Hi all,
I've been in discussion with a few people trying to troubleshoot the root cause of problems in recent discussions.
From my perspective, there are a couple of things that have really
undermined my confidence in the community and keep things at a frosty level.
The way that Matthias has used my first name in the minutes[1] of the previous GA meeting. Normally the full name of the person proposing a motion is presented in a regular font and placed under the motion, but I feel that putting my first name in the titles is intended to attract vilification. The minutes look unprofessional and bring the organization into disrepute. I'd kindly request that Matthias corrects the minutes. For example, the motions should look like this:
Title of motion
Text of motion. Proposed by: D. Pocock
One of the worst things about leadership mistakes is that people emulate them. Subsequent to the way the president has prepared the minutes, other members of the community have emulated this behaviour, most recently Bernhard, putting my name into the subject line of an email[2] reply. Everything spiralled downwards from there with somebody else changing the subject to "Bernhard lectures". All those emails can be traced directly back to the way the minutes were prepared and I feel that Matthias needs to apologize.
There have been frequent, almost always disparaging references to missing the 2017 meeting. This has usually happened in private but came up again in Reinhard's post[3] just last week. It is essential to show respect for volunteers when something goes wrong in their life and they have to miss an event. Reminding people about such things in such an ugly way is a guaranteed way to poison relationships. Furthermore, no volunteer should feel pressure to disclose the reason they had to miss a meeting or change their plans. I'd request that Matthias clarify where these comments originate from, for example, did the chair of the meeting say something disparaging or fail to stop disparaging discussions about the absence? Why does the chair not intervene to maintain respect for volunteers in such instances?
Notice that these things also happen in private discussions and I feel that some of what is now appearing in public is a reflection of that.
I sincerely hope that the president will clear these things up on behalf of the organization.
Regards,
Daniel
1. https://fsfe.org/about/legal/minutes/minutes-2017-10-15.en.pdf 2. https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2018-September/012543.html 3. https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2018-August/012473.html
Hi Daniel,
Am Montag 10 September 2018 20:08:23 schrieb Daniel Pocock: [..]
One of the worst things about leadership mistakes is that people emulate them.
[..]
most recently Bernhard, putting my name into the subject line of an email[2] reply. Everything spiralled downwards from there
from my perspective it is fine to put a name in an email subject. I did change the subject towards your influence on the style of discussion because I felt you brought up some topics several times, thought they have been answered multiple times. And I believe the large majority does not want to read about it again here. Please respect if others do not share your view on the importance of some of these topics, like if a name on a motion is formatted or spelled correctly.
It is essential to show respect for volunteers when something goes wrong in their life and they have to miss an event.
I agree about this. What we disgree about seems to be if respect has been shown, I think it was and is shown. This is why I am writing this email, I'm taking some time to give you my perspective and feelings.
Reminding people about such things in such an ugly way is a guaranteed way to poison relationships.
There is a direct relation to your criticim of the structures of FSFE. People explained to you how you could have made your voice heard and how to exercise your power in the e.V. . At some occasions you have not done it. If you afterwards in public criticise the people in FSFE for not honoring your input, I believe you leave others no choice than to point out where you have not used some opportunities (that have been there even if you were unable to attend some meetings). This does not speculate about why you were not able to do so. It is not unrespectful in my eyes. Instead it shows what others cannot understand the difference between the missed opportunities and your public demands.
Notice that these things also happen in private discussions and I feel that some of what is now appearing in public is a reflection of that.
From my observation it was you who brought up these things in public. While it is at your deliberation to do so, you will also force others to defend their behaviour in public, even if they'd prefered not to.
No matter how it came to be though, it seems that the relationship is now in a state where it does not make sense to continue working together. It is not for us to demand that you change your style of working, but we can declare us incompatible with it (and spare the public the details).
Best Regards, Bernhard
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:08 PM Bernhard E. Reiter bernhard@fsfe.org wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Am Montag 10 September 2018 20:08:23 schrieb Daniel Pocock: [..]
One of the worst things about leadership mistakes is that people emulate them.
[..]
most recently Bernhard, putting my name into the subject line of an
email[2]
reply. Everything spiralled downwards from there
from my perspective it is fine to put a name in an email subject. I did change the subject towards your influence on the style of discussion because I felt you brought up some topics several times, thought they have been answered multiple times. And I believe the large majority does not want to read about it again here. Please respect if others do not share your view on the importance of some of these topics, like if a name on a motion is formatted or spelled correctly.
Exactly Bernhard, for your point of view. As from my point of view putting someone's name in the subject indicates nothing but an instigation/provocation or calling for war.
It is essential to show respect for volunteers when something goes wrong in their life and they have to miss an event.
I agree about this. What we disgree about seems to be if respect has been shown, I think it was and is shown. This is why I am writing this email, I'm taking some time to give you my perspective and feelings.
