who has time for the GA?

Daniel Pocock daniel at pocock.pro
Thu Aug 30 19:28:21 UTC 2018

On 30/08/18 14:49, Nikos Roussos wrote:
>> This brings me back to the original question then: democracy.  Annual
>> elections and allowing all the community to participate can provide
>> regular renewal.  When somebody doesn't have the time any more, either
>> they don't run for re-election or the community will help them depart by
>> voting for an alternative candidate.  Changing the tools and arbitrarily
>> expelling people are a crazy alternative to something as easy to
>> understand as democracy.
> I understand that this may be your expectation, but this hardly true for any non-profit organization out there. You have a very specific view on how FSFE should operate democratically, but that doesn't mean that this is the only way, or even that democracy is the only way to run an organization.
> I have been (and still am) member/supporter of various non-profit organizations and none of these apply the kind of democracy you envision. Rightfully so, in my opinion. As an example, I'm a member of EFF but there is no democratic way for me to be elected in the Board of Directors, or participate in their private strategic meetings. Same applies for FSF (US).

There is a big difference: those other groups didn't promise people
democracy, membership and representation.  FSFE did.

> So in practice, what you do, is that you set your personal expectations as an objective high bar of how FSFE should operate and then you criticize the fact that the organization fails to meet your standards. Maybe you should consider the possibility that the organization doesn't want to or should meet these standards.

I'm not trying to impose something new, I'm simply asking for FSFE to
follow through with the previous commitments about democracy.

As an elected representative, would I be doing my job correctly if I
didn't object to the sudden cancellation of the elections?

This discussion about abolishing elections appeared in my inbox almost
immediately after I was elected to the role.  Personally, it made me
feel like I was not completely welcome in the GA from the outset and it
also felt like the whole community and other candidates had been fooled
by the process of nominations, campaigns and voting.

On more than one occasion, I've been told that I should be conscious
about how much money people donate and my communications to fellows are
subject to censorship.  It makes me feel like the whole image of
elections and representation are not up to the basic standards that
people would reasonably expect.  You suggest that I'm setting a "high
bar" but for most people in this community, a democracy with censorship
of the representatives doesn't even reach the low bar.

So if people find my attitude to the situation to be very blunt, that is
where it comes from.



More information about the Discussion mailing list