transparency about the fellowship

[Daniel Pocock]

On 09/07/18 22:18, Reinhard Müller wrote:
> Am 2018-07-09 um 21:59 schrieb Daniel Pocock:
>> Would FSFE be willing to allow the elected fellowship representative to
>> know the facts about this person and see their written intentions?
> 
> No.
> 
> It was that person's last will to remain anonymous. The name is known to
> those who absolutely needed to know in order to process the formalities
> and to nobody else.
> 
> As you might have noticed, I estimate privacy of our supporters and
> volunteers as an important value anyway, but this is about a last will.

But that is why it is so important that it is discussed

There have been discussions where people were unclear about the
relationship between FSF and FSFE or the fact that these are different
organizations.  I've seen that both publicly and privately.  If people
are putting FSF(E) into their will and if they do so believing their
money will go into promoting freedom as RMS explains it then is FSFE
able to accept that money?

If they were a member of the fellowship, it would be relevant for the
fellowship representative to know that, even if the person was not named.

As fellowship representative, I see a more than trivial probability that
this person was a fellow and therefore I'm keen to have some clarity
about their relationship with the organization.  I'm not insisting that
their name be released.


>>>> The dissemination of the fellowship statistics on the team mailing list
>>>> stopped shortly after the extraordinary general assembly.
>>>
>>> Huh? There hasn't been any change in this. The statistics is still sent
>>> each Sunday on 4:00 by a cron job.
>>
>> Last email I saw was on 10 June, if it is a technical issue please let
>> me know
> 
> Next time it might be a good idea to check for technical issues or at
> least ask internally before making such a claim on a public discussion list.
> 
> I hope you understand that this mailing list is not the right place to
> discuss technical email issues.
> 

Yes, but that was only one small part of the original email and you have
largely cut out the rest of it.