Apologies that this is in english. (copy to spanish p2p list) In the last few days, I have been harassed and threatened by Bernardo Gutierrez, who tried to suppress the publication of an evalution of the FLOK process, which you can find here: http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/a-provisional-informal-assessment-of-the-flok-... In this text, I simply make a political evalution of my 6 months in Ecuador, as I see it, as I believe was both my right (of free speech), and a duty to the p2p community, who has been asking for it. It is in my view a moderate and considered political evaluation, though of course, as my opinion, open to critique and counter-argumentation. While I would have accepted a conversation asking me to postpone it, in order to safeguard some potential backroom deal in Ecuador, instead BG thought it would be useful to publicly threaten the publication of my private emails, thinking this would frighten me. It doesn't, as I don't believe I write anything in private that can't see the light of the day. But private email involves other persons and I find it very ethically objectionable that he would use this as a threat. This is not the first time, a few months ago, Bernardo tried to suppress any balanced treatment of Fora do Eixo ( http://p2pfoundation.net/Fora_do_Eixo) and even objected to the mention of chilean groups that were somehow one day, connected with FdO. BG's totally unfounded accusation then was that "I defended FdO because I was getting a free PhD from Ivana Bentes". It gave me a first insight into his unfair mindset. To be clear, I was not then nor am I now, neither defending nor attacking FdO, but the p2p-f is conceived as a pluralistic network to show different perspectives on an issue, helping people make their own decisions. We don't want to be factional and choose one side or another within the broad p2p community. I found it strange then that Bernardo was exerting pressure to have only one side of the story seen as legitimate, and refused an open debate on the merits of the critique. I could only be radically against FdO, no nuance was permitted. The second incident came with the aftermath of the FLOK. In the above evaluation, I avoid studiously to mention or critique internal matters, believing that it would only make matters worse. But I have had to suffer there the systematic unfounded accusations against my friends and associates: BG has simply reiterated and continue to spread unfounded accusations against excellent people I had the opportunity to work with : BT,, AD, GC, the research team , the communication team ... Human conflicts are unavoidable but this is beyond this, as it was part of a systematic politics of denigration, a paranoid style of management, in which all faults were always seen to come not just from 'exterior', but always from malicious willfullness. It was a very oppressive working culture and one that was much worse than any I have experienced in my life to date. What is worse, even when I sent information to BG advising him not to re-iterate these accusations based on facts that I provided to him, he would continue spreading them, totally ignoring the counter-factuals I had sent him. For example, BG has coninued to spread disinfo about Gordon Cook that he is a neocon, opposed to copyleft, and other falsehoods, even after receiving documentation to the contrary. That you repeat accusations from third parties out of ignorance is one thing, but that you persist, even when you have received proof of the contrary, shows clear ill will. So to be clear: I will not be intimidated. I will continue to think through, the things that went rignt and wrong with FLOK. This is my right, and it is my duty. The main conclusion I can already reveal: P2P politics must be prefigurative. You can't built a new p2p society, by using methods that are opposed to it. You have to treat your fellow beings as you want to be treated. You can't base a transition strategy on a triply deceptive communication strategy: 1) misleading the funders (I can't prove this fully, but I have strong anecdotal and personal experience of this) 2) systematically misleading your own staff (there is plenty and systematic evidence for this) 3) misleading the public through propaganda .. Bernardo's attempt to suppress an independent evaluation is a proof of the latter. How would a healthy p2p process be endangered by an open discussion? The truth is that the flok attempted to create a mythology of success, and of political and social support that wasn't there, and that Bernardo's highly stage-managed twitter storms were part of that effort. The very reason that BG is attempting to suppress an evualuation of the FLOK, is that it endangered potential backroom deals. My thesis is: if they are endangered by an open discussion, what value do these deals ultimately have? I'm preparing an evaluative essay on "Hacker Bolchevism, the paranoid style of politics in p2p' to critique the non-prefigurative politics that were so characteristic of the FLOK internal process. Bernardo, you have nothing to gain by your attempts at intimidation, and much to loose, I suggest you back off and respond to political arguments by political means, instead of through systematic ad hominem attacks. That you think your threats have a place in an open discussion, shows how far off the track you've already gone. Follow the wisdom of DV, who is leaving me alone despite our differences. That I have to do this now here as well, I regret, but I hope it will show you that you have nothing to gain by these tactics, they will backfire. Stalinistic tactics have no place in an open p2p culture. I do not intend to pollute the p2p lists with these personal antagonisms (even as they reveal antagonistic value systems and political and metholodgical approaches). I will at most respond once to the counter-accusations that will undoubtedly follow this, but I can't tolerate public and private intimidation when I am no longer part of the flok team. The P2P Foundation network will continue with Commons Transition Processes, without the use of the moniker FLOK, and in which the internal processes will match and prefigurative the aims that we will want to achieve. Michel -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/