I disagree, I have not received this, but lets not go back in the loophole and discuss about the same thing again and again.
Reminding people about such things in such an ugly way is a guaranteed way to poison relationships.
There is a direct relation to your criticim of the structures of FSFE. People explained to you how you could have made your voice heard and how to exercise your power in the e.V. . At some occasions you have not done it. If you afterwards in public criticise the people in FSFE for not honoring your input, I believe you leave others no choice than to point out where you have not used some opportunities (that have been there even if you were unable to attend some meetings). This does not speculate about why you were not able to do so. It is not unrespectful in my eyes. Instead it shows what others cannot understand the difference between the missed opportunities and your public demands.
Who are the others Bernhard? Can they speak on their behalf if you don't mind me asking pls?
Notice that these things also happen in private discussions and I feel that some of what is now appearing in public is a reflection of that.
From my observation it was you who brought up these things in public. While it is at your deliberation to do so, you will also force others to defend their behaviour in public, even if they'd prefered not to.
No matter how it came to be though, it seems that the relationship is now in a state where it does not make sense to continue working together. It is not for us to demand that you change your style of working, but we can declare us incompatible with it (and spare the public the details).
So let me ask you this question again. Given the incompatibility what are the amendments and actions that FSFE staff is prepared to take from practical point of view? And just FYI, I am not referring to Daniel only when I talk about incompatibility, there are lots of people/supporters who things the same way, therefore incompatible and they will come out soon....
Buongiorno Stefan,
Am Dienstag 11 September 2018 21:36:49 schrieb Stefan Uygur:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:08 PM Bernhard E. Reiter bernhard@fsfe.org
Exactly Bernhard, for your point of view. As from my point of view putting someone's name in the subject indicates nothing but an instigation/provocation or calling for war.
then I hereby apologise to Daniel and those who interpreted it this way! As it was not meant to be provocative. (My aim was to be clear as respect towards all readers, this is why I am changing the subject often if I believe the main topic has shifted.)
It is not unrespectful in my eyes. Instead it shows what others cannot understand the difference between the missed opportunities and your public demands.
Who are the others Bernhard?
On this particular point a number of people on this public mailinglist that have responded to Daniel's mails. For example Harald Welte (on the 30th), Nikos Roussos (on the 30th), Torsten Grote (on the 1st), Florian Snow (on the 5th), Carsten Agger (on the 3rd), Reinhard Müller (on the 29th), Max Mehl (on the 29th), Michael Kesper (on the 28th), Christian Kalkhoff (on the 29th).
Can they speak on their behalf if you don't mind me asking pls?
Many of them already did, see my incomplete list above. Also I do not speak "for them", which I cannot. What I am trying to do is to summarize my observations.
Given that there has been offensive language against individuals on this list and that some points haven raised before, I can understand that many do not feel comfortable exposing themselfs. I am respecting their choice.
So let me ask you this question again. Given the incompatibility what are the amendments and actions that FSFE staff is prepared to take from practical point of view?
To clarify: I do not speak for the staff nor for the executive leadership of FSFE.
If you ask me what to do, I hope we can a) establish a constructive tone and atmosphere b) listen and ask back to understand what issues there are in the Free Software communities and c) propose an adapted course for FSFE and sail it
b) and c) is a regular activity of FSFE staff, executive leadership and volunteers. It may or may not turn out issues are bigger this time. (However in 17 years of FSFE there had been a lot of larger controversies.)
And just FYI, I am not referring to Daniel only when I talk about incompatibility, there are lots of people/supporters who things the same way, therefore incompatible and they will come out soon....
The incompatibility I was refering to is one of working styles between Daniel and many e.V. members, other volunteers and community members. It is not about criticism of FSFE's structure. It is about how FSFE shall discuss topics, forms an opinion and works together. Somehow working with Daniel turned out to be non-constructive and after trying to moderate and clarify missunderstandings in this case I meanwhile unfortunately see no other choice as to end the working relationship with him. I believe this is for the better of everyone.
I am quite sure that many people and supporters holding similiar opinions are able to voice themselfs differently and I am looking forward working with all of you!
Best Regards, Bernhard
Buongiorno a te Bernhard,
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 8:19 AM Bernhard E. Reiter bernhard@fsfe.org wrote:
Buongiorno Stefan,
Am Dienstag 11 September 2018 21:36:49 schrieb Stefan Uygur:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:08 PM Bernhard E. Reiter bernhard@fsfe.org
Exactly Bernhard, for your point of view. As from my point of view
putting
someone's name in the subject indicates nothing but an instigation/provocation or calling for war.
then I hereby apologise to Daniel and those who interpreted it this way! As it was not meant to be provocative. (My aim was to be clear as respect towards all readers, this is why I am changing the subject often if I believe the main topic has shifted.)
