Why “fellowship”?

[Tanguy Ortolo]

Hello again,

This is the second thing I thought quite some time ago and which I
wanted to discuss here. :-)

My interrogation is quite simple: what is the purpose of the use of the
word ?fellowship??

I am a member of several associations, and in all of them, except FSFE,
I am called a ?member? of the ?association? itself. On the contrary,
here in the FSFE, I am called a ?fellow?, or perhaps a ?member? of the
?fellowship? of FSFE, I am not sure. Anyway, this is not natural at all,
and I really do not understand why there seems to be a specific program,
with a dedicated, separated website for people that want to support the
FSFE?

The first time I subscribed, I must tell that when I got redirected to
the ?fellowship? website, I really wondered if I that was right and if I
was not subscribing to something else. Even now, I still do not
understand what that ?fellowship? is about and how it is different from
the association itself, assuming that there is an actual difference. And
I also wonder if other people understand: if they do not, then would
confuse them as it confuses me.

Any light on that?

[Matthias Kirschner]

hi Tanguy,

Post by Tanguy Ortolo
My interrogation is quite simple: what is the purpose of the use of the
word ?fellowship??
I am a member of several associations, and in all of them, except FSFE,
I am called a ?member? of the ?association? itself. On the contrary,
here in the FSFE, I am called a ?fellow?, or perhaps a ?member? of the
?fellowship? of FSFE, I am not sure. Anyway, this is not natural at all,
and I really do not understand why there seems to be a specific program,
with a dedicated, separated website for people that want to support the
FSFE?

That is because legally you are not a member of the association when you
are a Fellow of FSFE (see the buttom of
https://fsfe.org/about/members.en.html). FSF calls their supporters
associated members, but FSFE decided in 2004 to call them Fellows.
Actually the name was decided before I joined FSFE, but afaik it was
choosen because it sounds cool. A little bit like the Fellowship of the
ring :)

Post by Tanguy Ortolo
The first time I subscribed, I must tell that when I got redirected to
the ?fellowship? website, I really wondered if I that was right and if I
was not subscribing to something else. Even now, I still do not
understand what that ?fellowship? is about and how it is different from
the association itself, assuming that there is an actual difference. And
I also wonder if other people understand: if they do not, then would
confuse them as it confuses me.

We are improving this at the moment. Currently we move the sites from
the current fellowship.fsfe.org to fsfe.org/fellowship/. So we will
include it better in the general fsfe.org website, and explain it
better. (Now you can reach it under join in the main fsfe.org menu. Not
"Fellowship" anymore, which will be confusing for a lot of people.)

Did that answer you question?

Regards,
Matthias

[Tanguy Ortolo]

Post by Matthias Kirschner
Did that answer you question?

Yes it does. What I will remember is that our laws suck too much to
allow the creation of a true European association, so this has been
worked around this way. I do not think the term ?fellowship? was the
best thing to ease comprehension, but anyway perhaps this should be
explained on the corresponding Web page.

[Matthias Kirschner]

I do not think the term ?fellowship? was the best thing to ease
comprehension, but anyway perhaps this should be explained on the
corresponding Web page.

We will do so. When the new version is online, please give us feedback.

Matthias

[MJ Ray]

Tanguy Ortolo <tanguy+fsfe at ortolo.eu>

Post by Tanguy Ortolo
Yes it does. What I will remember is that our laws suck too much to
allow the creation of a true European association, so this has been
worked around this way. [...]

Is that actually true? It thought it was a choice to have fellows
instead of members.

Given what it is, I think "fellow" is much better than the misleading
"associated members" used elsewhere (who aren't members and it's not
an association).

Regards,

[Matthias Kirschner]

Post by MJ Ray
Tanguy Ortolo <tanguy+fsfe at ortolo.eu>

Post by Tanguy Ortolo
Yes it does. What I will remember is that our laws suck too much to
allow the creation of a true European association, so this has been
worked around this way. [...]

Is that actually true? It thought it was a choice to have fellows
instead of members.

There are two topics:
- There is no European association. That is bad, because else FSFE would
have choosen that one. As this is not possible, we set up a German
association.
- Fellows not being members. It was a choice when we set up the
Fellowship to have Fellows as non-members. Like most of the people
doing work for FSFE are non-members. After some time we wanted to give
the Fellows more legal power in our constitution, so we introduced the
Fellowship seats in the GA, which Fellows can vote. (Of course one of
the most powerful ways to influence FSFE is still to just do the work
as a volunteer and to contact us on matters, and discuss with us.)

Post by MJ Ray
Given what it is, I think "fellow" is much better than the misleading
"associated members" used elsewhere (who aren't members and it's not
an association).

I agree. That's why we try not talking about members, when it is not
members in the actual legal sense. Although there are team members (in
the web, translators, legal, etc. teams).

Regards,
Matthias

[MJ Ray]

Before I start: http://fsfe.org/source/index.en.xhtml looks broken and
the contact page says to mention it here.

Matthias Kirschner <mk at fsfe.org>

Post by Matthias Kirschner
- There is no European association. That is bad, because else FSFE would
have choosen that one. As this is not possible, we set up a German
association.

To all intents and purposes, a German association is a European
association because it is governed by EU law as well as German law and
I think members could join it from anywhere in the EU (maybe even the
world).

Even when a European corporate form exists, like SCE, you still have
to choose somewhere as its residence.

Post by Matthias Kirschner
- Fellows not being members. It was a choice when we set up the
Fellowship to have Fellows as non-members. Like most of the people
doing work for FSFE are non-members.

I feel that was a poor choice, as you can probably guess. I am a
member of most of the things I work for at the moment.

