Discussion Digest, Vol 186, Issue 5

Joe Awni joe.awni at gmail.com
Fri Jun 15 10:01:41 UTC 2018

Hi All,

I decide to chime in today because I felt my message could potentially make
a difference, at some point in time.

I am another person who decided against involving myself feather in the
group because I also felt the group is not promoting or following what I
consider to be Free Software values.

Before I get into the point of my message, I want to ask you to keep this
rhetorical question in mind:

Is failure and option for the FSFE? Meaning, could the group at any point
decide that they (or a particular policy of theirs) was/were not
effectively achieving their stated goals and dissolve the association or
program? Or is it's existence a mandate that will continue no-matter-what?

Since I last wrote to this mailing list a lot has happened, not necessarily
for the better. If you are interested in my personal story please see the
following links (chronological):
1) http://amsterdamjoe.sdf.org/Pics/2016_USA/Email.html
2) http://amsterdamjoe.sdf.org/Pics/2017_EU/SummerVaccation.html
3) http://amsterdamjoe.sdf.org/MetaArpaMembership.html

Basically, my website is offline, I'm roughing it in deep south Spain doing
farmer-boy stuff like feeding the chickens, my computing happens a tree  <
https://i.imgur.com/r1qSqvv.jpg> , and not having much luck learning to
kite-surf. Finally, I decided to switch career away from software

The software issue is clear. If you want to promote Free Software, you must
use it. If you don't want to use it on your personal device(s), that is
understandable. But, leading by example is core value of mandate to use
Free Software.

Exclusively Free Software since as long as I can remember, and notmissing
proprietary options,
Joe Awni
On Jun 15, 2018 9:55 AM, "Mat Witts" <admin at yuj.it> wrote:

> 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 open democracy.
> 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!
> Florian
> ------------------------------
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 07:15:41 +0200
> From: Florian Snow <floriansnow at fsfe.org> <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> <87tvq4aav6.fsf at familysnow.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Hi Daniel,
> Daniel Pocock <daniel at pocock.pro> <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!
> Florian
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at lists.fsfe.org
> https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
> participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
> https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20180615/f6fcb168/attachment.html>

More information about the Discussion mailing list