Apology accepted!
Given that there has been offensive language against individuals on this list and that some points haven raised before, I can understand that many do not feel comfortable exposing themselfs. I am respecting their choice.
Right, lets use appropriate tone here, offensive language. but, implicating conspiracy theories, doing research on people and making nonsense assumptions is something far beyond offense Bernhard. Isn't this the main reason that triggered offensive language? I speak for myself of course. Think well before you rely to this pls.
So let me ask you this question again. Given the incompatibility what are the amendments and actions that FSFE staff is prepared to take from practical point of view?
To clarify: I do not speak for the staff nor for the executive leadership of FSFE.
I see contradiction here. I am afraid several times I called you to not speak on behalf of others, especially on behalf of Matthias Kirchner but you were persistent there and you still indicate otherwise in this email?
And btw, still no single words from your man Matthias K. If the call we made was direct to Donal Trump he'd have given his feedback while ago I bet. What is wrong with this organization and the people who represents it?
b) and c) is a regular activity of FSFE staff, executive leadership and volunteers. It may or may not turn out issues are bigger this time.
I persistently ask myself why think the exact opposite of this statement of yours.....referring to last couple of years of course and not 17yrs....
Somehow working with Daniel turned out to be non-constructive and after trying to moderate and clarify missunderstandings in this case I meanwhile unfortunately see no other choice as to end the working relationship with him. I believe this is for the better of everyone.
Then maybe it is time for you to step aside if I may?
I am quite sure that many people and supporters holding similiar opinions are able to voice themselfs differently and I am looking forward working with all of you!
Yes and here I am to ask for change starting from the structure of FSFE. Change of total or partial of the current staff that are incompatible with the status quo of FSFE and enroll mixed staff (not only people from Germany or Berliners). Change of approach in relation to those who supports FSFE and are not active within the internal structure of the organization. If FSFE loose the support of the community (the supporters) it will loose itself. The power of organizations like FSFE comes from the community and therefore the same power has to be given back to the same if you know what I mean.
Everyone can speak up for themselves and no one should speak on behalf of others where they specifically called into discussion/action.
As I mentioned in other circumstances, I have no political ambitions here and just acting as supervising entity to make sure the theory matches the practical side.
I am happy to sit and discuss whatever you people like but pls be consistent with your position.
Many thanks
Stefan
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, 14:38 Daniel Albert, <danielalbert224@
Perhaps Mr K. is smarter than Mr Trump. Trump reacts to any provocation, Mr K. does not.
I seriously doubt that. He has been called to give explanation, he wasn't accused of anything. Perhaps you missed where l called him to give his feedback or perhaps that part is not in interest of yours Daniel A.?
Sometimes it is easy to respond to the same repeated allegations and feed
the troll. I am not calling anyone a troll here, but there are such cases in fights.
Pls go back and read my email, l am curious to see where l made any allegations. If you don't find any then l expect an apology from you.
Then maybe it is time for you to step aside if I may? Change of total or partial of the current staff that are incompatible with the status quo of FSFE and enroll mixed staff (not only people from Germany or Berliners). Change of approach in relation to those who supports FSFE and are not active within the internal structure of the organization.
So if all the co-workers step down and all the GA members who are dissatisfied with Daniel, who is left? And if you have a room full of people, a new person enters and most people in the room are dissatisfied with that new person, does it make sense to ask the majority to leave?
Who is talking about Daniel here?
I think you totally got it wrong. I do speak by myself and myself only.
Pls do a proper reading about the discussion and then we can maybe talk because you are very confused from what l read.
_______________________________________________
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
Hi Stefan,
Am Mittwoch 12 September 2018 09:46:06 schrieb Stefan Uygur:
Then maybe it is time for you to step aside if I may?
this is good advise, I will from now on refrain from responding to you or Daniel about the repeating topics of this thread, because
a) I do not think it is necessary to repeat things I (and many others) have explained several times.
b) From observing the exchange between us I do not think I can do much more to make myself understood or learn more about your position.
Best Regards, Bernhard
On 11/09/18 11:04, Bernhard E. Reiter wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Am Montag 10 September 2018 20:08:23 schrieb Daniel Pocock: [..]
One of the worst things about leadership mistakes is that people emulate them.
[..]
most recently Bernhard, putting my name into the subject line of an email[2] reply. Everything spiralled downwards from there
from my perspective it is fine to put a name in an email subject.
Putting a name in the subject has no relation to the topic under discussion. It appears to be personal, it appears to be a reprisal for expressing an opinion and so it violates the code of conduct.
As I also pointed out, it drew other people into similarly questionable behaviour, do you really want to trigger such things on the mailing lists?
to read about it again here. Please respect if others do not share your view on the importance of some of these topics, like if a name on a motion is formatted or spelled correctly.
A single typo is a mistake.
