A parting of ways with Bernardo Gutierrez
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/
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)
Hola! Me apena ver que a veces todas (incluso personas muy inteligentes) pierden o perdemos la perspectiva sobre discusiones/estrategia, entrando en análisis de pobre calidad más guiados por sentimientos o pesimismo que sobre posibilidades, personalizando y en negativo frente a la linea más interesante de analizar en colectivo y pensar en vías de superación, en acciones que abran el escenario y permitan seguir avanzando con transformaciones que son un sueño. Por supuesto, toda crítica o análisis es bienvenido, yo al menos me permito descartar los que no considero relevantes, por falta de tiempo, pero tambien ya sea en algunos casos por superficiales o por no incidir en construcción colectiva. Quizás lo hago por que es obvio que no existe un proceso de medio o gran tamaño sin fallos, o porque los personalismos o fallos humanos en una acción colectiva me resultan irrelevantes, prefiero centrarme más en las posibilidades que se abren. Desde ahí, el post de Michel es comprensible, tras un proceso de trabajo muy complejo en muy poco tiempo como ha sido FLOK me parece más un post de desahogo de estres que cualquier tipo de análisis meditado, creo que leyéndolo se ve claro, y que no hay que darle más transcendencia que esa. Obviamente no es su mejor contribución, pero tampoco tiene porqué serlo, Michel puede y debe escribir lo que quiera. A Michel y a Bernardo hay que darles las gracias por lo que han hecho, incluso aunque ellos o yo nos hayamos equivocado en cosas (imposible no hacerlo en un reto de 8 meses, debatiendo con más de 1500 personas, hablando con más de 45 instituciones y decenas de colectivos y decenas de expertos) han contribuido con sus aportes (al igual que las otras 25-30 personas que también han colaborado directamente, ni más ni menos) a que ahora mismo un montón de movimientos sociales y académicos estén debatiendo con las instituciones cómo aplicar las políticas públicas propuestas que hemos construido de forma colectiva. Y mientras esa multitud se organiza, debate y construye, algunas miran nombres y apellidos y se enredan en ver una "telenovela" muy personal; la pena es que mientras lo hacen o lo hacemos se pierden o nos perdemos algo increíble, mucho más grande que cualquier nombre y apellido, se pierden que lo que queríamos que sucediera está sucediendo, las propuestas de políticas públicas caminan hacia su implementación (no todas serán posibles, que sean muchas dependerá de nuestra inteligencia colectiva) en instituciones clave. Los proyectos pilotos van todavía un poco más atrás y hay que empujarlos, esas serán las prioridades de los colectivos y expertos Ecuatorianos que la semana que viene comienzan a trabajar el plan de implementación, un lujo poder verlo :) Un abrazo, seguimos con temas más interesantes. P.D: Ahora mismo vivo con 2 compañeros del equipo de investigación de FLOK, y es un lujo pensar y analizar con ellos, nuestras emocionantes discusiones van algo más allá de los clásicos atrasos de cualquier administración pública en realizar pagos, andan apasionados por empujar los proyectos pilotos que discuten con muchos compis ecuatorianos, ojalá podemos seguir ayudándoles con eso. El 05/07/14 09:20, Bernardo Gutiérrez escribió:
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
I welcome attempts to keep the discussion on the high ground of political lessons. But since this is a spanish list and my spanish skills are insufficient, I am only sending this reply, which is part of the discussion on the english p2p list. It deals with the key issue of the partner state. <<Thanks for the first spate of reactions: orsan, willi, Kevin First thing, yes Orsan, the hard politics of p2p transition in the existing context of capital-state-polity-policy-funding-culture.. that is the key issue we have to deal with, and I hope to add my own efforts to this, as soon as my homecoming fever is over .. Willi and Kevin, you both pose the specific problem of the Partner State. I think there are really big misunderstandings if the relative failure of Ecuador is interpreted to mean that it means the failure of the Partner State. The Ecuadorian state is not a partner state, it's a market state, though different from the neoliberal one. I interpret as a state that wants to rebalance the market state towards local sovereignity and the local bourgeoisie. It represented a different type of class alliance that wanted to strengthen the local state to tame international capital for its own ends. After a more radical phase after 2007, it is now slowly retreating and seeking a new accomodation with Empire. The results are a mixed bag of very strong social justice results, but a disempowering of civil society as a collective force. It is remarkable that after meeting more than 70 different civic groups, I could not find a single one that supported the government, and even the ones that one did, are now alienated from it. The Ecuadorian state is technocratic, 'knows best' and dislikes participation. They