Re: [P2P-F] [P2P-es] A parting of ways with Bernardo Gutierrez
I'm really sorry Bernardo, but your threat has been public and can be verified; second, if you publicly and privately threaten me, I don't think you have any moral authority to criticise that I make these threats public. I will send the URL of your facebook threat here a bit later. You will note that this facebook account with a few thousand followers, and with several dozen exclusively positive evaluations of my relatively positive evaluation of the flok process, none of them even 'liked' the threat. It was absolutely out of place, while a political discussion of flok is entirely in place. So here is the warning: please respond to political analysis by counter-analysis. But if you respond to analysis by threats and character assasination, you will find me on your way. To deny that you did it won't work, and neither will be the argument that it was all meant of a joke. I know you are following a precedent. Somebody we both know accused Gordon Cook, of 1) not existing 2) being a front of Robert Steele 3) being a CIA agent 4) being an adolescent ranter 4) being a neocon. That person, who spent several hours online searching for proof, spread these accusations, and you gave credence to it by also spreading it. When exposed as lies, can you then simple say, after trying to repeatedly destroy a person's reputation. And you still continue, you are shameless. Gordon Cook is the author of absolutely stellar reports on p2p infrastructures, which can be verified and read at the Gordon Cook report. His policy paper, which is excellent and breaks a lot of new ground, is also available online. I copy Gordon so he can provide the URL's. We have to reiterate the case of what happened to Gordon Cook as it was exemplary. Like many other authors, Gordon Cook was promited $4,000 for a paper. This promise was then unilaterally changed to $3,500 on condition that he would attend the summit. Since Gordon had undergone a absolutely invasive and painful spinal operation, and needed a series of eye interventions to boot. I was physically present twice when the promise was made to him to facilitate the trip through a business class trip. Not once, but twice. That promise was then also broken. And no, the maximum was not done to make it possible. As has been already admitted, it was a conscious and political decision not to do it, not a force majeure. Now, f..ups are always possible. But you know it is a pattern. Every person who was asked to leave the project has been systematically maligned. I'll review the list again, BH, an excellent journalist and communicator, was accused of being on the payroll of US intelligence for publishing a critical article; AD, was being branded as 'a spy of Senescyt' and was threatened with physical intimidation; a research team member was threatened with dismissal for expressing critique on the mailing list. In recent days, you have been publicly trashing both the work of the research team and the communication team. It's a paranoid style of politics and character assasination that has no place in an open culture. If you can't avoid trashing people, have the wisdom to do it indoors, but don't publish and spread unfounded and unproven accusations via the network. I want to avoid speaking about this mess, it's not very interesting, unless as a generic lesson for the future: don't let hierarchies dominate participatory projects. Bernardo, I invite to challenge my political conclusions from now on, and I will avoid publishing the facts of my experience. You have failed to intimidate me in my right to politically evaluate flok, move on. Take a hint from Daniel's approach in this controversy. Michel On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Bernardo Gutiérrez <[email protected]
wrote:
Hello you all
I think there are several misunderstandings and some unfair accusation. Try to be polity and to explain the problems:
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-...
It is complitily false. Never tried .In fact, it is the first time that I know that you published in the blog. Our discussion started when I told you that it was not propor to share in FACEBOOK (it is quite clear in all of our mails), now, those critics to FLOK process, right now. Having had several problems, It is an important moment to know what it is going to happen. May it does not help. I valu your version, but desagree in several points. Correa (the president) invited the guest of the FLOK to the Cambio de Guardia. He spoke about FLOK in Sabatina. We were working with high level politicians, as Cancilleria (minister Patiño), Senplades and even people from presidency. So, I think it was not such an unknow project. In fact, it became, during and after the Summit a quite important project for the Whole Ecuatorian Goverment
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.
I think it is good, Michel, And you are an importante person in the process.
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.
