FSFE-in-2020: Who are we?

Mirko Boehm mirko at fsfe.org
Mon Oct 14 13:07:43 UTC 2019


> On 10. Oct 2019, at 16:11, Florian Snow <floriansnow at fsfe.org> wrote:
> Mirko Boehm <mirko at fsfe.org <mailto:mirko at fsfe.org>> writes:
>> I think we are getting numb to bullshitting. So let me rephrase this
>> in simple speech: The FSFE-in-2020 ground to a halt because the
>> decision makers (our GA and the president) did not prioritise it
> I'm sorry, but that is not my impression at all.  The process had
> serious flaws from the get-go.  The survey had no clear aim, multiple
> major statistical issues and as such was unable to produce any sort of
> reliable results.  Multiple people pointed out those flaws in the
> beginning of the process, but they did not get corrected anyway by those
> in charge.  The reason they gave was that this was only supposed to be
> the beginning of the process and it would give a very rough overview
> with a more refined process to be added later.
> However, at some point, we received a "final" report for the process
> that had a lot of claims in it that were not supported by the available
> data at all.  By that point, the process had taken up considerable
> ressources and so last year at the GA, we had to decide between
> continuing the process by pouring more ressources on it and stopping it.
> Continuing would have meant pretty much starting over because of the
> huge flaws the process had.  We also still didn't know the actual goal
> of the process, so we decided against it.

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. I simply don’t see any tangible positive activity from the FSFE staff or president towards actual progress. This sounds more like teenagers explaining why they did not do the homework.

> The restructuring was largely independent of the identity process.
> There were two major obstacles there, though.  One was that there was a
> pad with some notes on how to possibly restructure the FSFE, but the pad
> had no obvious structure and no clear suggestions.  In preparation for
> the GA, Matthias asked mutliple times for actual motions or suggestions
> to be written, yet nothing happened.  My impression was that you, Mirko,
> did not have the time to update the pad or something like that.  At the
> same time, we had the problem of an abusive GA member and started to
> worry more about simply increasing the size of the GA.

Again, the same. There have been
a whole 10 page concept developed around 2010 by Jonas and others that provided a fully detailed suggestion of how to reform FSFE,
a formal motion at the FSFE GA by me and Shane to finally implement this, which was on the agenda, discussed and approved,
and a document with the expectations and suggestions from the Berlin members meeting.
If you can point me to tangible work of the staff or the president that matches this in effort and diligence we have a basis for further discussion. Until then, I let the facts speak.


Mirko Boehm | mirko at kde.org | KDE e.V.
Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer
Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20191014/b8b321c3/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Discussion mailing list