If you have not had time to read the message, how do you find time to reply at length?
I address your concerns in my original message. Just because you made rules, at a previous date, regarding the structure of the election does not mean you have to waste this election which has only one candidate. *Indeed, its the purpose of the election to let the people decide. * If you insist on not allowing write-ins, I'll call the election and you can just go home. On 18 April 2016 at 08:54, Erik Albers <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Joe, > > thank you very much for you lengthy email and your thoughts on FSFE's > Fellowship representative election. Discussions and Feedback like this is > exactly what helps to make any democratic decision more understandable. > > Just one question ahead: I replied to your first email on 15/04/16 13:55 to > let you know that the candidacy is over. Did you receive that mail? > > > Am 16/04/16 um 13:15 schrieb Joe Awni: > > I write to notify you of my candidacy for fellowship representative. > > As already said in my other mail, I am sorry but the time to announce a > candidacy is over and was from > > January 11, 2016 - February 1, 2016 > (see here: http://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/FellowshipElection_2016) > > To make sure that everyone knows about it, every Fellow with an active > account > did receive an email from the Fellowship system on 11/01/16 18:09 with the > subject "Call for Candidates - Announcement of the Fellowship Elections > 2016" > including all the background information. > > > > > > I had > > some messages blocked and delayed so there is a kind-of lengthy > > meta-discussion [...] > > > In my personal opinion, the Free Software community has not been so much > > about maintaining strict community management practices and governance > > models based on large corporate structures, but more about promoting > > Software. I would not otherwise tarnish a valiant effort in the name of > > Free Software, but i think the FSFE can lead the way on this. > > Thank you very much for this, I agree and I hope most of the people on the > list agree as well. > > > > > If elected, i would not be afraid to make exception to a rule where the > > intent of rule is preserved. In the case where only one person is on the > > ballot, write-ins may be allowed in the interest of a meaningful > "election." > > > > Additionally, regarding the rule that "To be a candidate, you need to > have > > been an active Fellow for at least a year before the election (so April > > 4th, 2015). This helps to make sure that the people elected into the GA > are > > familiar with the organization and its work." > > And, the selection of the Schulze Voting System "For the voting process > we > > will use the Schulze method, a popular voting system used by Debian, > > Wikimedia and others. It is a well tested method and has proven to be > > resistant to voting anomalies. " > > > > Don't you think it anomalous to have an election with only one candidate? > > > Look, there have been three weeks of time, announced in an email to every > Fellow - but there was only one person who used that momentum to apply as a > candidate. > > Of course, we would love to see more candidates and I hope we will be > better > next year. And although I agree, that now changing the rules to see them > fit > sounds like an attractive solution but there are at least two problems we > would face: > > 1. It is not legal. The FSFE as a legal entity is an association registered > in Hamburg and as an association we are bound to a constitution. > Unfortunately, our constitution knows a lot of details to tell about under > "Fellowship seats" in https://fsfe.org/about/legal/constitution.html. It > clearly says: "Candidates are all Fellows elegible for election who have > informed the Fellowship coordinator of their intention to stand for office > at least two months before the election date;" > And if we would not keep to the rules of our constitution, we could lose > the right to be an association and therewith the status of a chariable NGO. > That means that these are decision out of our scope. We first need to > change the constitution for this, but cannot change the rules adhoc. Else > we > couldfear to further exist. > > 2. The general problem when you try to fix a rule with exceptions ... -> > when > will you do the next exception? Imagine we would say now: Ok, you are > allowed to be a candidate. Then the next one will come and say: me too! > And the next one and so on.... > We would need to make a new deadline. Just to see someone else is coming > after that deadline to say: "last deadline you already made exceptions, so > please do so again" ... > And then someone would suggests to change the time of the voting .... > > > > Finally, It has come to my attention by means of blocked messages and > > delayed communications that those running the election would prevent you > > from voting for me (even as a write-in candidate) out of some misguided > > sense that they are "helping to make sure the people elected into the > GA..." > > I do not understand exactly how you think that I should prevent people from > voting you (I run the elections in all conscience)? I think you are doing > me > wrong here, I answered your last mail about your candidacy in no later than > one hour. And I did not block any message or was trying to delay > communications. > > > > Although it is my opinion that the FSFE risks it's relevance by using > their > > technology as a door to exclude people from this election. > > I do not see the how we use technology in that sense? We simply follow our > legal rules. > > > > However, weather > > or not you are allowed to vote for me in this election is not my > decision. > > As i said, if elected i would not be afraid to make an obvious exception > in > > the interest of a meaningful election. > > Ultimately, this election is not vital to the continued development of > Free > > Software, but your continued support and encouragement is. I am here to > let > > you know that the choice is yours! > > > > If you feel strongly about my candidacy or anything i have written i ask > > you to please make a vote with your personal > > engorgement/discouragement/feedback/etc! Write to me! Your message could > > mean i decide to make the GNUBurgers regardless of the outcome of this > > election. > > Joe, I am really happy about your will for candidacy and we know each other > from 32C3 and I highly appreciated your GNUBurgers at our assembly. Believe > me, there is nothing I would do to prevent you from being a candidate as a > Fellowship representative. > > This is also true for everyone else here on the list. The more candidates > we > have, the more exciting it is for everyone involved. All of you are > welcome to > run for office as a Fellowship representative. > > And if you agree with Joe that we should change the rules, I am also happy > to > see proposals so we can change our constitution on that base. > > Thanks again for the discussion and the feedback, > Erik > > -- > No one shall ever be forced to use non-free software > Erik Albers | Free Software Foundation Europe > OpenPGP Key-ID: 0x8639DC81 on keys.gnupg.net >
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