Persistently using somebody's first name in that context is really out of place and not something that happens by accident. It appears to be condescending, disrespectful and personal.
It doesn't matter if some people don't care or if most people don't even look at the minutes: the people who do care would be easily satisfied by a quick edit of the document. I suspect that quick edit of the document would have consumed far less time and energy than replying to my email.
It is essential to show respect for volunteers when something goes wrong in their life and they have to miss an event.
I agree about this. What we disgree about seems to be if respect has been shown, I think it was and is shown. This is why I am writing this email, I'm taking some time to give you my perspective and feelings.
Reminding people about such things in such an ugly way is a guaranteed way to poison relationships.
There is a direct relation to your criticim of the structures of FSFE. People explained to you how you could have made your voice heard and how to exercise your power in the e.V. . At some occasions you have not done it. If you afterwards in public criticise the people in FSFE for not honoring your input, I believe you leave others no choice than to point out where you have not used some opportunities (that have been there even if you were unable to attend some meetings). This does not speculate about why you were not able to do so. It is not unrespectful in my eyes. Instead it shows what others cannot understand the difference between the missed opportunities and your public demands.
You said you "agree", but then you go on to behave in the same inappropriate manner. When you write "not used some opportunities", I feel you are implying I had a choice to be there. It was not a choice. This perception that I chose not to come appears to be fuelling a lot of the antagonism that arises whenever it is mentioned. Some comments even imply that I was negligent or mischievous in not attending.
You simply can't say that to any volunteer, or to an employee, no matter what the situation. As soon as you question somebody like that, they lose respect for you and they lose motivation. There is no benefit to be gained by making such allegations either.
but we can declare us incompatible
When Trump was elected, many people felt incompatible. People quit jobs in Washington, some people moved to Canada. Even his own staff are quitting, somebody quits almost every week but Trump always stays. That is the nature of democracy. If you don't like the person who is elected, you can go do other things in FSFE or free software or even go to Canada for a year but hounding that person to resign is just bullying.
It is incredibly immature.
All serious organizations have elections and the people who get elected, even if they are from different parties, have to work together.
FSFE's biggest problem right now is the collapse[3] in Fellowship/supporters, the more time people waste in blame games and trying to overturn the elections, the more Fellows are gone. And they are not just missing a meeting, they are probably gone for good.
You complain to me for raising issues like this, but you should thank me for having the patience to do so. Hundreds of people just quit without saying anything. Maybe they felt incompatible with FSFE leadership?
Regards,
Daniel
On Wednesday 12. September 2018 12.30.55 Daniel Albert wrote:
Your chart is funny. Why is zero missing in it?
The axes are properly labelled and, in any case, I see far worse on major news Web sites every day. What we see is a decline in the Fellowship of just over 100 people from 1650 or so in a period of about six months, reversing the growth of the preceding period.
And what about the long-term development? You violate the basic rules of statistics.
Please try and be constructive and civil.
What might be interesting is to see whether this kind of fluctuation is seasonal: that members swell in the second half of any given year and then recede in the first half of the following year. That might confirm your suspicion that the chart shows nothing unusual or worrying.
However, given that membership is something lasting over a longer term than a day, week or month, I would really be surprised to see fluctuations manifesting themselves regularly in the way depicted. Maybe someone should model this and tell us what to expect.
You also say that people joined because you became a GA member. That's not in the numbers.
True. That is like trying to explain how people voted in an election based on the results. Figuring out why people voted in the way they did is therefore very valuable strategic information. (Of course, the Fellowship election did involve preference voting, which is better than many elections in the wider world, but even then we cannot connect the events of joining and voting in any reliable way.)
My best friend has stopped giving to FSFE because he hates all the fights you start. Maybe the reasons you give for the small change of supporters are not the real reasons.
It is too bad that people do not like the confrontational culture that has developed. However, such a culture does not emerge out of nowhere. And it should be noted that some people prefer matters of criticism or weakness to be discussed privately, not in public, perceiving open dissent as argumentative, hostile, and so on.
Keeping disagreements private might make some people more comfortable, but it risks dissent building up to the point where "fights" become the only outlet for those who feel that criticism or weaknesses in an organisation are not being addressed.
Hundreds of people just quit without saying anything.
According to your data this is not true.
If we have exit interviews or something similar that indicate why people stopped supporting the Fellowship then it obviously isn't true. But otherwise it is closer to the truth than any other reasonable explanation.
Paul
---- On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 20:08:23 +0200 Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro wrote ---- The way that Matthias has used my first name in the minutes[1] of the previous GA meeting. Normally the full name of the person proposing a motion is presented in a regular font and placed under the motion, but I feel that putting my first name in the titles is intended to attract vilification. The minutes look unprofessional and bring the +1, looking at those minutes makes me cringe more than reading some of the emails here Thanks for helping us see where this trouble comes from