Not trusting future leaders with all aspects of our work is one reason
why people choose strong copyleft, GPL rather than BSD, so it seems a
bit odd that FSFE (like FSF) basically demands BSD-style surrendering
of control over the future uses of one's work.

Post by Matthias Kirschner
After some time we wanted to give
the Fellows more legal power in our constitution, so we introduced the
Fellowship seats in the GA, which Fellows can vote.

That was a good move.

Post by Matthias Kirschner
(Of course one of
the most powerful ways to influence FSFE is still to just do the work
as a volunteer and to contact us on matters, and discuss with us.)

That seems rather opaque and neither democratic nor do-ocratic. As
you may remember, I stopped volunteering when that approach did not
produce proper consideration of putting any FSFE web pages under a
free software licence.

Regards,

[Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild]

Hey

Post by MJ Ray
Before I start: http://fsfe.org/source/index.en.xhtml looks broken and
the contact page says to mention it here.

Elaborate. Seems fine to me. It is certainly proper XML.

Post by MJ Ray
Matthias Kirschner <mk at fsfe.org>

Post by Matthias Kirschner
- There is no European association. That is bad, because else FSFE would
? have choosen that one. As this is not possible, we set up a German
? association.

To all intents and purposes, a German association is a European
association because it is governed by EU law as well as German law and
I think members could join it from anywhere in the EU (maybe even the
world).

True, but if all Fellows were members, hosting GAs would got out of hand.

Post by MJ Ray

Post by Matthias Kirschner
- Fellows not being members. It was a choice when we set up the
? Fellowship to have Fellows as non-members. Like most of the people
? doing work for FSFE are non-members.

I feel that was a poor choice, as you can probably guess. ?I am a
member of most of the things I work for at the moment.

It is possible to join FSFE as a member too.

Post by MJ Ray
Not trusting future leaders with all aspects of our work is one reason
why people choose strong copyleft, GPL rather than BSD, so it seems a
bit odd that FSFE (like FSF) basically demands BSD-style surrendering
of control over the future uses of one's work.

How, where?

Post by MJ Ray

Post by Matthias Kirschner
(Of course one of
? the most powerful ways to influence FSFE is still to just do the work
? as a volunteer and to contact us on matters, and discuss with us.)

That seems rather opaque and neither democratic nor do-ocratic. ?As
you may remember, I stopped volunteering when that approach did not
produce proper consideration of putting any FSFE web pages under a
free software licence.

That seems rather honest. It works out to that one way or the other
and acknowledging it is good. I agree with the licensing issue though.
We are trying to handle it for software first. Take a look at trac.
However, I am also of the opinion that our web pages should be
CC-BY-SA. The logo should be an exception.


Best,

[Tanguy Ortolo]

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild
It is possible to join FSFE as a member too.

Is it? I thought that was impossible, but if it is, then it is rather
well hidden, or at least not really encouraged. Is there a specific
reason why people that would like to help FSFE financially should do as
as ?fellows? rather as regular members as in any regular association?

How is FSFE different from APRIL, which has something like 6.000 members
and seems to work rather fine with it? I thought the European status was
a barrier, but since it is not, what is it?

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild
However, I am also of the opinion that our web pages should be
CC-BY-SA. The logo should be an exception.

Oh, please, not another logo nightmare? This has been a pain with
Firefox, and even the Debian logo has freedom issues that are
problematic within Debian itself, let us not add another one!

[Hugo Roy]

Post by Tanguy Ortolo
How is FSFE different from APRIL, which has something like 6.000 members
and seems to work rather fine with it?

April works typically like a French 1901 association and many other
associations. This is not exactly the same kind of association as FSFE
(e.V.) also they are legally similar, I would like to point out the
cultural difference here. For historical reasons, although FSFE was
quite European at the beginning (including France), it has a lot of
Germany's cultural aspects in the way the organisation works, that's
more like other German associations I am aware of.

Now, I would like to point out that April as a "Conseil
d'administration" something that FSFE does not have. And I don't think
this is easier to get into April's CA than to become a member of the
FSFE. It just works differently.

Now, which is better is another matter, and IMHO all the points you
raise are valid and worth discussing.
--
Hugo Roy im: hugo at jabber.fsfe.org
French Coordinator mobile: [phone]

The Free Software Foundation Europe works to create general
understanding and support for software freedom in politics, law,
business and society. Become a Fellow http://www.fsfe.org/join

La Free Software Foundation Europe ?uvre ? la compr?hension et au
soutien de la libert? logicielle en politique, en droit, en ?conomie et
en soci?t?. Rejoignez la Fellowship http://www.fsfe.org/join

[Tanguy Ortolo]

Post by Hugo Roy
April works typically like a French 1901 association and many other
associations. This is not exactly the same kind of association as FSFE
(e.V.) also they are legally similar, I would like to point out the
cultural difference here. For historical reasons, although FSFE was
quite European at the beginning (including France), it has a lot of
Germany's cultural aspects in the way the organisation works, that's
more like other German associations I am aware of.

I can understand that, but I really doubt that the German law provides
no way to have a viable assotiation with more than a handful of
?members?, that term being understood as: people that pay a
subscription and are able to vote for decisions or name a board of
representatives to take decisions.

Being French myself, of course I mostly know French law associations,
but I also subscribed to Debian France, which is an Alsace-Moselle law
association. I think this is quite close to the German law, and as far
as I know, I am a member of it, although I have never been sollicitated
for an assembly yet.

[Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild]

Post by Tanguy Ortolo

Post by Hugo Roy
April works typically like a French 1901 association and many other
associations. This is not exactly the same kind of association as FSFE
(e.V.) also they are legally similar, I would like to point out the
cultural difference here. For historical reasons, although FSFE was
quite European at the beginning (including France), it has a lot of
Germany's cultural aspects in the way the organisation works, that's
more like other German associations I am aware of.

I can understand that, but I really doubt that the German law provides
no way to have a viable assotiation with more than a handful of
?members?, that term being understood as: people that pay a
subscription and are able to vote for decisions or name a board of
representatives to take decisions.
Being French myself, of course I mostly know French law associations,
but I also subscribed to Debian France, which is an Alsace-Moselle law
association. I think this is quite close to the German law, and as far
as I know, I am a member of it, although I have never been sollicitated
for an assembly yet.

As Estonian law is generally based on German law, I would expect that
the GA has to meet at least once a year. With the current
constitution, it certainly has to. And at least a third of the members
have to be present or have to have authorized someone else to vote for
them in order for the GA to be resolutionable. Again, I do not think
that the law allows to reduce the minimum ratio of represented members
further. Thus, having all Fellows as members is not sustainable. One
of the positive aspects of being a Fellow is that you control whether
you pay only your Fellowship dues or contribute your time too. Members
ought to commit their time too in order for the association to work.

[Matthias Kirschner]

See https://fsfe.org/about/legal/constitution.en.html: "Acquisition of
membership" for how to become a member.

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild
As Estonian law is generally based on German law, I would expect that
the GA has to meet at least once a year. With the current
constitution, it certainly has to.

Yes, that's correct.

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild
And at least a third of the members have to be present or have to have
authorized someone else to vote for them in order for the GA to be
resolutionable.

(4) The General Assembly is resolutionable, if it was duly called up
and at least one third of all members is present or represented by
members present. In the case of decision inability, the President is
obliged to call up a second General Assembly with the same agenda
within four weeks; this General Assembly will resolutionable without
consideration of the members present. This is to be referred to in the
invitation.

Regards,
Matthias

[Werner Koch]

Post by Tanguy Ortolo
I can understand that, but I really doubt that the German law provides
no way to have a viable assotiation with more than a handful of
?members?, that term being understood as: people that pay a

Sure there is; there are lots of associations with hundreds of thousands
members. It was a deliberate decision of most of the FSFE founders,
that the current members shall have a close control over the acceptance
of new members. This close control of membership was also one of the
reasons why the FSF-France members split themselves of from the FSFE
(despite that the seem to keep their membership also restricted to a few
people).

Hopefully the FSFE can eventually turn itself into an equal membership
association (like most associations are).


Salam-Shalom,

Werner

[Matthias Kirschner]

Post by Tanguy Ortolo

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild
It is possible to join FSFE as a member too.

Is it?

Yes, it is. Can you ask for becoming a member of FSFE. The usual
procedure is that people who do work for FSFE, and whom the others trust
are added as members. The other way is that you can candidate for the
Fellowship seat, which makes you a member, too. In February are the next
elections, so everybody who is Fellow for more than one year can
candidate.

Post by Tanguy Ortolo
I thought that was impossible, but if it is, then it is rather
well hidden, or at least not really encouraged.

Yes, that is right. Because a lot of the day to day work is not done by
the members, but it is done by the different working groups. The members
work on the strategic long term decisions.

Post by Tanguy Ortolo
Is there a specific reason why people that would like to help FSFE
financially should do as as ?fellows? rather as regular members as in
any regular association?

The porpose of FSFE's members is not to get financial support. This is
done by donors (mainly companies) and the Fellowship donations.

Post by Tanguy Ortolo
How is FSFE different from APRIL, which has something like 6.000 members
and seems to work rather fine with it? I thought the European status was
a barrier, but since it is not, what is it?

I don't know APRIL's structures well enough to answer that question.

The structure from FSFE is influenced by FSF's structure before the
start in 2001 and than developed from this point.

Regards,
Matthias

[Matthias Kirschner]

Post by MJ Ray
That seems rather opaque and neither democratic nor do-ocratic. As
you may remember, I stopped volunteering when that approach did not
produce proper consideration of putting any FSFE web pages under a
free software licence.

(It does not make sense to talk about "democratic" when you talk about
organisations. It just makes sense for states. For organisations we
should talk about participation, transperency, decision making, etc.)

Your input about the license of the FSFE was considered (at least by
me). But a lot of people at that time did not agree with it. That can
also happen in organisations where all members vote on a proposal.

I still think it was bad that you stopped your involvement, because of
this.

Regards,
Matthias

[MJ Ray]

"Heiki \"Repentinus\" Ojasild" <repentinus at fsfe.org>

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild

Post by MJ Ray
Before I start: http://fsfe.org/source/index.en.xhtml looks broken and
the contact page says to mention it here.

Elaborate. Seems fine to me. It is certainly proper XML.

It isn't xhtml and doesn't include any details of how to download the
source code which is what I expected there.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://fsfe.org/source/index.en.xhtml

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild

Post by MJ Ray
To all intents and purposes, a German association is a European
association because it is governed by EU law as well as German law and
I think members could join it from anywhere in the EU (maybe even the
world).

True, but if all Fellows were members, hosting GAs would got out of hand.

I don't see why. There are co-operatives with millions of members
that still hold useful general meetings, although I prefer dividing
into smaller units before you get to those numbers.

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild

Post by MJ Ray
I feel that was a poor choice, as you can probably guess. ?I am a
member of most of the things I work for at the moment.

It is possible to join FSFE as a member too.

How, where? ;-) The "Join" link is for the fellowship.

