Please stop immediatly!
I've certainly not elected you, I'm not even a member of the FSFE or your abusive fellowship of data robbers, and I certainly haven't participated on any election.
You have "sequestered" my personal data for the good of your personal agenda, and hosted it on systems of other parties. I see that as extremely big abuse of my personal rights.
I don't care about anything else you have to say, because you haven't regret it or asked for pardon.
Your abusive and entitled attitude, shows me that they were probably right in taking those measures. Now stop making us wasting any of our collective valuable time.
On 04/05/19 12:50, Daniel Pocock wrote:
(fixed address)
On 03/05/2019 23:30, Paul Schaub wrote:
Hello list,
as probably most of us I'm trying to get a clear picture of what happened and why. On my quest to find answers, and to grasp the situation as close to truth as possible, I have some questions to officials 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 being "moderated" and if so, based on what reasons?
How much moderation is happening on at the FSFE lists?
An email from Matthias Kirschner on 12 September 2018 states:
"Until further notice, your blog is removed from the FSFE's planet aggregation, ... (snip) ... we will put you on moderation on our mailing lists, ... (snip) ... while you remain a member of the FSFE, the publication of our legal demands would be considered further discrediting the FSFE and damaging the bond of trust between the members, and as such, would be considered in any current or future exclusion proceedings."
In other words:
they censored the representative you elected (me)
they told me that I can't tell you I was threatened or censored, or
there would be more legal proceedings - a threat on top of a threat
As your representative, it was my duty to tell you both good things and bad things. If telling the truth is a CoC violation, I'm guilty as hell. That was my duty.
For example, if you are buying a house and you pay a surveyor to inspect it, do you want the surveyor to tell you about the defects or do you want him to tell you nice things so that he won't offend the person selling the house?
There is an attitude in some free software communities that we have to hide defects, especially when it concerns money or governance.
What is more, the communities promise transparency. FSFE has a transparency page: https://fsfe.org/about/transparency-commitment and one of the pillars of the Debian Social Contract[1] is the claim "We will not hide problems"
yet when people speak about problems, they are subject to censorship, blackmail, veiled threats, humiliations, defamation, lynchings and secret punishments.
Regards,
Daniel
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Hi,
On Saturday, 2019-05-04 15:41:26 +0200, Diogo Constantino wrote:
To: discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu, discussion@lists.fsfe.org
[...]
Interesting how that mail did not make it to Pocock's list, where every mail now is manually approved.. or discarded..
Eike
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, discussion@lists.fsfe.org
[...]
Interesting how that mail did not make it to Pocock's list, where every mail now is manually approved.. or discarded..
Given that over 90% of people are subscribed to both lists, the censors have to work extra hard to try and guess which mails the other censors will accept and then discard them to avoid any user receiving the same mail on both lists.
Happy Censoring,
Daniel
On May 6, 2019 11:49:16 AM EDT, Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro wrote:
the other censors
Aren't you that other person you are talking about in the third person?
On Monday, 2019-05-06 17:49:16 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
To: discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu, discussion@lists.fsfe.org
[...]
Interesting how that mail did not make it to Pocock's list, where every mail now is manually approved.. or discarded..
Given that over 90% of people are subscribed to both lists, the censors have to work extra hard to try and guess which mails the other censors will accept and then discard them to avoid any user receiving the same mail on both lists.
You are talking ridiculous nonsense.
Eike