dislike indepedent civic groups as much as, if not more, than neoliberal capital. So-called neosocialism is a statist approach to make Ecuador fit for a socially better kind of capitalism. It's mostly better than what existed before (though quite a few civic groups disagree and say they have less freedom now), but it's neither socialism nor p2p nor participatory. The second important point is that while we can never idealize the state, the big and central question remains: 1) is it possible to imagine a class society without a state ? My answer is no, as who would stop the homeless of going into empty houses, or elite paramilitaries to take away the land of the farmers ... While failed states are possible, they are generally worse. I am not aware of big migrations to Somalia, nor of colombian urban dwellers to the lands of the paramilitaries, but am only aware of the opposite. People able to vote with their feet, flee stateless regions 2) is it possible to imagine abolishing class society by fiat. My answer is no. Therefore in any transition period, there will be a state to defend the mass of the people and their democracy against attempts at restoration. Thus the state is simply unavoidable. So the question becomes, what kind of state. My answer is the partner state, a state where the people themselves are the state, and the historical precedents are of course the greek polis and the free medieval city states described by the anarchist Kropotkin. If you agree, I don't care what other name you use for it, that is the partner state we are talking about, nothing else can be it. The third question is: what do we do in the meantime. My answer is 1) build autonomous social organisation 2) engage with the state to fight bad legislation and promote good legislation 3) create prefigurative partner state policies where the people's forces have majorities. So back the question: does the relative failure of flok prove anything about the failure of the partner state concept ? My answer is: the opposite. Ecuador shows that anything but a partner state approach is relatively doomed. It wasn't a partner state, we thought a prefigurative experiment was possible, and it wasn't. But micro-experiments, like in Sigchos, are still possible, and worth fighting for. On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Daniel <[email protected]> wrote:
Hola!
Me apena ver que a veces todas (incluso personas muy inteligentes) pierden o perdemos la perspectiva sobre discusiones/estrategia, entrando en análisis de pobre calidad más guiados por sentimientos o pesimismo que sobre posibilidades, personalizando y en negativo frente a la linea más interesante de analizar en colectivo y pensar en vías de superación, en acciones que abran el escenario y permitan seguir avanzando con transformaciones que son un sueño.
Por supuesto, toda crítica o análisis es bienvenido, yo al menos me permito descartar los que no considero relevantes, por falta de tiempo, pero tambien ya sea en algunos casos por superficiales o por no incidir en construcción colectiva.
Quizás lo hago por que es obvio que no existe un proceso de medio o gran tamaño sin fallos, o porque los personalismos o fallos humanos en una acción colectiva me resultan irrelevantes, prefiero centrarme más en las posibilidades que se abren.
Desde ahí, el post de Michel es comprensible, tras un proceso de trabajo muy complejo en muy poco tiempo como ha sido FLOK me parece más un post de desahogo de estres que cualquier tipo de análisis meditado, creo que leyéndolo se ve claro, y que no hay que darle más transcendencia que esa. Obviamente no es su mejor contribución, pero tampoco tiene porqué serlo, Michel puede y debe escribir lo que quiera.
A Michel y a Bernardo hay que darles las gracias por lo que han hecho, incluso aunque ellos o yo nos hayamos equivocado en cosas (imposible no hacerlo en un reto de 8 meses, debatiendo con más de 1500 personas, hablando con más de 45 instituciones y decenas de colectivos y decenas de expertos) han contribuido con sus aportes (al igual que las otras 25-30 personas que también han colaborado directamente, ni más ni menos) a que ahora mismo un montón de movimientos sociales y académicos estén debatiendo con las instituciones cómo aplicar las políticas públicas propuestas que hemos construido de forma colectiva.
Y mientras esa multitud se organiza, debate y construye, algunas miran nombres y apellidos y se enredan en ver una "telenovela" muy personal; la pena es que mientras lo hacen o lo hacemos se pierden o nos perdemos algo increíble, mucho más grande que cualquier nombre y apellido, se pierden que lo que queríamos que sucediera está sucediendo, las propuestas de políticas públicas caminan hacia su implementación (no todas serán posibles, que sean muchas dependerá de nuestra inteligencia colectiva) en instituciones clave. Los proyectos pilotos van todavía un poco más atrás y hay que empujarlos, esas serán las prioridades de los colectivos y expertos Ecuatorianos que la semana que viene comienzan a trabajar el plan de implementación, un lujo poder verlo :)
Un abrazo, seguimos con temas más interesantes.
