
However, I didn’t see an announcement for the hustings. The first e-mail addressed to me as fellow matching “husting” is one from you sent on April 9. I recommend to inform fellows ahead of time, not after the fact.
Yes, we are very sorry for this, but there were some communication issues that lead to an unfortunate mix of announcements. You can see the explanation of our Vice President here: https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2017-April/011458.html
However, I like to thank all candidates that they participated and using the log everybody interested could read it in the backsight.
Best regards, Erik
On 2017-04-26, at 09:51, Erik Albers wrote:
On 25.04.2017 20:19, Jens Lechtenboerger wrote:
if you want to know something from the fellows, why do you not ask them? (I’m a fellow, and I’m surprised by your choice of communication channel.)
Which way would you propose when you talk about "asking Fellows"? By a mail to all Fellows?
Exactly.
I chose this channel because I expect 50% or more of the list subscribers to be Fellows (although I have no number at hand) and
- to not "overload" our Fellows with a mail to all Fellows
- to enable an open discussion where people can react on each other's comments and motivate each other in participating.
- a community topic is best discussed inside the community
One e-mail to announce the elections’ outcome combined with a question should not “overload” too many fellows. Actually, they might like to be informed about the outcome. (Which did not happen so far, if I’m not mistaken.)
Anyways, for questions like this I suggest to address both, fellows and this list, in a single e-mail. That might be a nice opportunity to ask fellows to subscribe here for an open discussion.
Best wishes Jens
Hi Erik,
Thank you for trying to find the reasons for the low turnout. I already responded on fsfe-de, but I would like to sum up my thoughts here for everyone who does not speak German.
I think it is unclear what the GA does and this makes it hard for people to make a decision. Even among us candidates, I think it is unclear what the GA does. The statements about what each of us wants to do as part of the GA are so different, not just a different direction or approach, they feel like they are about completely different tasks. I take this as another hint of the role of a Fellowship Representative and the GA in general being unclear.
I also think many voters don't know us candiates. Now there have been many steps to introduce us, but looking at all the 7s in the votes, I get the impression that many people knew one or two of the candidates and put everyone else on rank 7. That is a good choice if you want to make sure that the candidates you know are ranked higher overall and that is the approach I would take. However, I think if more of the candiates were known to the voters, the votes would use more of the ranks. This does not mean I think voting the way people have is a problem, but I think it shows us that we should do more to show people who the candidates are and what they stand for.
All in all, I think these two issues lead to voter turnout being left to chance. If the vote doesn't seem very important or it takes a significant amount of time to find out more about the candidates, then people will push off the vote and in the end, they may simply forget. I almost forgot multiple times in the past and I hardly ever knew who to vote for.
Happy hacking! Florian
It will be lie if l say l knew any of candidate and therefore l simply didn't vote
I know the candidates have been introduced in some chat session but not everyone is available for such stuff and I'd have found very useful if they were using ml, i.e. this discussion list.
The only person who showed up a bit was Daniel, despite my call. So l thought the rest of candidates had no interest and/or their candidacy maybe only symbolic...
However and whatever, to much noise about little things on the list for the last 3 days....
If you guys only spend your energies on something more relevant rather than about what we should call fellow etc. I am sure you will revolutionize FSFE.
I'd like to invite members, fellows or supporters (whatever else you guys want to call l couldn't care less) to use this list from now on for relevant topics that has relevancy to free software.
Apologies for the approach but l think it is necessary to stop this politics talk because this is not what FSFE been created for.
Thanks
On Apr 27, 2017 05:15, "Florian Snow" floriansnow@fsfe.org wrote:
Hi Erik,
Thank you for trying to find the reasons for the low turnout. I already responded on fsfe-de, but I would like to sum up my thoughts here for everyone who does not speak German.
I think it is unclear what the GA does and this makes it hard for people to make a decision. Even among us candidates, I think it is unclear what the GA does. The statements about what each of us wants to do as part of the GA are so different, not just a different direction or approach, they feel like they are about completely different tasks. I take this as another hint of the role of a Fellowship Representative and the GA in general being unclear.
I also think many voters don't know us candiates. Now there have been many steps to introduce us, but looking at all the 7s in the votes, I get the impression that many people knew one or two of the candidates and put everyone else on rank 7. That is a good choice if you want to make sure that the candidates you know are ranked higher overall and that is the approach I would take. However, I think if more of the candiates were known to the voters, the votes would use more of the ranks. This does not mean I think voting the way people have is a problem, but I think it shows us that we should do more to show people who the candidates are and what they stand for.
All in all, I think these two issues lead to voter turnout being left to chance. If the vote doesn't seem very important or it takes a significant amount of time to find out more about the candidates, then people will push off the vote and in the end, they may simply forget. I almost forgot multiple times in the past and I hardly ever knew who to vote for.
Happy hacking! Florian _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Hi Eric,
in my opinion a downturn in voter participation is to be expected when the decision gets more complicated and time consuming. ("Oh, looks like this will take longer than expected. I don't have time for this now, I will do it in the evening..." - what could possibly go wrong?)
Btw, do the absolute numbers point in the same direction?
Regards, Franz
Am 25.04.2017 um 13:00 schrieb Erik Albers:
Hi list,
the Fellowship elections 2017 are over and the winner is Daniel Pocock.
https://fsfe.org/news/2017/news-20170425-01
I like to thank all candidates for bringing life into this years election and every voter for rewarding our candidates' activities by participating in the elections.