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild

Post by MJ Ray
Not trusting future leaders with all aspects of our work is one reason
why people choose strong copyleft, GPL rather than BSD, so it seems a
bit odd that FSFE (like FSF) basically demands BSD-style surrendering
of control over the future uses of one's work.

How, where?

It's more of a practice than a policy, but try to start with volunteer
work under any other terms than the existing, even when the existing
terms are not free software, and see how far you don't get. This may
have changed in recent years but I'd seen no visible indication of it.

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild

Post by MJ Ray
That seems rather opaque and neither democratic nor do-ocratic. ?As
you may remember, I stopped volunteering when that approach did not
produce proper consideration of putting any FSFE web pages under a
free software licence.

That seems rather honest. It works out to that one way or the other
and acknowledging it is good. I agree with the licensing issue though.
We are trying to handle it for software first. Take a look at trac.

Thank you for the information. https://trac.fsfe.org shows an
invalid certificate - is that expected?

Regards,

[Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild]

Post by MJ Ray
It isn't xhtml and doesn't include any details of how to download the
source code which is what I expected there.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://fsfe.org/source/index.en.xhtml

It is extended XHTML and your browser is sent the source. Use "Save
Page As" or "View Page Source" or the equivalents in your browser to
get the real source.

Post by MJ Ray

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild
It is possible to join FSFE as a member too.

How, where? ;-) ?The "Join" link is for the fellowship.

https://fsfe.org/about/legal/constitution.en.html - write an
application to Karsten Gerloff in his official capacity as the
President of the FSFE. I admit, it is hidden rather well.

Post by MJ Ray
Thank you for the information. ?https://trac.fsfe.org shows an
invalid certificate - is that expected?

I am not sure. I might have manually imported the certificate earlier.
The cert should be signed by StartCom Ltd, the site should use AES-256
and the cert should expire on 2012-10-14.

[Reinhard Müller]

Hi,

please let me add a little background to this discussion:

Am Donnerstag, den 05.01.2012, 15:28 +0000 schrieb Heiki "Repentinus"

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild

Post by MJ Ray

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild
It is possible to join FSFE as a member too.

How, where? ;-) The "Join" link is for the fellowship.

https://fsfe.org/about/legal/constitution.en.html - write an
application to Karsten Gerloff in his official capacity as the
President of the FSFE. I admit, it is hidden rather well.

Ever since FSFE exists, we have tried to limit the bureaucratic overhead
to what is absolutely necessary.

Basically FSFE is a bunch of people working together for the advantage
of Free Software. They come and go as they want, they get more or less
involved according to their own wishes, from an hour a month to a full
time job, and with commitments ranging from occasional contributions to
a discussion to maintaining the complete server infrastructure, meaning
to be more or less reachable at any time.

However, there needs to be a legal body representing this bunch of
people legally, towards banks, towards the court, and so on. For this,
FSFE decided to create a legal association based in Germany. This
association is kept as small as necessary to fulfil it's purpose.

The operational decisions in FSFE are not taken in this legal body. They
are taken in the working groups, consisting of the people - as the name
implies - that do the work.

Of course there are tasks that the legal body has assigned, however
these tasks are more of the kind that usually a "board of directors", a
"steering committee" or a "supervisory board" would do.

So yes, the procedure of joining the legal body behind FSFE is not
published very aggressively, and that's because joining the "real" FSFE
(the people doing the work, a by magnitudes bigger group) is much easier
*and* much more important.

[Side note: believe me, once you contribute to FSFE over a longer
period, you get sucked into a role with more responsibility and decision
power faster than you expected. Happened to me as well ;-)]

Thanks,
Reinhard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20120105/7740793f/attachment.pgp>

[Matthias Kirschner]

Thanks for your good explanation Reinhard!

Post by Reinhard Müller
[Side note: believe me, once you contribute to FSFE over a longer
period, you get sucked into a role with more responsibility and decision
power faster than you expected. Happened to me as well ;-)]

Yeah, that happens very fast. You do work for FSFE, you're not running
fast enough, and than you are coordinating a working team, become the
financial officer, or even working fulltime for FSFE ;)

Regards,
Matthias

[Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild]

Post by Matthias Kirschner
Yeah, that happens very fast. You do work for FSFE, you're not running
fast enough, and than you are coordinating a working team, become the
financial officer, or even working fulltime for FSFE ;)

You do not even need a working team to coordinate. Just get a bunch of
friends to do translations with you and you can be pretty sure you can
influence them. Just watch out you do not lose them.

Point is, find whatever you like to do and start doing it. Then you
won't notice petty issues like decision making. (Especially if your
wireless connection is constantly dropping when you are trying to send
an e-mail and you do not want to climb a floor higher.)

[Martin Gollowitzer]

* Reinhard M?ller <reinhard at fsfe.org> [120105 17:10,

Post by Reinhard Müller
[Side note: believe me, once you contribute to FSFE over a longer
period, you get sucked into a role with more responsibility and decision
power faster than you expected. Happened to me as well ;-)]

Same here, a few years later though :-)

Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20120107/029373d8/attachment.pgp>

[Matthias Kirschner]

Post by MJ Ray
It's more of a practice than a policy, but try to start with volunteer
work under any other terms than the existing, even when the existing
terms are not free software, and see how far you don't get. This may
have changed in recent years but I'd seen no visible indication of it.

Isn't that true for all organisations? When you want to start working,
you first do that with the rules of the group. Than people see you do
good work, and than you suggest changing rules to the group.

That's the procedure I experienced in FSFE, as well as in other
organisations I took part.

