Hi everyone,
I wanted to point you to this open internship position at the FSFE:
https://fsfe.org/news/2017/news-20170811-01.en.html
As you know, when the FSFE was founded, we put together a document describing our self conception. That was 16 years ago, and while I believe it to still be relevant, we'll be looking at making a new committment towards a revised organisational identity later this year.
As a part of this work, we're looking for an intern to support the process for 3-6 months, working closely with me and others in the FSFE on analysing how the different groups within and outside of the FSFE perceive the organisation's identity, which will then work towards understanding how aligned they are, and supporting a renewed committment towards a self conception.
We've already started the work, and will be looking for someone who could jump on board quite soon indeed, so don't wait to send this to someone you think might be interested! Work description and other application details on the page above.
Sincerely,
On Friday 11. August 2017 12.54.53 Jonas Oberg wrote:
Hi everyone,
I wanted to point you to this open internship position at the FSFE:
https://fsfe.org/news/2017/news-20170811-01.en.html
As you know, when the FSFE was founded, we put together a document describing our self conception. That was 16 years ago, and while I believe it to still be relevant, we'll be looking at making a new committment towards a revised organisational identity later this year.
Did I miss the accompanying report about this activity? In the archives of this list (that I have), I only see a couple of messages later in the same year, one mentioning a survey and another asking a question about responding to it.
The team page on the FSFE Wiki seems to date from 2017:
https://wiki.fsfe.org/Teams/FSFE-in-2020
I also didn't find anything on the main FSFE Web site, either.
Did the whole process grind to a halt, perhaps due to broader collaboration issues?
Paul
Hi Paul,
Am Freitag 08 Februar 2019 01:40:40 schrieb Paul Boddie:
On Friday 11. August 2017 12.54.53 Jonas Oberg wrote:
https://fsfe.org/news/2017/news-20170811-01.en.html
As you know, when the FSFE was founded, we put together a document describing our self conception. That was 16 years ago, and while I believe it to still be relevant, we'll be looking at making a new committment towards a revised organisational identity later this year.
Did I miss the accompanying report about this activity? In the archives of this list (that I have), I only see a couple of messages later in the same year, one mentioning a survey and another asking a question about responding to it.
The team page on the FSFE Wiki seems to date from 2017:
https://wiki.fsfe.org/Teams/FSFE-in-2020
I also didn't find anything on the main FSFE Web site, either.
Did the whole process grind to a halt, perhaps due to broader collaboration issues?
in short: Yes.
Though maybe "broader collaboration" is a bit coarse. My personal take: the process was too heavy and it turned out it could not deliver what was expected from it. We've also had less time of the people available who were the ones driving it. Then other other distractions came to be and the most important goal of FSFE is to help people learn about Free Software, so we kept doing more for Free Software and less internal organisational questions. (Again I believe all this to be normal for an organisation, though we should aim for writing more about this. Sorry for not doing so earlier and thanks for the question and reminder in the other thread.)
Regards, Bernhard
Hi,
On 8. Oct 2019, at 17:32, Bernhard E. Reiter bernhard@fsfe.org wrote:
Did the whole process grind to a halt, perhaps due to broader collaboration issues?
in short: Yes.
Though maybe "broader collaboration" is a bit coarse. My personal take: the process was too heavy and it turned out it could not deliver what was expected from it. We've also had less time of the people available who were the ones driving it. Then other other distractions came to be and the most important goal of FSFE is to help people learn about Free Software, so we kept doing more for Free Software and less internal organisational questions. (Again I believe all this to be normal for an organisation, though we should aim for writing more about this. Sorry for not doing so earlier and thanks for the question and reminder in the other thread.)
I think we are getting numb to bullshitting. So let me rephrase this in simple speech: The FSFE-in-2020 ground to a halt because the decision makers (our GA and the president) did not prioritise it and have no interest in the increased accountability and transparency that would inevitably follow from any sort of modernisation of FSFE.
Best,
Mirko.
