temporary moderation of this list

[Florian Snow]

Hi Stefan,


Stefan Uygur <ostendali at gmail.com> writes:
> I said what l have to say it, is up to care team to let this email pass
> through. Although this won't change my decision and opinion about the
> current FSFE.

I accepted your email because the tone was decent.  We are not trying to
suppress opinions here, we just want a civil tone.  So of course your
emails goes through.  :-)


> However, remember the purpose for which FSFE was founded.
>
> It is my personal opinion and based on knowledge/experience of free
> software community, the way things are right now, the FSFE staff does not
> comply nor suitable to the scope for which FSFE was born.

I disagree because I think they do help promote Free Software which is
the reason for the existence of the FSFE.


> The real ruler of FSFE is not the internal regulation that a few have
> designed but the community around it.

I agree that the community is important, but I am not sure which
internal regulation you are talking about that a few have designed.  The
fact that we find our community important is one of the reasons why we
are temporarily moderating this list: Many people on here want to have
discussions about Free Software and felt this was increasingly difficult
with accusations boiling up about internal organization.  Both topics
are important, but our decisions was not based on which topics we like
or not, it was based on the harsh tone that kept on getting worse.


> This is community space and and organisation like FSFE has no other
> alternative but to listen to the community and not the internal staff.

I think you know that, but just for everyone who reads this: I am not a
staffer.


> The so heated topic you refer to is getting overheated for a reason. For
> instance, l personally did not agree with Daniel's behaviour but l did find
> reasonable his requests,

I agree that some of these requests were reasonable, as do many people
in the GA.  I don't want to drag this topic out too much, but let me say
this much: I was invited to the GA for the very reason that I disagree
with other people and look at things from a different perspective.  I
have disagreed with Matthias, Jonas, Bernhard, and pretty much everyone
else in the GA at one point or another.  The fact that I was invited
to the GA for the very reason that I disagree, perhaps shows you that
the conflict here was never about raising issues and wanting to reform;
it was about the manner in which it is done.  I won't say anything about
Daniel's style here because I don't want to heat up the debate again.


> where the responses from FSFE was not different than the way he
> behaved. Actually exceeded. Or should l say there was no proper
> response?

I disagree.  Bernhard spent a lot of time explaining things and he sent
one message in the end where perhaps his frustration came through a
bit.  But he did something that many of us had given up on at that
point: Responding to hostile messages with explanations.

I am also not sure who you want a proper response from exactly.  As you
said, the FSFE is not the staffers, we are an organization largely of
volunteers.  Bernhard is part of the GA, the highest body of the FSFE
and he responded to many questions.  I am sure we can ask Matthias as
president for a statement, but personally, I think it is best to do that
once things have been calm for a few days.


> Now, l have no political ambitions nor a specific reason to react in this
> manner but, would you mind to think twice why a quiet supporter (member or
> fellow whatever you'd like to call) like myself all of sudden came out with
> certain tone?

Actually yes, we do, and we do take it seriously.  But once a debate
heats up too much, it is very hard to have a serious discussion via
email.  It is incredibly difficult to deescalate via email so that is
why we wanted a cool-down first.  But I feel strongly about coming back
afterwards and looking at what can be suggestions and discussing them.


> What l am trying to say here is, by simply moderating or calming down
> situations like this you are not going to change the facts where FSFE is at
> the brink of 2 choices, a fork:
>
> 1. Do act wisely and go for changes or
>
> 2. Keep going the usual way ignoring the facts

I agree that we should constantly review processes and structures and
reform them where necessary.  And we constantly do that.  And once
things have been calm for a bit here, we will come back and look at
suggestions that we can find.


> Now, l met you personally and had a very quick chat with you and l think
> you are smarter than many people thinks and l talk with respect here.
> Therefore l invite you to reflect and meditate on what l just
> wrote/said.

I will, of course.

Happy hacking!
Florian