On 29/08/18 15:46, Max Mehl wrote:
# Erik Albers [2018-08-29 11:22 +0200]:

3) most important: the vast majority of the FSFE members voted for another
   motion. A motion to  keep you in office for the whole 2 year-term!

Everybody can read this in the offical minutes:

	"The current Fellowship representatives' membership ends as soon as
	the constitutional change is successfully registered, or 2 years after
	their election, whichever comes later."

It is noteworthy that this was the least restrictive option the GA has
voted for. It also allows the second representative, Mirko, to stay
longer than his 2-years term. So I cannot really understand the riot
Daniel is trying to start here based on this option. The GA did not
"stab you in the back". But I start to think that you are actually doing
everything in your power to provoke GA members by poisoning the FSFE's
discussion culture...

You mix up a few issues there

Mirko's term had already expired before the meeting (it expires on the anniversary of election) so the motion couldn't extend his term.

Mirko is not a member any more.  He now has to apply for membership like any other member of the community by sending a request to mk@fsfe.org and asking for "membership in passing (provisional membership)", as Erik encouraged people to do in the blog post in May.  People who want to vote at the annual general meeting in Berlin on 7 October should probably do that quite quickly now.

The failure to realize earlier that Mirko's membership had already lapsed means that his vote and any proxies he carried were incorrectly recorded in the minutes[1] of the meeting from May.  Is it possible that this irregularity violates the legality of the constitutional change and the elections will still have to go ahead now to appoint a replacement for Mirko to attend the annual meeting in October?

Nonetheless, I never said the GA stabbed me in the back.  I said it looks like an the person who constructed this motion, not the whole GA, was trying to stab me in the back.  Think of it this way: putting this option in the meeting invitation and asking people to come and vote on it feels a lot like putting a gun to my head, holding it there for a month and asking people to come and vote on whether to pull the trigger.  How could any member of a community feel good in such circumstances?  How could anybody still trust the people behind that type of politics, even though the vote failed to give them what they wanted?  Four people voted for that option, including at least one member of the executive.

Let there be no doubt about it: despite the abstract way in which it is written, the people who gave up their Saturday to attend the meeting and the 4 people who voted for that option fully understood the impact it would have, eliminating a democratically elected representative of the community.  How do you think I was feeling that weekend, wondering what was going on at the meeting in Berlin, waiting until several days later before anybody even told me the outcome of the vote?

The minutes also note that one staff member asked for a secret ballot, I make no assumptions about how she voted but this demonstrates that having such politics in the GA creates a horrible situation for staff as the staff also need to be able to work productively with all of us in the community and not choose sides in political situations.  As the president has put the staff in this awkward position, I feel it is another reason for him to consider resigning.

Regards,

Daniel

1. https://fsfe.org/about/legal/minutes/minutes-2018-05-26.en.pdf