please be excellent to each other (Re: application for FSFE e.V. membership and resignati)

Daniel Pocock daniel at
Wed Aug 29 21:02:21 UTC 2018

On 29/08/18 15:46, Max Mehl wrote:
> # Erik Albers [2018-08-29 11:22 +0200]:
>> 3) most important: the vast majority of the FSFE members voted for another
>>    motion. A motion to  keep you in office for the whole 2 year-term!
>> Everybody can read this in the offical minutes:
>> 	"The current Fellowship representatives' membership ends as soon as
>> 	the constitutional change is successfully registered, or 2 years after
>> 	their election, whichever comes later."
> It is noteworthy that this was the least restrictive option the GA has
> voted for. It also allows the second representative, Mirko, to stay
> longer than his 2-years term. So I cannot really understand the riot
> Daniel is trying to start here based on this option. The GA did not
> "stab you in the back". But I start to think that you are actually doing
> everything in your power to provoke GA members by poisoning the FSFE's
> discussion culture...

You mix up a few issues there

Mirko's term had already expired before the meeting (it expires on the
anniversary of election) so the motion couldn't extend his term.

Mirko is not a member any more.  He now has to apply for membership like
any other member of the community by sending a request to mk at
and asking for "membership in passing (provisional membership)", as Erik
encouraged people to do in the blog post in May.  People who want to
vote at the annual general meeting in Berlin on 7 October should
probably do that quite quickly now.

The failure to realize earlier that Mirko's membership had already
lapsed means that his vote and any proxies he carried were incorrectly
recorded in the minutes[1] of the meeting from May.  Is it possible that
this irregularity violates the legality of the constitutional change and
the elections will still have to go ahead now to appoint a replacement
for Mirko to attend the annual meeting in October?

Nonetheless, I never said the GA stabbed me in the back.  I said it
looks like an the person who constructed this motion, not the whole GA,
was trying to stab me in the back.  Think of it this way: putting this
option in the meeting invitation and asking people to come and vote on
it feels a lot like putting a gun to my head, holding it there for a
month and asking people to come and vote on whether to pull the
trigger.  How could any member of a community feel good in such
circumstances?  How could anybody still trust the people behind that
type of politics, even though the vote failed to give them what they
wanted?  Four people voted for that option, including at least one
member of the executive.

Let there be no doubt about it: despite the abstract way in which it is
written, the people who gave up their Saturday to attend the meeting and
the 4 people who voted for that option fully understood the impact it
would have, eliminating a democratically elected representative of the
community.  How do you think I was feeling that weekend, wondering what
was going on at the meeting in Berlin, waiting until several days later
before anybody even told me the outcome of the vote?

The minutes also note that one staff member asked for a secret ballot, I
make no assumptions about how she voted but this demonstrates that
having such politics in the GA creates a horrible situation for staff as
the staff also need to be able to work productively with all of us in
the community and not choose sides in political situations.  As the
president has put the staff in this awkward position, I feel it is
another reason for him to consider resigning.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Discussion mailing list