Public Money Public Code: a good policy for FSFE and other non-profits?

Daniel Pocock daniel at
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 mailing list