Hi Christian,
First of all, I have to say I am not happy that an email was published here without the consent of the author. In addition, the word "fsfegate 2.0" and the fact that this is a completely unknown person, makes me feel uneasy about this email.
That being said, I would like to answer your email, Christian. Essentially, I will treat the statements in the quoted mail as questions from you personally that deserve an answer. I will answer as many questions as possible.
I have been a GA member for about a year, but I do not speak for the GA. We are individuals with differing opinions and that is what makes us strong as an organization. So I will just state my personal opinion without speaking for anyone else and without claiming that my opinion is the only possible one.
[Executive engaging the legal team less]
I am not a member of the legal team, so I do not have complete insight into this. If the statement is true, I could see multiple reasons for it. Perhaps management feels more confident regarding certain issues due to prior counsel of the legal team. Just an example, but there might be a good reason for that. It is also possible that not everyone in the legal team would support that statement.
[Less visibility in regards to legal and policy issues]
My impression is very different and in fact, I would say we are gaining visibility. But either way, there is no hard data on this issue.
[too strong a focus on campaigns and lack of (long-term) vision]
I feel campaigns are good and important. The idea here is to deliver specific goals that can be measured. I would say they play a very important part in the question of "What do we want to achieve in the next 5 years?". More of the vision part comes in in selecting those campaigns. I do see occasional weaknesses here and we deal with them when they happen, but I see no overarching problem here.
[losing sight of core goals]
I completely disagree with this statement. Yes, we think about issues such as gender equality because we think being more inclusive will strengthen our movement as a whole. That does not mean we lost sight of our core goals. Just look at our website, our mailing lists and check which things we actually work on. You will see that it is all about Free Software and how it is perceived in the world. Other issues like inclusiveness is more a matter of how we communicate, thinking about new channels to use, and so on.
[not institutionalizing knowledge]
I would say there is quite a lot of knowledge that _is_ being institutionalized and documented, but I agree that this is something we can probably still improve on. This is a general issue with growing communities that a lack of communication might arise. I think we do better here than other organizations I have seen, but there is still room for improvement and I have seen many steps to clarify procedures, to document information about people and events.
[all staff being on leave after FOSDEM and unanswered requests]
I have seen this in the past, but not this year for example, so the situation about unanswered requests appears to be improving.
[no information to stakeholders about absent people]
I have not experienced that, but perhaps there is a process here that needs clarification and documentation.
[emails stuck in mailing list queues; systems (VMs) down due to lack of monitoring]
The situation with emails has improved somewhat in recent years with the introduction of a general entry point for inquiries instead of several different mailing lists. However, we can still improve on that. To me, this is also a question of volunteer engagement and not just about sponsors. I would not expect the FSFE employees to deal with all tickets/emails at all times. We are an organization that is largely made up of volunteers and there are many areas where I think more volunteer engagement could help. The FSFE is not the office in Berlin and its employees, the FSFE is a community. There is simply way more work than we can handle and certainly way more work than staff can handle on their own. So we rely on volunteers to do some of the work and even then, we could always use more hands. That means some things will not get dealt with and what I see is people doing their best to prioritize well.
[no improvements but personal attacks from the vice president]
I have seen many improvements over the years, but we can always do more, of course. As for the personal attacks, I have a really hard time imagining Heiki (our vice president) making personal attacks. I have experienced him as someone with strong integrity and carefully weighed opinions who handles criticism in an exceptionally constructive way. His emails are concise (quite the opposite of mine) and perhaps sometimes a bit direct. That might perhaps have been perceived as arrogance, but I am certain if someone pointed out a specific situation to Heiki that was problematic, he would clarify and, if appropriate, apologize. That is the way my interactions with him have always gone and not once have I seen him come close to a personal attack.
I hope that clarifies some of those things for you, Christian, and others here on the list. If you have further questions, feel free to ask.
Happy hacking! Florian
Hello Florian,
thank you for taking the time to answer. If longtime members drop out, we should talk about it openly. It is the wrong way to withold the leaving.
Words like "fsfegate 2.0" don't mean anything to me, because I'm just not in your filter bubble. I have no problem with anonymous whistleblowing. Information should be free, so I support that.
Am 28.03.2019 17:53 schrieb Florian Snow:
We are individuals with differing opinions and that is what makes us strong as an organization.
I totally agree with you. In my opinion diversity, free speech, freedom of information, etc. are fundamental rights that are inextricably linked with Free Software. Why else do we need Free Software if we do not care about the other basic rights? In my opinion, Free Software would be worth nothing then.
Am 28.03.2019 17:53 schrieb Florian Snow:
My impression is very different and in fact, I would say we are gaining visibility. But either way, there is no hard data on this issue.
That is in the nature of things and it is a problem, unfortunately. E.g. the section on open source platforms that are excluded from the new EU Copyright Directive: As someone who stands on the sidelines I didn't really saw our success. GitHub claims that they would have enforced the exception. It's a pity that we didn't make our contribution so well visible.
Am 28.03.2019 17:53 schrieb Florian Snow:
I feel campaigns are good and important.
I feel the same way. Campaigns are a good way to achieve political goals.
Am 28.03.2019 17:53 schrieb Florian Snow:
I completely disagree with this statement. Yes, we think about issues such as gender equality because we think being more inclusive will strengthen our movement as a whole.
Again, I am with you. As I wrote above, what would be the worth of Free Software if we do not care about other civil freedoms?
I can not say much about your other answers, because I'm not involved in the organization of the FSFE. For me your answers are very welcome and important! Thanks again for taking the time.
