transparency about the fellowship

Daniel Pocock daniel at
Tue Jul 10 11:46:44 UTC 2018

On 10/07/18 09:19, Michael Kesper wrote:

> If you make your last will with a (for you, at least) substantial

Why do some people in this community thrive on personal put-downs and

When people make attacks like this on a representative it usually means
they are avoiding real answers.

On 10/07/18 12:53, Mirko Boehm wrote:
> +1111.
>> On 10. Jul 2018, at 01:05, mray <mail at <mailto:mail at>>
>> wrote:
>> The snarky-ness on this entire ML starts being a burden to read.
>> Probably I represent more people than myself with that view.
>> Everybody, please be more excellent to each other.
>> I know you can :)
> Yes, that would be wonderful. Maybe try to focus on issues where we can
> work together, and move things forward towards tangible results.

What is not tangible about publishing the membership numbers?

Isn't an increase in transparency likely to help retain and grow
membership and isn't that a worthwhile tangible outcome too?

Isn't the type of person who makes a valuable contribution in a group
like FSFE likely to be the type of person who values transparency and
elections too?

Or does FSFE aspire to have "supporters" who just give money and don't
ask questions?

An association is fundamentally about the members.  Downgrading fellows
to supporters, minimizing the value of their contributions to FSFE (as
in the announcement[1]) and generally treating them like children by
having a separate membership class for the "adults" are all problems
that need to be addressed if the dwindling membership is going to be
resolved and other tangible outcomes achieved.




More information about the Discussion mailing list