Am Mittwoch 09 Oktober 2019 10:02:16 schrieb Mirko Boehm:
So let me rephrase this in simple speech: The FSFE-in-2020 ground to a halt because the decision makers (our GA and the president) did not prioritise it
They did indeed not, but for good reasons (which you don't seem to agree to, which is fine, though calling an explanation attempt bullshitting is something I don't get.).
and have no interest in the increased accountability and transparency that would inevitably follow from any sort of modernisation of FSFE.
In my point of view it wouldn't follow automatically from modernisation. Also the FSFE-in-2020 process was not aiming for increased accountability and transparency. If a process is taking a path that is not bound to get to the results, I think it is important to modify or stop it.
Regards, Bernhard
Hi Mirko,
Mirko Boehm mirko@fsfe.org writes:
I think we are getting numb to bullshitting. So let me rephrase this in simple speech: The FSFE-in-2020 ground to a halt because the decision makers (our GA and the president) did not prioritise it
I'm sorry, but that is not my impression at all. The process had serious flaws from the get-go. The survey had no clear aim, multiple major statistical issues and as such was unable to produce any sort of reliable results. Multiple people pointed out those flaws in the beginning of the process, but they did not get corrected anyway by those in charge. The reason they gave was that this was only supposed to be the beginning of the process and it would give a very rough overview with a more refined process to be added later.
However, at some point, we received a "final" report for the process that had a lot of claims in it that were not supported by the available data at all. By that point, the process had taken up considerable ressources and so last year at the GA, we had to decide between continuing the process by pouring more ressources on it and stopping it. Continuing would have meant pretty much starting over because of the huge flaws the process had. We also still didn't know the actual goal of the process, so we decided against it.
The restructuring was largely independent of the identity process. There were two major obstacles there, though. One was that there was a pad with some notes on how to possibly restructure the FSFE, but the pad had no obvious structure and no clear suggestions. In preparation for the GA, Matthias asked mutliple times for actual motions or suggestions to be written, yet nothing happened. My impression was that you, Mirko, did not have the time to update the pad or something like that. At the same time, we had the problem of an abusive GA member and started to worry more about simply increasing the size of the GA.
Happy hacking! Florian
Hello,
On 10. Oct 2019, at 16:11, Florian Snow floriansnow@fsfe.org wrote:
Mirko Boehm <mirko@fsfe.org mailto:mirko@fsfe.org> writes:
I think we are getting numb to bullshitting. So let me rephrase this in simple speech: The FSFE-in-2020 ground to a halt because the decision makers (our GA and the president) did not prioritise it
I'm sorry, but that is not my impression at all. The process had serious flaws from the get-go. The survey had no clear aim, multiple major statistical issues and as such was unable to produce any sort of reliable results. Multiple people pointed out those flaws in the beginning of the process, but they did not get corrected anyway by those in charge. The reason they gave was that this was only supposed to be the beginning of the process and it would give a very rough overview with a more refined process to be added later.
However, at some point, we received a "final" report for the process that had a lot of claims in it that were not supported by the available data at all. By that point, the process had taken up considerable ressources and so last year at the GA, we had to decide between continuing the process by pouring more ressources on it and stopping it. Continuing would have meant pretty much starting over because of the huge flaws the process had. We also still didn't know the actual goal of the process, so we decided against it.
I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. I simply don’t see any tangible positive activity from the FSFE staff or president towards actual progress. This sounds more like teenagers explaining why they did not do the homework.
The restructuring was largely independent of the identity process. There were two major obstacles there, though. One was that there was a pad with some notes on how to possibly restructure the FSFE, but the pad had no obvious structure and no clear suggestions. In preparation for the GA, Matthias asked mutliple times for actual motions or suggestions to be written, yet nothing happened. My impression was that you, Mirko, did not have the time to update the pad or something like that. At the same time, we had the problem of an abusive GA member and started to worry more about simply increasing the size of the GA.
Again, the same. There have been a whole 10 page concept developed around 2010 by Jonas and others that provided a fully detailed suggestion of how to reform FSFE, a formal motion at the FSFE GA by me and Shane to finally implement this, which was on the agenda, discussed and approved, and a document with the expectations and suggestions from the Berlin members meeting. If you can point me to tangible work of the staff or the president that matches this in effort and diligence we have a basis for further discussion. Until then, I let the facts speak.
Best,
Mirko.