P.D: Ahora mismo vivo con 2 compañeros del equipo de investigación de FLOK, y es un lujo pensar y analizar con ellos, nuestras emocionantes discusiones van algo más allá de los clásicos atrasos de cualquier administración pública en realizar pagos, andan apasionados por empujar los proyectos pilotos que discuten con muchos compis ecuatorianos, ojalá podemos seguir ayudándoles con eso.
El 05/07/14 09:20, Bernardo Gutiérrez escribió:
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
_______________________________________________ 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/
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/
Hello you all (perdón por el inglés para la lista en español). Nice to see that hostility is going down, Michel. As you know, the whole process and futures fork of FLOK are quite important. Having commited all the parts mistakes and havind a such a difficult scenarium (it is politic!), it would be childish to keep on fighting among us. I think that the 1%, the elite, is quite united, and that they will be enyoing this. But, anyway, the discussion, being constructive is always good. You always speak about Gordon Cook, Michel. Among all the things you say..., by my side side there are just two things, that by, the way I just wrote in a mail feed (just one) in the most intense moment of the fight (before the summit) and never insisted in mailing lists, networks etc Even feeling that Cook Report is not fair and that he got private information from private communication, I did not comment it anywhere, never. I said that Gordon published copyright his whole life, until Cook Report. And that is ture. I said, in that moment, that 'defending a neocon' that uses NSA tactics (violating privacy) was not good idea. Reading some of his works, may be yes, he is not the classeical neocon, even more progressive than I thougt, havind some clear liberal ideas, that I respect, of course. So, I can beg your pardon Gordon, for saying that defending a neocon is not a good idea. And feel quite happy that your are not and that I am able to recognize mistakes! But what we need is more version, stories about the FLOK not just yours, Michel. I understand that your not so optimistic now and that you felt dissapointed by some things. But there are such fantastic things that happened and that are still happening around the process, that it would be nice to light the positive things. Above, you can see a mail to a Spanish list from Daniel Vàzquez, director of the FLOK. Michel was in charge of the research that was part of a quite bigger process. I see, with some perspective, see some fantastic points of FLOK process: *-FLOK as Method.* A new method for connecting academy with civil society, for connecting academy to politics, for connecting networks and movements to public policy. We have to remember that FLOK started as a quite top down project, more Goverment than civil society. And that now is completly different . The Summit was the prove that so many movements, networks, local leaders, indigenous people, hackers, worked hand by hand with politicians from local, regional and State. *-FLOK as a prototype*. It was fantastic: all the papers of the research were considered drafts. A source code improved by collective intelligence. it is not easy for researchers to acknowledge that. And we have to flatter all of them. It was exciting to see George Dafermos, Restakis and Michel Bauwes seated with local people, working in this new academic prototype, real time public policy method. Just as an academic prototype it is quite an innovation. Here the PAD we created in Communication Team for openning the research: http://floksociety.org/pad/p/comunicainvestiga Even having done just a part, the work made, leaded by Michel, the one who used more networked methods in the research, was amazing. So, FLOK is an academic new sorce font remixing method. -*Extitutions: new institucionality.* Some how, FLOK became a new type of institution, and in-out institution, a liquid one, not exactly State not exactly civil society, with some independet corners, commosn oriented, working inside the machine to create public policy. I like very much the concept of Extitución (spanish link), former institution http://viveroiniciativasciudadanas.net/2012/07/05/extitucion-netizens-y-mas/ For all of this, It would be nice to get more versions of FLOK. Now, there are 14 ecuatorian leaders working with the last part of this first era of FLOK and thinking how to implement de pilot projects. For me, It would complete this source font of the research with real projects, real time prorotypes. And would be wonderfull. Let´s ask them! About the Partner State, Michel. I think that may be Ecuador is not prepared . I am sure that your commitment will develop this in other country in the next years. In my opinion, in Ecuador, the prototyping method of public policy has more chances of being real than the Partner State. Thanks for flattering now the communication strategy, at least