Unfortunately, we only had a participation of around 17 % which seems to be the lowest participation since we record participation (2014). Many of the list subscribers here have had the possibility to vote, so I like to ask for explanations and possibilities how we can raise participation?
The low amount of participation leaves me in particular wondering as this year we had 7 candidates, each of them with a short representation in out wiki [1], public hustings [2] and a reminder three days before the end of elections.
However, former elections with only one (!) candidate and without reminders and no public hustings (2016 and 2014) have had more participation ...
Why is this? Please help us to understand what FSFE can do to make the electiosn more appealing or raise participation? Or help us to understand what was the reason that this year there was such a low amount of participation?
Thank you very much, Erik
[1] https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/Election/FellowshipElection_2017 [2] https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/Election/FellowshipElection_2017#Hustings
Hi,
I write to chime in my opinions on the topics in this thread. But, first i find it necessary to preface this message with a meta-discussion.
--- Meta-Discussion: The messed-up election ---
With out alleging any impropriety actions beyond those mentioned in last years election correspondence ( http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2016-April/010944.html ). I think it's widely agreed that many issues from all-time low voter turn out to Paul Boddie's points (Ie: "a misleading process") combined to make this a messed-up election.
anomalous - ajd. 1. deviating from or inconsistent with the common order, form, or rule; irregular; abnormal: Advanced forms of life may be anomalous in the universe. 2. not fitting into a common or familiar type, classification, or pattern; unusual: He held an anomalous position in the art world. 3. incongruous or inconsistent.
I don't want to place blame exclusivity on the voting process, but IMO it's the functional bottle-neck of this voting system. At the very least, this statement from the wiki needs to be revised:
"Voting System: For the voting process we will use the Schulze method, a popular voting system used by Debian, Wikimedia and others. It is a well tested method and has proven to be resistant to voting anomalies."
Because the last two years elections have been anomalous!
--- End-Meta Discussion ---
I'm thinking in an Abstract way about what happened here. How can software help us reach consensus and over-come issues that seem to be filibustered: perhaps a new voting method?
I know the direction we need to be headed: engaging with more fellows by showing them the positive effects of effective representation and administration. The wiki is a huge tool for that. But, diverting people to another site to vote is a detour that probably caused some people to lose their vote. Is there a possibility to amend the wiki software with polling function so fellows can voice their opinions on issues facing the foundation?
* Title change This is the first time ive heard about the plan to transition from Fellows to Supporters. Can i get linked to the aforementioned discussions? As long as this title is preserved for the time-being, im open to considering other options.
As an idea to improve governance, why not include important decisions like this as a referendum in the election?
On 27 April 2017 at 06:25, Franz Seidl fseidl@f9s.eu wrote:
Hi Eric,
in my opinion a downturn in voter participation is to be expected when the decision gets more complicated and time consuming. ("Oh, looks like this will take longer than expected. I don't have time for this now, I will do it in the evening..." - what could possibly go wrong?)
Btw, do the absolute numbers point in the same direction?
Regards, Franz
Am 25.04.2017 um 13:00 schrieb Erik Albers:
Hi list,
the Fellowship elections 2017 are over and the winner is Daniel Pocock.
https://fsfe.org/news/2017/news-20170425-01I like to thank all candidates for bringing life into this years
election and
every voter for rewarding our candidates' activities by participating in
the
elections.
Unfortunately, we only had a participation of around 17 % which seems to
be
the lowest participation since we record participation (2014). Many of
the
list subscribers here have had the possibility to vote, so I like to ask
for
explanations and possibilities how we can raise participation?
The low amount of participation leaves me in particular wondering as
this year
we had 7 candidates, each of them with a short representation in out
wiki [1],
public hustings [2] and a reminder three days before the end of
elections.
However, former elections with only one (!) candidate and without
reminders
and no public hustings (2016 and 2014) have had more participation ...
Why is this? Please help us to understand what FSFE can do to make the electiosn more appealing or raise participation? Or help us to understand what was the reason that this year there was
such a
low amount of participation?
Thank you very much, Erik
[1] https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/Election/FellowshipElection_2017 [2] https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/Election/FellowshipElection_2017#
Hustings
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On 27/04/17 13:13, Joe Awni wrote:
Because the last two years elections have been anomalous!
You mean the process or the result is anomalous?
Elections are always run by humans (or by machines built by humans and hacked by humans) and consequently any large enough election will have a few mis-counted ballot papers.
Whether this impacts the result, however, is another question
As an idea to improve governance, why not include important decisions like this as a referendum in the election?
Talking and voting isn't everything - action is also important. I'm sure that if the British government ran a referendum on cutting taxes it would get a lot more consensus than their Brexit referendum. If you ran a referendum to say cancer needs a cure people would vote for that too but it may not have any impact on the disease itself. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any votes, rather, there needs to be a balance between voting and doing.
As another example, in Australia our federal government has an election every 3 years. In the US, the president is elected every 4 years. In the UK, elections are every 5 years. The outcome in Australia is that the people who are elected spend the first 3-6 months getting to know the system and the last 12 months preparing for the next election, so there is only a gap of about 18 months in the middle where they can do "real" work like taking study tours in Europe and the US.
Regards,
Daniel