Public Money Public Code: a good policy for FSFE and other non-profits?
daniel at pocock.pro
Fri Jun 15 10:11:15 UTC 2018
On 15/06/18 10:49, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
>> To give Daniel credit, he did state that the text might be improved.
> The text (the way it is worded), not the proposal. Exact wording again:
> If you can see something wrong with the text of the motion, please
> help me improve it so it may be more likely to be accepted.
> And it's not the first time I get on fire for similar reasons.
> Repeating over and over, not listening, wasting everybody's time in
> endless loops, flooding discussion with irrelevant nitpicking and
> theoretical problems...
My blog explicitly asked people how the motion could be improved and I'm
listening for the responses from the community.
It is sad that a lot of the mails I see, rather than addressing the
issues, are one of the following:
- excuses why making this list is so hard that we can't even begin
- excuses why people can't have elections (other thread)
- attempts to twist my message into something else with negative emotive
language like "hall of shame"
- personal attacks on me or how well I perform my role as a representative
I hope other people won't be deterred from speaking up about how this
motion could be improved. I already received some suggestions privately
and started drafting a new version of the motion.
More information about the Discussion