membership

[Josef Dalcolmo]

I do have a problem with the current closed constitution of the FSFE.

This is not a democratic system, but a system set up by a few self-nominated 
individuals. As such it has no political validity.

Although I grant, that the current members of the FSFE are well-meaning and 
are greatly contributing to the Free Software movement, they cannot represent 
the Free Software Movement at large, since at least technically they only 
represent themselves: there exists no political mandate.

I fear that many others, who would be supportive of the Free Software 
movement, hold back, because they do not really feel represented.

I hear again and again the argument of hostile takeovers, and that may be a 
valid one. Why is it then however, that anyone can become a member of the FSF 
(in the USA)? Does RMS not worry about hostile takeovers?

I believe there must be other measures than such a closed society to prevent 
hostile takeovers. For example, you may exclude anyone from membership, who 
works for a company that produces proprietary software products, since there 
would obviously be a conflict of interest.

Although a benevolent oligarchy may actually be more efficient than a 
democracy, how are you going to be respected by the democratically elected 
members of the governments you are talking to?

- Josef