the guerrilla part. But in my 20 years in communication and have done (and do) many different things beyond guerrilla. From El Pais to Squire, from National Geographic to La Repubblica, from CLarin to Al Jazzera, I have publish (still do ) in some of the most important newspapers and magazines of the world. In the last years, my commitment with copylef is so big that I just write in copyleft media (many, just look for my name in the web). I research in academy (in the group of Manuel Castells), do consultant work for the commons, publish books (the last, collective, with Michael Hardt and Toni Negri) and I am jury of differente prizes, now ofr Gabriel García Márquez Journalims Prize (the most important in Latin America), in Technology field. So, I have some differente communicational aproches to share. I did share them in FLOK process. And, being honest, I think it worked in the creation of participation. Best (above the mail of FLOK´s Director) Bernardo Daniel 13:18 (hace 23 horas) para p2p-lang-es Hola! Me apena ver que a veces todas (incluso personas muy inteligentes) pierden o perdemos la perspectiva sobre discusiones/estrategia, entrando en análisis de pobre calidad más guiados por sentimientos o pesimismo que sobre posibilidades, personalizando y en negativo frente a la linea más interesante de analizar en colectivo y pensar en vías de superación, en acciones que abran el escenario y permitan seguir avanzando con transformaciones que son un sueño. Por supuesto, toda crítica o análisis es bienvenido, yo al menos me permito descartar los que no considero relevantes, por falta de tiempo, pero tambien ya sea en algunos casos por superficiales o por no incidir en construcción colectiva. Quizás lo hago por que es obvio que no existe un proceso de medio o gran tamaño sin fallos, o porque los personalismos o fallos humanos en una acción colectiva me resultan irrelevantes, prefiero centrarme más en las posibilidades que se abren. Desde ahí, el post de Michel es comprensible, tras un proceso de trabajo muy complejo en muy poco tiempo como ha sido FLOK me parece más un post de desahogo de estres que cualquier tipo de análisis meditado, creo que leyéndolo se ve claro, y que no hay que darle más transcendencia que esa. Obviamente no es su mejor contribución, pero tampoco tiene porqué serlo, Michel puede y debe escribir lo que quiera. A Michel y a Bernardo hay que darles las gracias por lo que han hecho, incluso aunque ellos o yo nos hayamos equivocado en cosas (imposible no hacerlo en un reto de 8 meses, debatiendo con más de 1500 personas, hablando con más de 45 instituciones y decenas de colectivos y decenas de expertos) han contribuido con sus aportes (al igual que las otras 25-30 personas que también han colaborado directamente, ni más ni menos) a que ahora mismo un montón de movimientos sociales y académicos estén debatiendo con las instituciones cómo aplicar las políticas públicas propuestas que hemos construido de forma colectiva. Y mientras esa multitud se organiza, debate y construye, algunas miran nombres y apellidos y se enredan en ver una "telenovela" muy personal; la pena es que mientras lo hacen o lo hacemos se pierden o nos perdemos algo increíble, mucho más grande que cualquier nombre y apellido, se pierden que lo que queríamos que sucediera está sucediendo, las propuestas de políticas públicas caminan hacia su implementación (no todas serán posibles, que sean muchas dependerá de nuestra inteligencia colectiva) en instituciones clave. Los proyectos pilotos van todavía un poco más atrás y hay que empujarlos, esas serán las prioridades de los colectivos y expertos Ecuatorianos que la semana que viene comienzan a trabajar el plan de implementación, un lujo poder verlo :) Un abrazo, seguimos con temas más interesantes. P.D: Ahora mismo vivo con 2 compañeros del equipo de investigación de FLOK, y es un lujo pensar y analizar con ellos, nuestras emocionantes discusiones van algo más allá de los clásicos atrasos de cualquier administración pública en realizar pagos, andan apasionados por empujar los proyectos pilotos que discuten con muchos compis ecuatorianos, ojalá podemos seguir ayudándoles con eso 2014-07-06 0:57 GMT-03:00 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>:
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/
_______________________________________________ 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)
El 06/07/14 11:06, Bernardo Gutiérrez escribió:
Hello you all (perdón por el inglés para la lista en español).
Sugiero que escribas a la lista en inglés. En esa lista Gordon se puede defender de tus acusaciones. No es correcto hablar de alguien cuando no puede defenderse. Nota: Me extraña que seas el moderador de esta lista. Espero que la política de esta lista no sea la de la censura como fue en la de FLOK. -- Saludos libres, Quiliro Ordóñez 600 8579
On 07/07/14 01:24, Quiliro Ordóñez Baca wrote:
El 06/07/14 11:06, Bernardo Gutiérrez escribió:
Hello you all (perdón por el inglés para la lista en español).