Regards,
Matthias

[Kostas Boukouvalas]

Post by Matthias Kirschner
Isn't that true for all organisations? When you want to start working,
you first do that with the rules of the group. Than people see you do
good work, and than you suggest changing rules to the group.

People (like Matthias) who write quotes (but also believe the very
ideas) like the above are the reason I love Free Software and its
communities and fellowships.

You can freely add my statement to this year's campaign "Tell us why you
love Free Software!"

:)

Post by Matthias Kirschner
That's the procedure I experienced in FSFE, as well as in other
organisations I took part.
Regards,
Matthias

[MJ Ray]

"Heiki \"Repentinus\" Ojasild" <repentinus at fsfe.org>

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild

Post by MJ Ray
It isn't xhtml and doesn't include any details of how to download the
source code which is what I expected there.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://fsfe.org/source/index.en.xhtml

It is extended XHTML and your browser is sent the source. Use "Save
Page As" or "View Page Source" or the equivalents in your browser to
get the real source.

And how does one compile that mislabelled source code to produce the
page? In GPLese, am I asking for the Corresponding Source?

Of course, by this point, I have long forgotten why I wanted the
source code and FSFE loses out on some more help until someone else
spots whatever bug I spotted before.

[...]

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild

Post by MJ Ray
Thank you for the information. ?https://trac.fsfe.org shows an
invalid certificate - is that expected?

I am not sure. I might have manually imported the certificate earlier.
The cert should be signed by StartCom Ltd, the site should use AES-256
and the cert should expire on 2012-10-14.

I'm seeing "The certificate is only valid for the following names:
fellowship.fsfe.org , fsfe.org , www.fellowship.fsfe.org "

I wonder why.

Confused,

[Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild]

Dear MJ,

Post by MJ Ray
And how does one compile that mislabelled source code to produce the
page? ?In GPLese, am I asking for the Corresponding Source?

This <https://fsfe.org/README.texi> tells you how to build them. The
corresponding source is what you have been given. If you cannot build
the binaries out of it, even GPL would make it your problem.


Sincerely,

[Martin Gollowitzer]

* Heiki "Repentinus" Ojasild <repentinus at fsfe.org> [120110 22:12,

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild
Dear MJ,

Post by MJ Ray
And how does one compile that mislabelled source code to produce the
page? ?In GPLese, am I asking for the Corresponding Source?

This <https://fsfe.org/README.texi> tells you how to build them. The
corresponding source is what you have been given. If you cannot build
the binaries out of it, even GPL would make it your problem.

There are no binaries here [1] :-) Also, the webpages are more about
content. And yes, you can check out the webpage SVN at any time and
build the webpage yourself. Documentation is included AFAIR.

Martin

[1] Except maybe for a few PDFs, but IIRC source is also available for
them.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20120110/e0759554/attachment.pgp>

[Martin Gollowitzer]

Hi,

* MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop> [120110 22:05,

Post by MJ Ray
And how does one compile that mislabelled source code to produce the
page? In GPLese, am I asking for the Corresponding Source?

Everything in /source/ is the actual source. The necessary tools are in
the webpage SVN. You may want to read [1]

Post by MJ Ray
Of course, by this point, I have long forgotten why I wanted the
source code and FSFE loses out on some more help until someone else
spots whatever bug I spotted before.

If the bug you spotted earlier comes to your mind again, please drop us
a line.

Post by MJ Ray

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild

Post by MJ Ray
Thank you for the information. ?https://trac.fsfe.org shows an
invalid certificate - is that expected?

I am not sure. I might have manually imported the certificate earlier.
The cert should be signed by StartCom Ltd, the site should use AES-256
and the cert should expire on 2012-10-14.

fellowship.fsfe.org , fsfe.org , www.fellowship.fsfe.org "

Yes, this is true. The problem is that we didn't know we'd have to use
the same server for trac and fellowship. Please temporarily allow the
certificate. I hope we can fix this.

Post by MJ Ray
I wonder why.

See above.

[1] http://fsfe.org/contribute/web/

Thanks,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20120110/c7bf170e/attachment.pgp>

[Reinhard Müller]

Post by MJ Ray
Of course, by this point, I have long forgotten why I wanted the
source code and FSFE loses out on some more help until someone else
spots whatever bug I spotted before.

If you find a bug on the web pages, you can always send a short note to
web (at) fsfeurope.org.

Thanks,
Reinhard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20120111/31da4d0f/attachment.pgp>

[Werner Koch]

Hi,

I found two mails of you in my spam folder because the header contains 8
bit characters. For ages I check that so to sort out Chinese mail/spam.
However, the original poster or someone later encoded the subject this
way (showed using C escapes):

Subject: Re: Why \342\200\234fellowship\342\200\235?

Martin's mail encoded it correctly, but your mailer didn't. Let's see
whether my Gnus gets it right.


Shalom-Salam,

Werner

[Werner Koch]

Post by Werner Koch
Martin's mail encoded it correctly, but your mailer didn't. Let's see
whether my Gnus gets it right.

Okay, Gnus fixes the subjkect encoding before sending.


Salam-Shalom,

Werner

[MJ Ray]

Matthias Kirschner <mk at fsfe.org>

Post by Matthias Kirschner

Post by MJ Ray
That seems rather opaque and neither democratic nor do-ocratic. As
you may remember, I stopped volunteering when that approach did not
produce proper consideration of putting any FSFE web pages under a
free software licence.

(It does not make sense to talk about "democratic" when you talk about
organisations. It just makes sense for states. For organisations we
should talk about participation, transperency, decision making, etc.)

