FSFE minutes, or a vendetta?

Daniel Pocock daniel at pocock.pro
Thu Oct 17 21:44:37 BST 2019



On 17/10/2019 21:26, Jean Louis wrote:
> * 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
> other.
> 
> That looks as real document to me.
> 

I'm not sure that a German e.V. would have a "DRAFT" or "CONFIDENTIAL"
stamp.  The stamps would use the equivalent German words.

Notice the headings on the left and right side of the constitutional
change, item #13, both are the same: "Current Preamble".  I resigned
more than a year ago but FSFE is still benefiting from my attention to
detail.

Overall, the document is simply outrageous.  While there isn't a lot of
trust between Matthias and myself right now, if he publicly denounces
this document, I will accept it was nothing more than a hoax.


>> 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.
> 

A hoaxer would want us to distribute a fake document.  We would then
lose our own credibility.

Fake letters created by students changed the course of an Australian
federal election:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-02/jeff-kennett-letter-1996/10862172

They used stolen letterhead from the office of the Victorian state
premier to make it look real.

>> 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.
> 

Each year they have a weekend meeting and only publish minutes for
approximately 30 minutes out of the 48 hours.


>> 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?

Anybody who doesn't resign.

> 
>> 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.
> 

It is public in the sense that everybody attending the meeting knows the
minutes will be published.  People submit proposals for the agenda with
the intention that the motion and the vote will be published.

The person submitting a rogue motion does so hoping that it will be
published on the FSFE web site.


>> 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.
> 

Please be careful.  You risk your own credibility.  If you publish them,
do so with a disclaimer that their authenticity is not confirmed.

The thing to do is to ask mk at fsfe.org to denounce the documents that
appeared today.


>> 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.
> 

Motion #15, the hysterical call for legal action against a volunteer
does not look like the work of a legal professional.

>> 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.
> 

Yes, put mk at fsfe.org on CC.  He is the FSFE president.

Regards,

Daniel


More information about the Discussion mailing list