improving the tone of discussion in FSFE

[Stefan Uygur]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:08 PM Bernhard E. Reiter <bernhard at fsfe.org>
wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> Am Montag 10 September 2018 20:08:23 schrieb Daniel Pocock:
> [..]
> > One of the worst things about leadership mistakes is
> > that people emulate them.
> [..]
> > most recently Bernhard, putting my name into the subject line of an
> email[2]
> > reply.  Everything spiralled downwards from there
>
> from my perspective it is fine to put a name in an email subject.
> I did change the subject towards your influence on the style of discussion
> because I felt you brought up some topics several times, thought they have
> been answered multiple times. And I believe the large majority does not
> want
> to read about it again here. Please respect if others do not share your
> view
> on the importance of some of these topics, like if a name on a motion is
> formatted or spelled correctly.
>

Exactly Bernhard, for your point of view. As from my point of view putting
someone's name in the subject indicates nothing but an
instigation/provocation or calling for war.


>
> > It is essential to show respect for volunteers when something goes wrong
> > in their life and they have to miss an event.
>
> I agree about this.
> What we disgree about seems to be
> if respect has been shown, I think it was and is shown.
> This is why I am writing this email, I'm taking some time to give you my
> perspective and feelings.
>

I disagree, I have not received this,  but lets not go back in the loophole
and discuss about the same thing again and again.


> > Reminding people about such things in such an ugly way is a guaranteed
> > way to poison relationships.
>
> There is a direct relation to your criticim of the structures of FSFE.
> People explained to you how you could have made your voice heard and how
> to
> exercise your power in the e.V. . At some occasions you have not done it.
> If
> you afterwards in public criticise the people in FSFE for not honoring
> your
> input, I believe you leave others no choice than to point out where you
> have
> not used some opportunities (that have been there even if you were unable
> to
> attend some meetings). This does not speculate about why you were not able
> to
> do so. It is not unrespectful in my eyes. Instead it shows what others
> cannot
> understand the difference between the missed opportunities and your public
> demands.
>

Who are the others Bernhard?
Can they speak on their behalf if you don't mind me asking pls?


>
> > Notice that these things also happen in private discussions and I feel
> > that some of what is now appearing in public is a reflection of that.
>
> From my observation it was you who brought up these things in public.
> While it is at your deliberation to do so, you will also force others to
> defend their behaviour in public, even if they'd prefered not to.
>
> No matter how it came to be though, it seems that the relationship is now
> in a
> state where it does not make sense to continue working together. It is not
> for us to demand that you change your style of working, but we can declare
> us
> incompatible with it (and spare the public the details).
>

So let me ask you this question again. Given the incompatibility what are
the amendments and actions that FSFE staff is prepared to take from
practical point of view?
And just FYI, I am not referring to Daniel only when I talk about
incompatibility, there are lots of people/supporters who things the same
way, therefore incompatible and they will come out soon....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20180911/1291738c/attachment.html>