Kundigung [Legal Team] leaving FSFE's legal team

Florian Snow floriansnow at fsfe.org
Fri Mar 29 16:24:41 UTC 2019

Hi Christian,

Christian Imhorst <christian.imhorst at fsfe.org> writes:
> If longtime members drop out, we should talk about it openly. It is
> the wrong way to withold the leaving.

I think there are multiple relevant factors here.  We are in complete
agreement that we should not hide things.  The question is, though, how
to treat them.  One question is the question of privacy.  I think the
person who leaves has the right to decide in which group this
resignation is discussed.  In the current case here, that person decided
to send an email to multiple internal mailing lists.  I think something
like that should not just be made public verbatim.  We could publish the
contained criticism.  But then, the question is what exactly do we do?
If we receive criticism, do we respond to it or do we summarize it to a
public mailing list?  If someone who has been active for many years
leaves us, do we make that public?  I think those questions do not have
easy answers.  Our current approach is to handle criticism at the level
it is raised at.  The lists the mail in question went to are working
lists on which our engaged volunteers organize themselves.  On this list
here, we have a mixture of people who are active for the FSFE and some
who might prefer to listen or discuss.  I think handling criticism is
more productive on the former kinds of lists instead of involving people
who may not know our internal structures and who did not necessarily
sign up for this list to debate these things, but to talk about Free

> Words like "fsfegate 2.0" don't mean anything to me, because I'm just
> not in your filter bubble.

That is not a term that already has a meaning.  It ultimately goes back
to the Watergate scandal and American news outlets like saying
"something gate" rather than "something scandal".  It is a bit of a
dubious term and that is what my comment about it meant.  I would have
responded the same way if someone had used a term like "fake news".

> I have no problem with anonymous whistleblowing. Information should be
> free, so I support that.

I generally don't see an issue with whistleblowing either, but it needs
a bit of context in my opinion.  I do not condone simply forwarding a
private email.  The base line should be at least naming the evil which
is to be revealed.

> That is in the nature of things and it is a problem,
> unfortunately. E.g. the section on open source platforms that are
> excluded from the new EU Copyright Directive: As someone who stands on
> the sidelines I didn't really saw our success. GitHub claims that they
> would have enforced the exception.

Anyone who contributed to that result can claim it for themselves and is
never completely wrong.  You never know why exactly someone made a
certain decision in the end.

> It's a pity that we didn't make our contribution so well visible.

I think this is an important point.  Where else would you like to see
information like that?  There was a mailing about it and a press release
(which was suboptimal, I know).  We are open to suggestions.

Happy hacking!

More information about the Discussion mailing list