As one may expect from a supporter of ICA.coop/coop/principles.html
and other democracy campaigns, I disagree with that parenthesis
completely. People who want us to ask for lesser words instead of
democracy are similar to those who want us to ask about lesser
aspects like "open source" instead of freedoms, so I am really
surprised and disappointed to see it from such a leading light in FSFE.

I feel it is as important that users control our corporations as it is
that users control our computers.

Post by Matthias Kirschner
Your input about the license of the FSFE was considered (at least by
me). But a lot of people at that time did not agree with it. That can
also happen in organisations where all members vote on a proposal.

I don't recall that consideration and did not find it in the archives.
I suspect it was based on the usual objection, that the freedoms
would help those that oppose us, more than they'd help our supporters.

Yes, mistakes can happen in democratic organisations, but then you
have both open discussion in a known consideration process and a more
informative outcome (even if that information is sometimes difficult
to interpret).

Post by Matthias Kirschner
I still think it was bad that you stopped your involvement, because of
this.

Why? Once I had realised that I am merely a fellow traveller and
actively disagree with this aspect of FSFE policy and tactics, I felt
it better to transfer my involvement to other free software support
organisations that I feel are more likely to succeed in the long term.
After all, why would anyone continue to give to an organisation which
they feel undermines its own campaigns?

If I'm right, FSFE undermines itself more slowly without my help but
there's more chance another free software supporter will succeed and
convince it to free its material before it dies. If I'm wrong, the
world still had the same number of volunteers supporting free software
and we lost mainly a bit of friction along the way.

Regards,

[Matthias Kirschner]

hi MJ Ray,

Post by MJ Ray

Post by Matthias Kirschner
(It does not make sense to talk about "democratic" when you talk about
organisations. It just makes sense for states. For organisations we
should talk about participation, transperency, decision making, etc.)

As one may expect from a supporter of ICA.coop/coop/principles.html
and other democracy campaigns, I disagree with that parenthesis
completely. People who want us to ask for lesser words instead of
democracy are similar to those who want us to ask about lesser
aspects like "open source" instead of freedoms, so I am really
surprised and disappointed to see it from such a leading light in FSFE.

I think there is a misunderstand between the two of us, which results
form my different background as a former student of political science.

Post by MJ Ray
I feel it is as important that users control our corporations as it is
that users control our computers.

I agree with this.

What I meant with my statement is, that the word "democracy" makes no
sense for something else than states. (I need to search for an old
e-mail where I explained that.)

For organisation we should not waste our time to think about "is it
democratic, or not", but talk about participation (who can participate
how), decision making (who can influence decisions, how are they made),
transparency (how are decisions and structures documented/communicated),
...

Of course I am also fine that everybody chooses the organisation where
he wants to get active and work for. With organisations that is much
easier than we states :)

Regards,
Matthias

[Carsten Agger]

Post by Matthias Kirschner
I agree with this.
What I meant with my statement is, that the word "democracy" makes no
sense for something else than states. (I need to search for an old
e-mail where I explained that.)
For organisation we should not waste our time to think about "is it
democratic, or not", but talk about participation (who can participate
how), decision making (who can influence decisions, how are they made),
transparency (how are decisions and structures documented/communicated),
...

There is one good reason for not running a political organization or NGO
as an association with free membership, and that's the risk of "coups".

Suppose an association is really successful and attract a lot of
donations. Come next general assembly, some group who is hostile to the
association's goals, organize a lot of people to join just in time to be
able to vote at the next general assembly.

In the case of the FSFE, that could be some Microsoft astroturfing group
(like an SCO ...) or it could be an "open source" group who wants to
sincerely warn governments against switching to free software if the
commercial alternatives are technically superior (we have previously
discussed a Norwegian "free software" group with that attitude).

Whenever you have an NGO with a clear political message and strong
influence, there's that risk of "co-optation by coup". This risk can be
averted by not running it formally as an association with free
membership. If this is why the FSFE is structured as it is, that may be
a good thing.

What's important is that the *community* is democratic, i.e.
collaborative and with an open spirit.

[mjr]

Reinhard M?ller <reinhard at fsfe.org>

Post by Reinhard Müller
If you find a bug on the web pages, you can always send a short note to
web (at) fsfeurope.org.

Could that be added to
URL: http://fsfe.org/contact/contact.en.html
please?

Regards,

[Reinhard Müller]

Post by mjr
Could that be added to
URL: http://fsfe.org/contact/contact.en.html
please?

Yes, this makes a lot of sense. I'll ask our webmasters to add that, or
even to add a note to the footer of each page.

Thanks,
Reinhard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20120111/0e5c0d64/attachment.pgp>

[Reinhard Müller]

Post by Reinhard Müller

Post by mjr
Could that be added to
URL: http://fsfe.org/contact/contact.en.html
please?

Yes, this makes a lot of sense. I'll ask our webmasters to add that,
or even to add a note to the footer of each page.

FWIW, I've just got the feedback that at least some of our webmasters
think that it's ok if issues with the web pages are sent to the general
contact address given on the URL you've mentioned above.

Anyway, the issue is being considered and discussed by the webmaster
team, and they will decide within the team and implement whatever they
consider the best solution.

BTW, I think this is an excellent example how FSFE's decision making
works: the team responsible for a given field of work decides
autonomously for issues within its domain. Within the team decisions are
made in a democratic - actually in most cases on a consensus based -
manner, input from outside the team is heard and considered.

Thanks,
Reinhard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20120111/29b8cec7/attachment.pgp>

[mjr]

Werner Koch <wk at gnupg.org>

Post by Werner Koch
Martin's mail encoded it correctly, but your mailer didn't. Let's see
whether my Gnus gets it right.

