Apply for membership and meet us at FOSDEM

Daniel Pocock daniel at
Thu Feb 1 19:50:37 UTC 2018

On 01/02/18 20:14, Max Mehl wrote:
> Disclaimer: I am an FSFE employee.
> # Daniel Pocock [2018-02-01 18:16 +0100]:
>> On 01/02/18 17:16, Florian Snow wrote:
>>> Werner Koch <wk at> writes:
>>>> I personally see a lot of problems that employees of the FSFE are also
>>>> members _and_ that they make up a large part of the membership.
>>> Would you care to elaborate a little bit on this point?  I am curious
>>> about it.
>> It is quite simple to explain:
>> - the funds from fellowship/supporters pay the salaries and other major
>> expenses (over 50% of the budget comes from fellowship/supporter
>> donations)
> Ok, so people working and caring for the FSFE have no right to
> contribute to the organisation's mid- and long-term strategy? Do you
> want to keep out input from people working day-to-day for the FSFE? Do
> you see a threat in them being members?

I never said that.  Staff do have a role but it has to be balanced with
the financial supporters and volunteers, that is all.  I'm not calling
for a coup or something like that.

> Please keep in mind that there's no automatism for employees to become
> GA members. They have to apply and convince the GA of their motivation
> just like any other person.
>> - but the fellowship/supporters only have 2 votes in the GA (and none
>> after the change), although some GA members are also
>> fellowship/supporter members too
> The current system has many more flaws, for example that the Fellowship
> representatives don't represent the non-paying volunteers, and that the

I completely agree with finding a way to give volunteers more
representation at the highest levels of decision making in FSFE.

> voter turnout often is below 20%. That's why we discuss better solutions
> to grant membership to interested people but this process needs time. So
> as many others wrote here: no need to rush things. If procedures for
> becoming a member change (this is still not decided), they will be more
> open and transparent.
> Best,
> Max

More information about the Discussion mailing list