Another big misanderstanding. I think it horrible to publish any private conversation. In fact, I am super critic with private conversation going public. I was joking and exagerating the fact that Gordon Cook violated privacy and made a report with that. Publishing in networks some things is not good. So, If you understand that, I am sorry. We have more people in that conversation, that probably did not undestand that.
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".
That is a private mail. PRIVATE CONVERSATION, Michel. But, well, I think that is my personal opinion, yes. I don´t need to hide it.
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.
That is not true. I asked you how did you make the list of p2p projects of the year. Almost all the node sof Brazil P2P branch were disgusted with that, none was consulted. . At the end, we knew it was more your list than P2p List. I am specially critic with FdO, but it is on you the aproach
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 ...
You are again publishing private conversations. With Gordon Cook we argued in the list, that is true. Not the rest. So I will deny that, because is quite far from reality. You also make big critics to many people (some of this list) in our conversations But I think it is not proper to divulgate here, Michel. Private conversation (me and you ) is private.
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.
I feel sorry, Michel. But Gordon Cook has been publishing with Copy Right ever. He has a lot of problems, health, as well. The problem began when he told FLOk that he could only travel in business, because of his health problems. The management team tryed, but could no be that. The quality of the drafts sent was not good. Neither shape of paper neither quality. You did a nice job editing the second one amd transforming it into a goog paper. But for many reason, it was impossible to get the business ticket. And he started a war. The burocracy was terrible and he could not be paid (just coming to Ecuador). Believe that has nothing to do with me. After the dirty war he began (violating privacy and laws), he deserve to not be paid, in my opinion.
"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. "
I am not trying to suppress anything, Michel! I just told you that it was not propor to publish now in Facebook!!! in the moment of the reshaping of the project. I feel really sorry of your accusation about communication strategy. A Twitter Storm is a 1% of what we did. We created a strong participatory process, wiht personal meetings, seminars, speeches. We did wordk shop in 24 cities, with 500 local leaders (who were in the summit). we published more than 100 post un few months, we did many hang outs (many with researchers), p2pbeer. We worked with Cancilleria (international affair minister), with their Ecuela Revolución, people from 40 countries. We made meeting in squatters (with Restakis, researcher), we made cultural collaborative mappings, Mumble meetings etc etc. We presented in MAdrid, in the arab-latin american summit, in Media Lab Prado. All of that is communication. Communication is conection, and that is what happened. A twitter storm never work if there is no network. And we got it, with a lot of difficulties. At the begining it was a top down project. It became more organic. So, It is not a twitter storm, Michel.
"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"
Your critics are necessary. In fact, I respect them. But I think that you do them in the wrong places (Facebook, this list, for example). The last Facebook schandal, some months ago, when they ought some money, was proper and worked. Not this one.
"Stalinistic tactics have no place in an open p2p culture".
It is commom sense, Michel. this mail of you, for examplo, is out of place in this moment
"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".
Sorry, but I think this is pollution. No one accusated you in any list. I never would do it.
It is me who think you should reconsider your position. We all have (researchers, management team, communication team) done an interesting and innovative worlk, begining from you and ending with the secretary. It would be a pitty to espoil that
Best Bernardo
-- *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
Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
_______________________________________________ Wiki: http://p2pfoundation.net/Spanish_P2P_WikiSprint Lista https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-lang-es
-- www.futuramedia.net www.codigo-abierto.cc @bernardosampa (twitter) / @futura_media São Paulo +55 11 43044380 (fijo) +55 11 84881620 (celular)
_______________________________________________ Wiki: http://p2pfoundation.net/Spanish_P2P_WikiSprint Lista https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-lang-es
-- *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/
Here is the requested url michel While Michel is preparing his report, anyone wishing to read mine may hit this URL http://www.cookreport.com/pdfs/July-augCRecuadorfinal.pdf hidden i.e. not advertised on my web site. I am curious as to where Bernardo came from? His was the outside media company hired by Daniel? You will see in the about my evidence of his changing the rules at the last hour for the summit thunderclap. Quite funny. On Jul 5, 2014, at 10:53 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm really sorry Bernardo, but your threat has been public and can be verified; second, if you publicly and privately threaten me, I don't think you have any moral authority to criticise that I make these threats public. I will send the URL of your facebook threat here a bit later. You will note that this facebook account with a few thousand followers, and with several dozen exclusively positive evaluations of my relatively positive evaluation of the flok process, none of them even 'liked' the threat. It was absolutely out of place, while a political discussion of flok is entirely in place. So here is the warning: please respond to political analysis by counter-analysis. But if you respond to analysis by threats and character assasination, you will find me on your way.
