improving fellowship communication (GA motion)

[Albert Dengg]

hi daniel,

sorry for the late reply, i was on holidy and only partly checked
mails for the last two weeks, but i wanted to clear a few things up
here...
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 10:10:53AM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
...
> Personally, I felt these concerns demonstrated a lack of trust and
> confidence in the fellowship representatives and in fact even a lack of
> trust and confidence in humanity to organize ourselves democratically. 
> Having served in various representative roles in the past where
> membership lists were always available to me I actually felt somewhat
> insulted by these responses and uncertain about whether the fellowship
> representative role is meant to be only an illusion of representation
> rather than an active representative.
as i on ga@:
no, it's not distrust. however i strongly believe on only giving
access where there is no need for the data.
yes, you are entitled to be able to communicate with
fellows/contributres/sustaining members/...
there are multiple ways already:
* multiple mailling lists where active and intrested people
  subscribe
* the (given a bit unusual way) via the fellowship database where
  you currently need human intervention, however it is still
  possible to send signed mails, so i see no trust issues on if the
  mails where altered.
...
> - 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?
as i said before, no...no direct access if it is not neccesary or
cannot currently prevented.
...
> Proposed motion:
> The GA recognizes the stark difference between the way FSFE coordinates
> contributor data and other organizations are doing things.  FSFE
> supporter data is only available to Reinhard, Jones, system-hackers(?),
> ISP staff and third-parties involved in payment processing.  The GA
hmm...i don't completly get where you get that list from, you never
asked who has access if i remeber correctly.
currently:
* reinhard
* the three people who are running the main systems (that includes
  me and jonas)

and that's it when it comes to the main database.

yes, of course if you use a third party payment provider, they will
get some data (but they still have no access to stuff like your home
address), however if you want to avoid that: we had people paying in
cash at booths before...(including myself for a time)

as for ISP staff:
why do you think that any isp staff has access?
the DB is run on hardware owned by the fsfe, so unless they play
games like pulling out the disks, they have no acess.
...
> b) to be able to communicate with them directly
as stated above and before, there are ways to do that, but sofar you have not
tried them, so saying that they don't work is a bit strange...

regards,
albert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20171012/c6f6466c/attachment.sig>