FSFE minutes, or a vendetta?

Jean Louis bugs at gnu.support
Thu Oct 17 21:26:16 BST 2019

* Daniel Pocock <daniel at pocock.pro> [2019-10-18 01:28]:
> The second document also appears to contain two resignation emails.
> I've heard that there have actually been more resignations than
> that.

So you also say that those could be real.

I have published few pages:
https://pleroma.gnusocial.club/notice/9o1eDIfG9fZIxb2zLM on FSFE
social account, nobody yet answered anything.

The stamp "CONFIDENTIAL" is not real, it is placed there
digitally. But could be anything. The stamp DRAFT looks more real.

That knife is there, says that document was tampered by
somebody. Fine. But overall it looks genuine.

However, the writings and changes of Articles are carefully edited and
they cannot be fake.

The changes mentioned in overall document are consistent with each

That looks as real document to me.

> Ultimately, the authenticity of either document can't be confirmed
> unless they are published by FSFE.  Otherwise it could be fake news.

It could be, but then it would be wasted for what reason? To attack
your writings? I don't think so. I do not know that you said anything
so bad that somebody starts writing this type of document and making
it fake issue. It would look so genuine and then again wasted
effort. It is not balanced.

I think that is real draft. But what is real decision, I do not know.

I have seen many fake documents in last 17 years, and I can spot
things. I think this is genuine draft.

> If FSFE was to publish a set of minutes containing a malicious and
> abusive act of character assassination then it would create a lot of
> problems.

They did not mean to publish it.

I am sure that they have many other decisions which are not
transparently published. Obviously they publish only annual
meetings. But what about the "annualy made decisions" - those are not
published. Thus there is no transparency in FSFE.

> If they are authentic, which we don't know, then the conduct of rogue
> individuals at the annual meeting is extraordinarily abusive.

But which one?

> Even without those circumstances, no organization would pass such a
> motion in a public meeting and record it in their minutes.

It was not "public" meeting. You should know it better if you were in
the FSFE.

If you know at least one decision that was not published online, then
you know that this is possible.

> Such matters are usually handled discretely by the executive and
> under proper legal advice.

Document looks like they wanted to handle it discreetly.

Even if fake, it is time NOW to publish that document.

> The motion in these potentially fake minutes doesn't look like the
> work of a lawyer, it looks like a vendetta sketched on the back of a
> napkin.

I have worked with lawyers, the minutes are minutes, everybody can
write it, but the modifications in Articles look as carefully drafted.

> The only thing for FSFE to do right now is to confirm that those
> documents are fake and that no such motions were passed at the annual
> meeting.

Can you ask them? I am asking them.

Jean Louis

More information about the Discussion mailing list