To deny that you did it won't work, and neither will be the argument that it was all meant of a joke. I know you are following a precedent. Somebody we both know accused Gordon Cook, of 1) not existing 2) being a front of Robert Steele 3) being a CIA agent 4) being an adolescent ranter 4) being a neocon. That person, who spent several hours online searching for proof, spread these accusations, and you gave credence to it by also spreading it. When exposed as lies, can you then simple say, after trying to repeatedly destroy a person's reputation.
And you still continue, you are shameless. Gordon Cook is the author of absolutely stellar reports on p2p infrastructures, which can be verified and read at the Gordon Cook report. His policy paper, which is excellent and breaks a lot of new ground, is also available online. I copy Gordon so he can provide the URL's.
We have to reiterate the case of what happened to Gordon Cook as it was exemplary. Like many other authors, Gordon Cook was promited $4,000 for a paper. This promise was then unilaterally changed to $3,500 on condition that he would attend the summit. Since Gordon had undergone a absolutely invasive and painful spinal operation, and needed a series of eye interventions to boot. I was physically present twice when the promise was made to him to facilitate the trip through a business class trip. Not once, but twice. That promise was then also broken. And no, the maximum was not done to make it possible. As has been already admitted, it was a conscious and political decision not to do it, not a force majeure.
Now, f..ups are always possible. But you know it is a pattern. Every person who was asked to leave the project has been systematically maligned. I'll review the list again, BH, an excellent journalist and communicator, was accused of being on the payroll of US intelligence for publishing a critical article; AD, was being branded as 'a spy of Senescyt' and was threatened with physical intimidation; a research team member was threatened with dismissal for expressing critique on the mailing list. In recent days, you have been publicly trashing both the work of the research team and the communication team. It's a paranoid style of politics and character assasination that has no place in an open culture. If you can't avoid trashing people, have the wisdom to do it indoors, but don't publish and spread unfounded and unproven accusations via the network.
I want to avoid speaking about this mess, it's not very interesting, unless as a generic lesson for the future: don't let hierarchies dominate participatory projects.
Bernardo, I invite to challenge my political conclusions from now on, and I will avoid publishing the facts of my experience. You have failed to intimidate me in my right to politically evaluate flok, move on.
Take a hint from Daniel's approach in this controversy.
Michel
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Bernardo Gutiérrez <[email protected]> wrote: Hello you all
I think there are several misunderstandings and some unfair accusation. Try to be polity and to explain the problems:
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-...
It is complitily false. Never tried .In fact, it is the first time that I know that you published in the blog. Our discussion started when I told you that it was not propor to share in FACEBOOK (it is quite clear in all of our mails), now, those critics to FLOK process, right now. Having had several problems, It is an important moment to know what it is going to happen. May it does not help. I valu your version, but desagree in several points. Correa (the president) invited the guest of the FLOK to the Cambio de Guardia. He spoke about FLOK in Sabatina. We were working with high level politicians, as Cancilleria (minister Patiño), Senplades and even people from presidency. So, I think it was not such an unknow project. In fact, it became, during and after the Summit a quite important project for the Whole Ecuatorian Goverment
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.
I think it is good, Michel, And you are an importante person in the process.
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.
Another big misanderstanding. I think it horrible to publish any private conversation. In fact, I am super critic with private conversation going public. I was joking and exagerating the fact that Gordon Cook violated privacy and made a report with that. Publishing in networks some things is not good. So, If you understand that, I am sorry. We have more people in that conversation, that probably did not undestand that.
