Discussion Digest, Vol 186, Issue 5
joe.awni at gmail.com
Fri Jun 15 14:48:49 UTC 2018
Fixed down links in message body, oops!
On Jun 15, 2018 12:01 PM, "Joe Awni" <joe.awni at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 development.
> 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!
>> 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!
>> Discussion mailing list
>> Discussion at lists.fsfe.org
>> This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
>> participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Discussion