Did I miss something or did the #FSF not yet elect a new board member out of the six candidates they announced on Oct, 3rd 2023?
https://www.fsf.org/news/the-third-round-of-fsf-board-candidate-discussions-has-begun
@louis I genuinely wish the FSF well, despite all its well-publicized warts.
Last year I took the board elections as an opportunity to be actively engaged. I was eager also to advocate for Prot.
The forums and email lists used for the election discussions presented an apocalypticly frustrating UX Chernobyl. So much that I eventually came to consider it functionally equivalent to a purposeful lack of transparency.
It prompted me to cancel my membership, and support the #FSFE instead.
@jameshowell You're the third person I hear about that frustration re: election discussion and it is a bit saddening.
But then, the FSF is an organization with a board that elects itself. So, question remains if there is actually a point in participating in these discussions.
In my view, board members should be elected - not only proposed - by the members (or delegates) of an organization. Which is the case of the FSFE, if I understand correctly. And which should be mandatory for non-profit organizations to receive a public rating and/or tax-exempt status. But then, I looking at this through a European lens.
I wish the FSF well, too, and hope they have an actual impact on the world with what they do. Getting rid of ridiculously non-transparent internal processes would be a good first step.
bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@louis @jameshowell kirschner is supreme leader of the FSFE for as long as i know the FSFE _and_ has his own history of unsavory accusations. just an example: https://write.as/malinagalina/i-took-fsfe-to-court , there are more.
which didn't keep him from trying to backstab RMS.
the FSF might have some issues but they really pale in comparison. FSFE is essentially usurpation of the FSFs good name without having actually done anything of relevance.
the monetary report of 2022 (https://fsfe.org/about/funds/2022.en.html) shows that not only they rake in much money from their members.
they also get ~175000€ from the EU for "Next Generation Internet Zero" (which in essence is my money as it's tax money). actually spend for "Next Generation Internet Zero" was: 1,715.84€.
BUT about 145000€ go to "Basic infrastructure costs", which "Includes personnel and office costs for management and administration, technical infrastructure, fees from tax consultant and lawyer, and bank fees."
some people pay themselves quite a fine salary at FSFE.
@louis @jameshowell
i agree on the transparency, it's something valuable.
my gripe is that the FSFE did much virtue signaling about how bad the FSF and RMS are while being anything but saints in the first place. paired with them draining money from the true FSF just by their very existence and usurping the name it is very questionable behavior.
i quote:
> That is why, as a legally and financially independent organisation, in which Richard Stallman has not had any decision-making powers, we call for his resignation from all FSF bodies. The FSF needs to seriously reflect on this decision as well as their decision-making process to prevent similar issues from happening again. Therefore, in the current situation we see ourselves unable to collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue to work with groups and individuals who foster diversity and equality in the Free Software movement in order to achieve our joint goal of empowering all users to control technology.
https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.en.html
this of course was a lie. kirschner presented his book at libreplanet. seems that the events organized by the FSF aren't problematic all of a sudden if he can stand in the spotlight.
no apology to the FSF and RMS. not following through their own announcement of no collaboration.
there is a word for this: turncoat.
@bonifartius @louis Bah. I've never heard these criticisms before. I suppose the word is "discouraging."
Cheering myself up with Unicode cuneiform.
@bonifartius @jameshowell Well, I don't really know much about the FSFE but the numbers look quite similar to the FSFs "Restricted donations" fund (only 1% spent) and operational costs. In my world, restricted donations (in this case for GNU) should be spend in short term and not being sit on for years.
Also I'm not saying that mistakes must not happen and that it is wrong to have opinionated and perhaps edgy characters in a leadership. What's important - at least in non-profit organizations living primarily from donations and tax funds: transparency should be a prime directive so that members can make informed decisions and trust can be built.
I think in that regard, there is a lot of room for improvement if people refrain from memberships because of a lack thereof.
Btw. RMS was the only one who did not disclose his salary on the FSF Financial Statement 2022. Not saying that he doesn't deserve to be well compensated for this time and efforts, but it leaves unnecessary room for speculation.