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".
That is a private mail. PRIVATE CONVERSATION, Michel. But, well, I think that is my personal opinion, yes. I don´t need to hide it.
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.
That is not true. I asked you how did you make the list of p2p projects of the year. Almost all the node sof Brazil P2P branch were disgusted with that, none was consulted. . At the end, we knew it was more your list than P2p List. I am specially critic with FdO, but it is on you the aproach
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 ...
You are again publishing private conversations. With Gordon Cook we argued in the list, that is true. Not the rest. So I will deny that, because is quite far from reality. You also make big critics to many people (some of this list) in our conversations But I think it is not proper to divulgate here, Michel. Private conversation (me and you ) is private.
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.
I feel sorry, Michel. But Gordon Cook has been publishing with Copy Right ever. He has a lot of problems, health, as well. The problem began when he told FLOk that he could only travel in business, because of his health problems. The management team tryed, but could no be that. The quality of the drafts sent was not good. Neither shape of paper neither quality. You did a nice job editing the second one amd transforming it into a goog paper. But for many reason, it was impossible to get the business ticket. And he started a war. The burocracy was terrible and he could not be paid (just coming to Ecuador). Believe that has nothing to do with me. After the dirty war he began (violating privacy and laws), he deserve to not be paid, in my opinion.
"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. "
I am not trying to suppress anything, Michel! I just told you that it was not propor to publish now in Facebook!!! in the moment of the reshaping of the project. I feel really sorry of your accusation about communication strategy. A Twitter Storm is a 1% of what we did. We created a strong participatory process, wiht personal meetings, seminars, speeches. We did wordk shop in 24 cities, with 500 local leaders (who were in the summit). we published more than 100 post un few months, we did many hang outs (many with researchers), p2pbeer. We worked with Cancilleria (international affair minister), with their Ecuela Revolución, people from 40 countries. We made meeting in squatters (with Restakis, researcher), we made cultural collaborative mappings, Mumble meetings etc etc. We presented in MAdrid, in the arab-latin american summit, in Media Lab Prado. All of that is communication. Communication is conection, and that is what happened. A twitter storm never work if there is no network. And we got it, with a lot of difficulties. At the begining it was a top down project. It became more organic. So, It is not a twitter storm, Michel.
"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"
Your critics are necessary. In fact, I respect them. But I think that you do them in the wrong places (Facebook, this list, for example). The last Facebook schandal, some months ago, when they ought some money, was proper and worked. Not this one.
"Stalinistic tactics have no place in an open p2p culture".
It is commom sense, Michel. this mail of you, for examplo, is out of place in this moment
"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".
Sorry, but I think this is pollution. No one accusated you in any list. I never would do it.
It is me who think you should reconsider your position. We all have (researchers, management team, communication team) done an interesting and innovative worlk, begining from you and ending with the secretary. It would be a pitty to espoil that
Best Bernardo
-- 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
Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
_______________________________________________ Wiki: http://p2pfoundation.net/Spanish_P2P_WikiSprint Lista https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-lang-es
-- www.futuramedia.net www.codigo-abierto.cc @bernardosampa (twitter) / @futura_media São Paulo +55 11 43044380 (fijo) +55 11 84881620 (celular)
_______________________________________________ Wiki: http://p2pfoundation.net/Spanish_P2P_WikiSprint Lista https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-lang-es
-- 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
Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
ok, Gordon, we are going to try to avoid the understandable hostility here f, and I realize you are still seething for what happened to you. I have suggested to Bernardo to apologize for the falsehoods he spread , but let's leave it at that here and try to have a civilized debate based on the facts. Bernardo is adult enough to face his conscience. I have apologized many times to you so don't need to redo it here I hope <g>. For your info, Bernardo was co-responsible for communication and did an excellent job on that front. He is spanish but lives in Brazil and well-known for his skills in guerilla communication. On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Gordon Cook <[email protected]> wrote:
Here is the requested url michel
While Michel is preparing his report, anyone wishing to read mine may hit this URL
http://www.cookreport.com/pdfs/July-augCRecuadorfinal.pdf
hidden i.e. not advertised on my web site.
