Discussion Digest, Vol 186, Issue 5
admin at yuj.it
Fri Jun 15 07:55:38 UTC 2018
In the context of this thread I personally cannot see anything that
Daniel has said that may be considered as personally insulting.
What I see is people choosing to take offence because particular ideas
and expressions have lead to increased ambivalence among participants,
but that is different.
Much of this thread is informed, in good faith and well calibrated I
think and is a credit to those involved in topics that people are of
course passionate about. Rhetorical mood is perhaps the most dominant
form of political discourse online and helps to motivate participation,
and thus is a consistent strategy with the need for more grassroots
representation at the FSFE I think. The right to take offence at the
things people are saying is one thing, but accusations of personal
insults I think requires a much higher standard of evidence and in
absence of that ought to be discounted. The currency of offence-taking
is common in public discourse, and while in many cases it is legitimate,
in many others it is used to shame people into silence, a kind of
precursor to secretive meetings by 'core groups' and a culture of
stealth blocking and censorship... none of which is in the spirit of
I switched my affiliation away from FSFE because of controversy and
contention but because controversy and contention seemed to bemissing,
being kept un-observed from view and so moderately heated public
discussion threads I believe are signs of a resurgence in vibrant
community relations and are just the thing that is needed right now.
Sweeping this stuff under the carpet only leads to an accumulation and
trip hazards later on.
let's be **bold** in our thinking change, and in our talking change?
The FSFE is a public-facing institution that appears to me to be run
more like a polite, private gentlemens club and whether my view is
actually accurate or not, that freely-formed suspicion, or perception of
the culture at least needs to change, surely?
>>> in your writing, so I am assuming it is serious. This is an incredibly
>>> insulting statement to many people within the FSFE. You are supposed to
>>> also represent FSFE Supporters like me and others who you insult on a
>>> regular basis. I appreciate how seriously you take your responsibility
>>> as a representative, but with your current communication style I have to
>>> say you do not represent me because I stand for civil communication, not
>>> for insults and attacks.
>> For me, active representatives asking difficult questions are an
>> essential part of a democracy.
> I agree with that statement. Please re-read my comment; I did not
> complain about your questions. I don't like your insults, especially in
> this case when they are also untruthful. You know I made several
> suggestions to improve community involvement and influence in the GA, so
> I will not stand for your personal attacks.
> You are very much _not_ the last man standing for democracy in the FSFE.
> Democracy is not about who can yell the most or who can yell the
> loudest. Your current actions are often disruptive and drown out other
> people's ideas and voices in the GA. And when you ask questions, you
> often fail to do so and follow up in any sort of structured way, and you
> draw conclusions from details that often do not represent what the
> majority in the GA actually think. Also, the last time you asked for
> community feedback in person, you afterwards failed to answer any
> questions about comparing your stated goal with the outcome and you
> report stayed anecdotal. Please be more constructive; I want to work
> with you, not against you.
> Happy hacking!
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 07:15:41 +0200
> From: Florian Snow <floriansnow at fsfe.org>
> To: discussion at lists.fsfe.org
> Subject: Re: the questions you really want FSFE to answer
> Message-ID: <87tvq4aav6.fsf at familysnow.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Hi Daniel,
> Daniel Pocock <daniel at pocock.pro> writes:
>> While some people don't care about elections or proper membership,
> Disagreement with a specific implementation of an idea does not mean not
> caring about that idea.
>> other people do care about it so much that they stopped contributing
> Perhaps I missed that and then I apologize, but did you bring that up to
> the GA with specific examples?
>> The constructive thing to do is get more people involved in the
>> discussion about what comes next rather than using a reference to the
>> CoC to censor how people discuss it.
> A call to order is also a normal part of democracy because it keeps the
> discussion civil. No one censured you; we are simply asking you to
> refrain from attacks and insults.
> Happy hacking!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Discussion