I'm using Emacs mail-mode (or sendmail-mode I thought). I didn't find
this in the emacs debbugs but I'm surprised it's not a known bug.
When I'm at that system again, I'll file a bug report.

Thanks,

[MJ Ray]

Reinhard M?ller <reinhard at fsfe.org>

Post by Reinhard Müller
BTW, I think this is an excellent example how FSFE's decision making
works: the team responsible for a given field of work decides
autonomously for issues within its domain. Within the team decisions are
made in a democratic - actually in most cases on a consensus based -
manner, input from outside the team is heard and considered.

I think it's also an example of three ways that FSFE's decision-making
is undemocratic:

1. IIRC the autonomy is only at team level (in debian, for example,
the autonomy is also generally present at volunteer and project);

2. the process is structureless/undocumented;

3. the process is opaque, with the outcome usually appearing without
closure with the reporter/suggester.

Thanks for the suggestion to just send things to the general contact
address. I'm usually reluctant to do that because the general
contacts for most websites get confused by technical bug reports.
Also, I feel like I should be able to just send in proposed bugfixes,
so I try to get the source code, which then led me to find that
related bug of xml mislabelled as xhtml that sidetracked me.

Hope that explains,

[Martin Gollowitzer]

* MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop> [120112 16:18,

Post by MJ Ray
Thanks for the suggestion to just send things to the general contact
address. I'm usually reluctant to do that because the general
contacts for most websites get confused by technical bug reports.

I think you are right and I also support to have the webmaster's address
on all pages.

Post by MJ Ray
Also, I feel like I should be able to just send in proposed bugfixes,
so I try to get the source code, which then led me to find that
related bug of xml mislabelled as xhtml that sidetracked me.

Well, the file extension itself says nothing about the content. Still it
is probably true that the FSFE webserver should not serve these files as
application/xhtml+xml files, but rather as application/xml or text/xml
(I'm Ccing web@ on this again).

Thanks,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20120112/6d5f676d/attachment.pgp>

[Reinhard Müller]

Post by MJ Ray
I think it's also an example of three ways that FSFE's decision-making
1. IIRC the autonomy is only at team level (in debian, for example,
the autonomy is also generally present at volunteer and project);

The autonomy is at the level of who's affected. Decisions about DFD are
generally taken by people involved with DFD. Decisions about FSFE's
booth at FOSDEM are taken by the people participating in the booth. The
decision whether I want to be at FOSDEM on Saturday, on Sunday, or on
both days, is with me alone (well, and with my wife ;-)).

While I strongly believe that this is the most reasonable way to handle
it, I don't think the definition of group size is not a matter of
democracy but rather of subsidiarity.

Post by MJ Ray
2. the process is structureless/undocumented;

Even worse: the process is flexible and up to the group to define, as
well as all members of the group are fine with it. I know that some
Fellowship groups make decisions while they meet over a beer.

BTW, for essential decisions (such that affect the whole core team of
FSFE), the process is strictly structured and documented. The
documentation is available to every member of the core team.

I've never seen it as a requirement for democracy that the documentation
of the decision process is available to people outside the domain of the
decision. It is an interesting political question, although I don't
think it would change much in the case of FSFE.

Post by MJ Ray
3. the process is opaque, with the outcome usually appearing without
closure with the reporter/suggester.

I agree that this happens sometime, and that this is bad. If the outcome
of a decision is not communicated to the people giving input or
requesting the decision, it is certainly not on purpose, and I hope that
the word "usually" above is more of a subjective feeling than a fact,
since it would mean we're bad at communicating what we do.

Sometimes our decision processes take long, also related to key people
in FSFE travelling a lot. Sometimes we simply forget to report back. If
in doubt what came out for a specific issue, just ask.

FWIW, I don't think that this is a matter of democracy, it's a matter of
communication.

Thanks,
Reinhard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20120112/c9527753/attachment.pgp>

[MJ Ray]

Martin Gollowitzer <gollo at fsfe.org>

Post by Martin Gollowitzer
* MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop> [120112 16:18,

Post by MJ Ray
Also, I feel like I should be able to just send in proposed bugfixes,
so I try to get the source code, which then led me to find that
related bug of xml mislabelled as xhtml that sidetracked me.

Well, the file extension itself says nothing about the content. Still it
is probably true that the FSFE webserver should not serve these files as
application/xhtml+xml files, but rather as application/xml or text/xml

True about the extension, but as you note the Content-Type is also
xhtml. Then you get into a related question about whether it's a bug
with the website or the browsers if a browser attempts to display that
not-quite-xhtml as if it is xhtml.

A link to /contribute/web/ or README.texi alongside the source code
link is another way it could be made less confusing. Or there could
be some link in the source file that gets hidden when the page is
compiled. Lots of possible resolutions. Good luck choosing.

Regards,

[MJ Ray]

Reinhard M?ller <reinhard at fsfe.org>

Post by Reinhard Müller

Post by MJ Ray
I think it's also an example of three ways that FSFE's decision-making
1. IIRC the autonomy is only at team level (in debian, for example,
the autonomy is also generally present at volunteer and project);

The autonomy is at the level of who's affected. Decisions about DFD are
generally taken by people involved with DFD. Decisions about FSFE's
booth at FOSDEM are taken by the people participating in the booth. [...]

I don't think that's quite true. Decisions about one's own work for
the team seemed to be usually taken by the team, even when they do not
affect anyone else much. While that is often what employers do, it's
not always how voluntary groups work.

[...]

Post by Reinhard Müller
While I strongly believe that this is the most reasonable way to handle
it, I don't think the definition of group size is not a matter of
democracy but rather of subsidiarity.