Regards, Christian
Am 29.03.19 um 11:12 schrieb Christian Imhorst:
I have no problem with anonymous whistleblowing.
I have, frankly, a problem with forwarding internal emails from a trusted group. It leads to breaking the trust within that group, and that leads to people within those groups not speaking out openly any more.
Best,
Hi Christian,
Christian Imhorst christian.imhorst@fsfe.org writes:
If longtime members drop out, we should talk about it openly. It is the wrong way to withold the leaving.
I think there are multiple relevant factors here. We are in complete agreement that we should not hide things. The question is, though, how to treat them. One question is the question of privacy. I think the person who leaves has the right to decide in which group this resignation is discussed. In the current case here, that person decided to send an email to multiple internal mailing lists. I think something like that should not just be made public verbatim. We could publish the contained criticism. But then, the question is what exactly do we do? If we receive criticism, do we respond to it or do we summarize it to a public mailing list? If someone who has been active for many years leaves us, do we make that public? I think those questions do not have easy answers. Our current approach is to handle criticism at the level it is raised at. The lists the mail in question went to are working lists on which our engaged volunteers organize themselves. On this list here, we have a mixture of people who are active for the FSFE and some who might prefer to listen or discuss. I think handling criticism is more productive on the former kinds of lists instead of involving people who may not know our internal structures and who did not necessarily sign up for this list to debate these things, but to talk about Free Software.
Words like "fsfegate 2.0" don't mean anything to me, because I'm just not in your filter bubble.
That is not a term that already has a meaning. It ultimately goes back to the Watergate scandal and American news outlets like saying "something gate" rather than "something scandal". It is a bit of a dubious term and that is what my comment about it meant. I would have responded the same way if someone had used a term like "fake news".
I have no problem with anonymous whistleblowing. Information should be free, so I support that.
I generally don't see an issue with whistleblowing either, but it needs a bit of context in my opinion. I do not condone simply forwarding a private email. The base line should be at least naming the evil which is to be revealed.
That is in the nature of things and it is a problem, unfortunately. E.g. the section on open source platforms that are excluded from the new EU Copyright Directive: As someone who stands on the sidelines I didn't really saw our success. GitHub claims that they would have enforced the exception.
Anyone who contributed to that result can claim it for themselves and is never completely wrong. You never know why exactly someone made a certain decision in the end.
It's a pity that we didn't make our contribution so well visible.
I think this is an important point. Where else would you like to see information like that? There was a mailing about it and a press release (which was suboptimal, I know). We are open to suggestions.
Happy hacking! Florian
Hi Florian,
Am 29.03.19 um 17:24 schrieb Florian Snow:
I think there are multiple relevant factors here. We are in complete agreement that we should not hide things. The question is, though, how to treat them. One question is the question of privacy. I think the person who leaves has the right to decide in which group this resignation is discussed. In the current case here, that person decided to send an email to multiple internal mailing lists.
I'm with you, that we have to protect the value of privacy. But if I write an e-mail to different mailing lists, no matter how "internally" they are, this e-mail is no longer private. If it still contains fundamental criticism, this e-mail will reach a larger public.
It's different when you write to people directly. They should be aware of their responsibility and their transparent handling of the criticism. These people should address the points of the criticism and say what is or is not. Like you did it, a more transparent dealing beforehand would have been good.
Why was the e-mail leaked to other public lists? Because the whistleblower fears that the FSFE will not handle the criticism transparently, that it will be swept under the carpet.
Am 29.03.19 um 17:24 schrieb Florian Snow:
I generally don't see an issue with whistleblowing either, but it needs a bit of context in my opinion. I do not condone simply forwarding a private email. The base line should be at least naming the evil which is to be revealed.
Yes, you're right, our whistleblower still has room for improvement.
Am 29.03.19 um 17:24 schrieb Florian Snow:
I think this is an important point. Where else would you like to see information like that? There was a mailing about it and a press release (which was suboptimal, I know). We are open to suggestions.
The FSFE is transparent in many ways, but in some the FSFE is withdrawn. For example the current case of the EU Copyright Directive: We claim that we spoke with representatives in Brussels and received pledges. Who spoke with whom? When? Why? In what context? What kind of commitments have we received? I would like to have more transparency, more regular, detailed (monthly or quarterly) reports on our current work and more communication with supporters, sympathisers and volunteers. Of course this would be nice on all public mailing lists, but should at least take place on this discussion mailing list.
Finally, FSFE is an organisation of volunteers who work for Free Software and Open Standards. Without us, a GA with president and vice-president, a legal team, etc. would be an end in itself. Our purpose, however, has to be Enlightenment and to educate on what Free Software is, why the concept was developed, and that Free Software always refers to Free Speech.
Regards Christian Imhorst
Hi Christian,
Am Sonntag, 31. März 2019, 11:14:14 CEST schrieb Christian Imhorst:
Am 29.03.19 um 17:24 schrieb Florian Snow: I'm with you, that we have to protect the value of privacy. But if I write an e-mail to different mailing lists, no matter how "internally" they are, this e-mail is no longer private. If it still contains fundamental criticism, this e-mail will reach a larger public.
Regardless how intelligence agencies try to bend the public perception, "not private" is not remotely the same as public.
All internal FSFE mailing lists that I have at some point been subscribed to operate under the Chatham house rule[1]. This rule allows for publication of contents to a wider audience, provided the anonymity of the people involved is provided.
Breaking this trust is a serious issue in itself, and should IMO be discussed separately from the actual leaked/published content.
Johannes