Candidacy FSFE Fellowship Representative
joe.awni at gmail.com
Mon Apr 18 13:07:20 UTC 2016
If you have not had time to read the message, how do you find time to reply
I address your concerns in my original message.
Just because you made rules, at a previous date, regarding the structure of
the election does not mean you have to waste this election which has only
*Indeed, its the purpose of the election to let the people decide. *
If you insist on not allowing write-ins, I'll call the election and you can
just go home.
On 18 April 2016 at 08:54, Erik Albers <eal at fsfe.org> wrote:
> Dear Joe,
> thank you very much for you lengthy email and your thoughts on FSFE's
> Fellowship representative election. Discussions and Feedback like this is
> exactly what helps to make any democratic decision more understandable.
> Just one question ahead: I replied to your first email on 15/04/16 13:55 to
> let you know that the candidacy is over. Did you receive that mail?
> Am 16/04/16 um 13:15 schrieb Joe Awni:
> > I write to notify you of my candidacy for fellowship representative.
> As already said in my other mail, I am sorry but the time to announce a
> candidacy is over and was from
> January 11, 2016 - February 1, 2016
> (see here: http://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/FellowshipElection_2016)
> To make sure that everyone knows about it, every Fellow with an active
> did receive an email from the Fellowship system on 11/01/16 18:09 with the
> subject "Call for Candidates - Announcement of the Fellowship Elections
> including all the background information.
> > I had
> > some messages blocked and delayed so there is a kind-of lengthy
> > meta-discussion [...]
> > In my personal opinion, the Free Software community has not been so much
> > about maintaining strict community management practices and governance
> > models based on large corporate structures, but more about promoting
> > Software. I would not otherwise tarnish a valiant effort in the name of
> > Free Software, but i think the FSFE can lead the way on this.
> Thank you very much for this, I agree and I hope most of the people on the
> list agree as well.
> > If elected, i would not be afraid to make exception to a rule where the
> > intent of rule is preserved. In the case where only one person is on the
> > ballot, write-ins may be allowed in the interest of a meaningful
> > Additionally, regarding the rule that "To be a candidate, you need to
> > been an active Fellow for at least a year before the election (so April
> > 4th, 2015). This helps to make sure that the people elected into the GA
> > familiar with the organization and its work."
> > And, the selection of the Schulze Voting System "For the voting process
> > will use the Schulze method, a popular voting system used by Debian,
> > Wikimedia and others. It is a well tested method and has proven to be
> > resistant to voting anomalies. "
> > Don't you think it anomalous to have an election with only one candidate?
> Look, there have been three weeks of time, announced in an email to every
> Fellow - but there was only one person who used that momentum to apply as a
> Of course, we would love to see more candidates and I hope we will be
> next year. And although I agree, that now changing the rules to see them
> sounds like an attractive solution but there are at least two problems we
> would face:
> 1. It is not legal. The FSFE as a legal entity is an association registered
> in Hamburg and as an association we are bound to a constitution.
> Unfortunately, our constitution knows a lot of details to tell about under
> "Fellowship seats" in https://fsfe.org/about/legal/constitution.html. It
> clearly says: "Candidates are all Fellows elegible for election who have
> informed the Fellowship coordinator of their intention to stand for office
> at least two months before the election date;"
> And if we would not keep to the rules of our constitution, we could lose
> the right to be an association and therewith the status of a chariable NGO.
> That means that these are decision out of our scope. We first need to
> change the constitution for this, but cannot change the rules adhoc. Else
> couldfear to further exist.
> 2. The general problem when you try to fix a rule with exceptions ... ->
> will you do the next exception? Imagine we would say now: Ok, you are
> allowed to be a candidate. Then the next one will come and say: me too!
> And the next one and so on....
> We would need to make a new deadline. Just to see someone else is coming
> after that deadline to say: "last deadline you already made exceptions, so
> please do so again" ...
> And then someone would suggests to change the time of the voting ....
> > Finally, It has come to my attention by means of blocked messages and
> > delayed communications that those running the election would prevent you
> > from voting for me (even as a write-in candidate) out of some misguided
> > sense that they are "helping to make sure the people elected into the
> I do not understand exactly how you think that I should prevent people from
> voting you (I run the elections in all conscience)? I think you are doing
> wrong here, I answered your last mail about your candidacy in no later than
> one hour. And I did not block any message or was trying to delay
> > Although it is my opinion that the FSFE risks it's relevance by using
> > technology as a door to exclude people from this election.
> I do not see the how we use technology in that sense? We simply follow our
> legal rules.
> > However, weather
> > or not you are allowed to vote for me in this election is not my
> > As i said, if elected i would not be afraid to make an obvious exception
> > the interest of a meaningful election.
> > Ultimately, this election is not vital to the continued development of
> > Software, but your continued support and encouragement is. I am here to
> > you know that the choice is yours!
> > If you feel strongly about my candidacy or anything i have written i ask
> > you to please make a vote with your personal
> > engorgement/discouragement/feedback/etc! Write to me! Your message could
> > mean i decide to make the GNUBurgers regardless of the outcome of this
> > election.
> Joe, I am really happy about your will for candidacy and we know each other
> from 32C3 and I highly appreciated your GNUBurgers at our assembly. Believe
> me, there is nothing I would do to prevent you from being a candidate as a
> Fellowship representative.
> This is also true for everyone else here on the list. The more candidates
> have, the more exciting it is for everyone involved. All of you are
> welcome to
> run for office as a Fellowship representative.
> And if you agree with Joe that we should change the rules, I am also happy
> see proposals so we can change our constitution on that base.
> Thanks again for the discussion and the feedback,
> No one shall ever be forced to use non-free software
> Erik Albers | Free Software Foundation Europe
> OpenPGP Key-ID: 0x8639DC81 on keys.gnupg.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Discussion