I am curious as to where Bernardo came from? His was the outside media company hired by Daniel? You will see in the about my evidence of his changing the rules at the last hour for the summit thunderclap. Quite funny.
On Jul 5, 2014, at 10:53 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm really sorry Bernardo, but your threat has been public and can be verified; second, if you publicly and privately threaten me, I don't think you have any moral authority to criticise that I make these threats public. I will send the URL of your facebook threat here a bit later. You will note that this facebook account with a few thousand followers, and with several dozen exclusively positive evaluations of my relatively positive evaluation of the flok process, none of them even 'liked' the threat. It was absolutely out of place, while a political discussion of flok is entirely in place. So here is the warning: please respond to political analysis by counter-analysis. But if you respond to analysis by threats and character assasination, you will find me on your way.
To deny that you did it won't work, and neither will be the argument that it was all meant of a joke. I know you are following a precedent. Somebody we both know accused Gordon Cook, of 1) not existing 2) being a front of Robert Steele 3) being a CIA agent 4) being an adolescent ranter 4) being a neocon. That person, who spent several hours online searching for proof, spread these accusations, and you gave credence to it by also spreading it. When exposed as lies, can you then simple say, after trying to repeatedly destroy a person's reputation.
And you still continue, you are shameless. Gordon Cook is the author of absolutely stellar reports on p2p infrastructures, which can be verified and read at the Gordon Cook report. His policy paper, which is excellent and breaks a lot of new ground, is also available online. I copy Gordon so he can provide the URL's.
We have to reiterate the case of what happened to Gordon Cook as it was exemplary. Like many other authors, Gordon Cook was promited $4,000 for a paper. This promise was then unilaterally changed to $3,500 on condition that he would attend the summit. Since Gordon had undergone a absolutely invasive and painful spinal operation, and needed a series of eye interventions to boot. I was physically present twice when the promise was made to him to facilitate the trip through a business class trip. Not once, but twice. That promise was then also broken. And no, the maximum was not done to make it possible. As has been already admitted, it was a conscious and political decision not to do it, not a force majeure.
Now, f..ups are always possible. But you know it is a pattern. Every person who was asked to leave the project has been systematically maligned. I'll review the list again, BH, an excellent journalist and communicator, was accused of being on the payroll of US intelligence for publishing a critical article; AD, was being branded as 'a spy of Senescyt' and was threatened with physical intimidation; a research team member was threatened with dismissal for expressing critique on the mailing list. In recent days, you have been publicly trashing both the work of the research team and the communication team. It's a paranoid style of politics and character assasination that has no place in an open culture. If you can't avoid trashing people, have the wisdom to do it indoors, but don't publish and spread unfounded and unproven accusations via the network.
I want to avoid speaking about this mess, it's not very interesting, unless as a generic lesson for the future: don't let hierarchies dominate participatory projects.
Bernardo, I invite to challenge my political conclusions from now on, and I will avoid publishing the facts of my experience. You have failed to intimidate me in my right to politically evaluate flok, move on.
Take a hint from Daniel's approach in this controversy.
Michel
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Bernardo Gutiérrez < [email protected]> wrote:
Hello you all
I think there are several misunderstandings and some unfair accusation. Try to be polity and to explain the problems:
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-...
It is complitily false. Never tried .In fact, it is the first time that I know that you published in the blog. Our discussion started when I told you that it was not propor to share in FACEBOOK (it is quite clear in all of our mails), now, those critics to FLOK process, right now. Having had several problems, It is an important moment to know what it is going to happen. May it does not help. I valu your version, but desagree in several points. Correa (the president) invited the guest of the FLOK to the Cambio de Guardia. He spoke about FLOK in Sabatina. We were working with high level politicians, as Cancilleria (minister Patiño), Senplades and even people from presidency. So, I think it was not such an unknow project. In fact, it became, during and after the Summit a quite important project for the Whole Ecuatorian Goverment
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.
