Hallo Daniel!
Have you succeeded? Was the meeting held? I understnad this year was election
of new president. Did you candidate? It seems many think new leadership is
needed:
http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2017-October/003779.html
Regards,
Cornelia
> Original Message
> Subject: improving fellowship communication (GA motion)
> Local Time: October 2, 2017 8:10 AM
> UTC Time: October 2, 2017 8:10 AM
> From: dan...@pocock.pro
> To: FSFE Discussion
> FSFE General Assembly
>
> Hi all,
>
> Since being elected as one of the fellowship representatives, I've been
> looking at various ways to perform this role effectively.
>
> For people who joined FSFE through the FSFE fellowship program, the
> fellowship representatives are the most senior elected representatives
> designated in the FSFE constitution[1] and therefore it would appear logical
> to me that as the representatives, we would be the ones trusted to make
> decisions about communication with our constituency. In practice, however,
> this is not the case and people in various parts of the organization (this
> was discussed in the GA list) have expressed various concerns (e.g. data
> protection laws, member expectations) for not empowering the fellowship
> representatives to communicate directly with the people who voted for us.
> The original request I sent to the GA is at the bottom of this email.
>
> Personally, I felt these concerns demonstrated a lack of trust and confidence
> in the fellowship representatives and in fact even a lack of trust and
> confidence in humanity to organize ourselves democratically. Having served
> in various representative roles in the past where membership lists were
> always available to me I actually felt somewhat insulted by these responses
> and uncertain about whether the fellowship representative role is meant to be
> only an illusion of representation rather than an active representative.
>
> I put forward a motion for the GA meeting to address this for the future. To
> maximize the possibility of achieving consensus at the GA meeting (motions
> are not usually voted on), the motion is not retrospective and does not
> attempt to clarify the current status of membership data under privacy laws
> or whatever else, it is only about avoiding further ambiguity in the future.
>
> To ensure the GA can understand how people feel, it would be interesting to
> get opinions from the community:
>
> - when you join an organization such as FSFE and you provide personal data
> such as your name and email address, do you expect that office holders and
> elected representatives would have some access to this data in performing
> their roles?
>
> - do you feel it is reasonable for people who are in a position of trust to
> have some discretion in how they use the data as long as they do so in the
> best interests of the organization, it's mission and it's members? Or do you
> believe the organization should strive to obfuscate the data so that even
> office holders can't read it and put systems in place so communications are
> sent out to members through an opaque process?
>
> - what are the practices you have seen in other community organizations in
> the free software space and can we learn anything from them in developing
> best practice?
>
> Proposed motion:
> The GA recognizes the stark difference between the way FSFE coordinates
> contributor data and other organizations are doing things. FSFE
> supporter data is only available to Reinhard, Jones, system-hackers(?),
> ISP staff and third-parties involved in payment processing. The GA
> resolves to let supporters choose to be a "silent" supporter who simply
> donates and expects nothing in return and contributors who choose to
> volunteer and are identifiable to other contributors through a PGP
> keyring, directory or other means. Where somebody chooses to be in the
> former category, their personal data will remain under a somewhat
> default data protection regime (need-to-know access only) whereas if
> they choose to be in the latter category, they will be informed that a
> less stringent data protection policy is in effect. Where somebody in
> the latter category (contributor) provides information that is only
> required to process a donation (credit card billing address, payment
> card details, etc), that information will remain under strict privacy
> controls.
>
> Background to this motion: In Debian, for example, all trusted
> contributors are identified in a publicly distributed PGP keyring and
> many more contributors are identified through resources like
> contributors.debian.org and the Ultimate Debian Database. Many people
> feel that a de-centralized organization like this is more appropriate
> for robustness and for empowering volunteers.
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel
>
> 1. https://fsfe.org/about/legal/constitution.en.html
>
> Forwarded Message
> Subject: improving fello
