improving fellowship communication (GA motion)

Guido Arnold guido at
Thu Oct 5 11:30:07 UTC 2017


On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 10:10:53AM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>    To ensure the GA can understand how people feel, it would be interesting
>    to get opinions from the community:
>    - when you join an organization such as FSFE and you provide personal data
>    such as your name and email address, do you expect that office holders and
>    elected representatives would have some access to this data in performing
>    their roles?

>    - do you feel it is reasonable for people who are in a position of trust
>    to have some discretion in how they use the data as long as they do so in
>    the best interests of the organization, it's mission and it's members?  Or

No, as there is no way for me to check if my trust is justified. And
the "as long as they do" part scares me too.

>    do you believe the organization should strive to obfuscate the data so
>    that even office holders can't read it and put systems in place so
>    communications are sent out to members through an opaque process?

This sounds rather that you don't trust this opaque process than see
your means to communicate with the electorate at stake.

In that case, I'd rather make that opaque process more transparent
instead of giving access to the entire supporter database to a yet
another person every single year. 

>  Proposed motion:
>  default data protection regime (need-to-know access only) whereas if
>  they choose to be in the latter category, they will be informed that a
>  less stringent data protection policy is in effect.  Where somebody in

When you sign up, there is a check-box "Are you fine that a local
coordinator may contact you" (or something similar), we could
generalize this to "local coordinator and fellowship representative"
or provide a second check-box just for the representative. 

This still requires the coordinators and representatives to trust that
the opaque process you mentioned indeed reaches all fellows that are
meant to be reached.

>    -------- Forwarded Message --------
>    Subject: improving fellowship communication
>       Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 10:53:27 +0200
>       From: Daniel Pocock [2]<daniel at>
>         To: [3]ga at
>  I would not object to signing a confidentially agreement, committing to
>  store the data securely, limiting my use of any such data to FSFE
>  purposes and committing not to use the data to promote myself or endorse
>  any future candidates in fellowship elections.

What if you (or any of your successors) violate the agreement anyhow?
Will you be liable for any damages? What if you don't have the means
to compensate? Who will ever run for that position again, knowing that
this could turn out very costly and troublesome?

I wish you all a fun and productive GA!


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the Discussion mailing list