I think it is good, Michel, And you are an importante person in the process.
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.
Another big misanderstanding. I think it horrible to publish any private conversation. In fact, I am super critic with private conversation going public. I was joking and exagerating the fact that Gordon Cook violated privacy and made a report with that. Publishing in networks some things is not good. So, If you understand that, I am sorry. We have more people in that conversation, that probably did not undestand that.
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".
That is a private mail. PRIVATE CONVERSATION, Michel. But, well, I think that is my personal opinion, yes. I don´t need to hide it.
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.
That is not true. I asked you how did you make the list of p2p projects of the year. Almost all the node sof Brazil P2P branch were disgusted with that, none was consulted. . At the end, we knew it was more your list than P2p List. I am specially critic with FdO, but it is on you the aproach
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 ...
You are again publishing private conversations. With Gordon Cook we argued in the list, that is true. Not the rest. So I will deny that, because is quite far from reality. You also make big critics to many people (some of this list) in our conversations But I think it is not proper to divulgate here, Michel. Private conversation (me and you ) is private.
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.
I feel sorry, Michel. But Gordon Cook has been publishing with Copy Right ever. He has a lot of problems, health, as well. The problem began when he told FLOk that he could only travel in business, because of his health problems. The management team tryed, but could no be that. The quality of the drafts sent was not good. Neither shape of paper neither quality. You did a nice job editing the second one amd transforming it into a goog paper. But for many reason, it was impossible to get the business ticket. And he started a war. The burocracy was terrible and he could not be paid (just coming to Ecuador). Believe that has nothing to do with me. After the dirty war he began (violating privacy and laws), he deserve to not be paid, in my opinion.
"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. "
I am not trying to suppress anything, Michel! I just told you that it was not propor to publish now in Facebook!!! in the moment of the reshaping of the project. I feel really sorry of your accusation about communication strategy. A Twitter Storm is a 1% of what we did. We created a strong participatory process, wiht personal meetings, seminars, speeches. We did wordk shop in 24 cities, with 500 local leaders (who were in the summit). we published more than 100 post un few months, we did many hang outs (many with researchers), p2pbeer. We worked with Cancilleria (international affair minister), with their Ecuela Revolución, people from 40 countries. We made meeting in squatters (with Restakis, researcher), we made cultural collaborative mappings, Mumble meetings etc etc. We presented in MAdrid, in the arab-latin american summit, in Media Lab Prado. All of that is communication. Communication is conection, and that is what happened. A twitter storm never work if there is no network. And we got it, with a lot of difficulties. At the begining it was a top down project. It became more organic. So, It is not a twitter storm, Michel.
"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"
Your critics are necessary. In fact, I respect them. But I think that you do them in the wrong places (Facebook, this list, for example). The last Facebook schandal, some months ago, when they ought some money, was proper and worked. Not this one.
"Stalinistic tactics have no place in an open p2p culture".
It is commom sense, Michel. this mail of you, for examplo, is out of place in this moment
"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".
Sorry, but I think this is pollution. No one accusated you in any list. I never would do it.
It is me who think you should reconsider your position. We all have (researchers, management team, communication team) done an interesting and innovative worlk, begining from you and ending with the secretary. It would be a pitty to espoil that
Best Bernardo
-- *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
Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
_______________________________________________ Wiki: http://p2pfoundation.net/Spanish_P2P_WikiSprint Lista https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-lang-es
-- www.futuramedia.net www.codigo-abierto.cc @bernardosampa (twitter) / @futura_media São Paulo +55 11 43044380 (fijo) +55 11 84881620 (celular)
_______________________________________________ Wiki: http://p2pfoundation.net/Spanish_P2P_WikiSprint Lista https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-lang-es
-- *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/
-- *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/
participants (2)
-
Gordon Cook -
Michel Bauwens