It may also involve subsidiarity (which is an organizing principle
that is basically a sub-matter of democracy), in which case it is also
tied up with other things that I hold dear, like autonomy,
independence, freedom of association and stuff like that.

Post by Reinhard Müller

Post by MJ Ray
2. the process is structureless/undocumented;

Even worse: the process is flexible and up to the group to define, as
well as all members of the group are fine with it.

Trouble is: that either means redefining the process on each new
member, or the new member having to believe whatever they are told by
older members about how decisions are taken, which may be codswallop.

Post by Reinhard Müller
I know that some Fellowship groups make decisions while they meet
over a beer.

To such groups, I wish a abstemious temperance teetotaller!

[... 3. Decisions never reported ...]

Post by Reinhard Müller
Sometimes our decision processes take long, also related to key people
in FSFE travelling a lot. Sometimes we simply forget to report back. If
in doubt what came out for a specific issue, just ask.
FWIW, I don't think that this is a matter of democracy, it's a matter of
communication.

I think it's both. Communication is necessary for democracy.

Regards,

[Reinhard Müller]

Decisions about one's own work for the team seemed to be usually taken
by the team, even when they do not affect anyone else much.

I have worked in a number of teams and never experienced this.

It seems to me that you made an experience in a specific case (you
proposed a change of license of our web pages) which was turned down,
could it be that you're generalizing from this a little too much?

Post by Reinhard Müller
Even worse: the process is flexible and up to the group to define, as
well as all members of the group are fine with it.

Sorry I just saw I wrote nonsense: it should of course mean "as *long*
as all members of the group are fine with it".

Post by Reinhard Müller
I know that some Fellowship groups make decisions while they meet
over a beer.

To such groups, I wish a abstemious temperance teetotaller!

I said over *a* beer ;-)

[... 3. Decisions never reported ...]

Post by Reinhard Müller
FWIW, I don't think that this is a matter of democracy, it's a matter of
communication.

I think it's both. Communication is necessary for democracy.

Communication *inside* a democratic organisation is of course necessary
for democracy. Certainly we can also improve that, but in this thread we
were (or at least I was) talking about communication to the outside.

Thanks,
Reinhard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20120116/ebdbad51/attachment.pgp>

[Matthias Kirschner]

Post by MJ Ray

Post by Reinhard Müller
The autonomy is at the level of who's affected. Decisions about DFD are
generally taken by people involved with DFD. Decisions about FSFE's
booth at FOSDEM are taken by the people participating in the booth. [...]

I don't think that's quite true. Decisions about one's own work for
the team seemed to be usually taken by the team, even when they do not
affect anyone else much. While that is often what employers do, it's
not always how voluntary groups work.

Do you have an example for that? Because I did not have the impression.

Thanks,
Matthias

[Sam Liddicott]

Post by Matthias Kirschner

Post by MJ Ray

Post by Reinhard Müller
The autonomy is at the level of who's affected. Decisions about DFD are
generally taken by people involved with DFD. Decisions about FSFE's
booth at FOSDEM are taken by the people participating in the booth.

[...]

Post by MJ Ray
I don't think that's quite true. Decisions about one's own work for
the team seemed to be usually taken by the team, even when they do not
affect anyone else much. While that is often what employers do, it's
not always how voluntary groups work.

Do you have an example for that? Because I did not have the impression.

Assumptions about what it is that volunteers are willing can be the death
of a volunteer organisation. I observe this in local politics and in global
volunteer software projects. Linus had it right when he called it "herding
cats". I've spoken with local authority administrators about their
assumptions of what I call "minimum terms of participation" which must be
met before a volunteer will do anything and the removal of which will cause
the volunteers to vanish like the morning mist.

Those who treat volunteers as a resource to be directed will be puzzled
repeatedly. Michael Gove in the UK is about to find this out as he lays out
grand new plans with extra and onerous responsibilities on school governors
who are not regularly punished by government inspectors for doing a good
job but not providing enough evidence to prove to the inspectors that they
are doing a good job.

I mean that the conclusion of the inspectors will back up the volunteer
governors report and claims of the school, showing that the governors did
know what they were talking about; but if the governors can't prove that
this wasn't a lucky guess, then they get a beating by the inspectors.

Sam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20120116/3a6f34e5/attachment.html>

[MJ Ray]

Carsten Agger <agger at modspil.dk> [...]

Post by Carsten Agger
There is one good reason for not running a political organization or NGO
as an association with free membership, and that's the risk of "coups".
Suppose an association is really successful and attract a lot of
donations. Come next general assembly, some group who is hostile to the
association's goals, organize a lot of people to join just in time to be
able to vote at the next general assembly.

That's why not-for-profit groups should not hold more assets than
necessary, why a group may need some entry qualification and why there
should be regulators who can enforce the stated goals, but it is not a
reason against open and voluntary membership and democratic member
control.

In fact, I suggest that the risk of coups is greater in undemocratic
organisations because the attacker would only need to persuade a few
core group postholders in private and don't need to convince a
majority of a large audience of supporters pretty much in public.

The organisations that I have seen fall to such coups have gone
because there was no regulator who would intervene, the board had been
persuaded first and then they persuaded the wider membership. I don't
remember any coups led by a membership against a board's wishes, so
as long as only a minority of the board is elected each assembly,
there's time to defeat a coup one way or another.

[...]

Post by Carsten Agger
What's important is that the *community* is democratic, i.e.
collaborative and with an open spirit.

Amen! And to reply to the earlier post: as I understand it,
democratic does apply to organisations. It just means the people
(Greek demos) run it (kratein). Usually these days, we understand it
as being the whole audience, but it may be debatable who that is for
orgs.

Regards,