Sugiero que escribas a la lista en inglés. En esa lista Gordon se puede defender de tus acusaciones. No es correcto hablar de alguien cuando no puede defenderse.
Nota: Me extraña que seas el moderador de esta lista. Espero que la política de esta lista no sea la de la censura como fue en la de FLOK.
Quiliro no me parece nada honesto desacreditar a FLOK de esta manera. La decisión de moderar tus mensajes fue el resultado de una discusión en la lista, en la que se votó tu moderación con 9 votos y muchos argumentos a favor la moderación y 2 votos en contra, de los cuales uno era el tuyo, y el otro de una persona que apenas había participado en la lista y que se limitó a proponer que se hiciera una reunión presencial para postponer tu moderación (algo inviable dada la agenda de las personas de aquella lista y las tareas urgente a realizar para el proyecto). Llamar a una lista "la lista de la censura" porque se haya tomado la molestia de debatir durante 72 horas tu moderación (que no es ni bloqueo ni expulsión), haciendo el proceso democrático, me parece faltar a la verdad de una forma interesada y tendenciosa. saludos, xabier -- wget -O - http://sindominio.net/~xabier/xabier.gpg.asc | gpg --import xabier BARANDIARAN | http://www.barandiaran.net "There is no need for fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons" DELEUZE
A pesar de los calificativos que se me ha hecho sin pruebas, contesto abajo para aclarar mis afirmaciones. El 07/07/14 02:11, xabier escribió:
On 07/07/14 01:24, Quiliro Ordóñez Baca wrote:
El 06/07/14 11:06, Bernardo Gutiérrez escribió:
Hello you all (perdón por el inglés para la lista en español). Sugiero que escribas a la lista en inglés. En esa lista Gordon se puede defender de tus acusaciones. No es correcto hablar de alguien cuando no puede defenderse.
Nota: Me extraña que seas el moderador de esta lista. Espero que la política de esta lista no sea la de la censura como fue en la de FLOK. Quiliro no me parece nada honesto desacreditar a FLOK de esta manera.
No la he desacreditado yo. Se lo ha hecho a sí misma por las acciones de su administración. Sin embargo, no has contestado la pregunta de si la política de censura va a ser la misma que en FLOK.
La decisión de moderar tus mensajes fue el resultado de una discusión en la lista, en la que se votó tu moderación con 9 votos y muchos argumentos a favor la moderación y 2 votos en contra, de los cuales uno era el tuyo, y el otro de una persona que apenas había participado en la lista y que se limitó a proponer que se hiciera una reunión presencial para postponer tu moderación (algo inviable dada la agenda de las personas de aquella lista y las tareas urgente a realizar para el proyecto). Llamar a una lista "la lista de la censura" porque se haya tomado la molestia de debatir durante 72 horas tu moderación (que no es ni bloqueo ni expulsión), haciendo el proceso democrático, me parece faltar a la verdad de una forma interesada y tendenciosa.
Fui en primera instancia censurado (impedido de expresarme libremente en la lista) en primera instancia y luego expulsado como les sucedió a otras personas más. Puedo probar al menos un caso más. Puedo encontrar que muchos de los votos para censurarme vinieron desde empleados de FLOK. Sin embargo, la censura por medio de una democracia sigue siendo censura. Entonces, decir que la moderación en una lista de correo por parte de la administración no es censura no justifica el hacerla. Este tipo de estrategias totalitarias en una comunidad p2p o "sumak kawsay" no veo cómo pueden ser aceptadas. Para más referencias, cito el asunto de este hilo: "A parting of ways with Bernardo Gutierrez" que quiere decir "Una división de caminos con Bernardo Gutierrez". Michel Bauwens alude a que aunque hay bastante molestia con el proceder de BG (lo cual explica en su primer correo de este hilo), acepta a la vez que participe en esta lista sin censuras y busca maneras de colaboración mutua. -- Saludos libres, Quiliro Ordóñez 600 8579
Respondo entre líneas. Y pido disculpas por adelantado a la lista por este hilo. Este será mi último mensaje de respuesta a Quiliro en relación a este tema. On 07/07/14 17:34, Quiliro Ordóñez Baca wrote:
El 07/07/14 02:11, xabier escribió:
On 07/07/14 01:24, Quiliro Ordóñez Baca wrote:
El 06/07/14 11:06, Bernardo Gutiérrez escribió:
Hello you all (perdón por el inglés para la lista en español). Sugiero que escribas a la lista en inglés. En esa lista Gordon se puede defender de tus acusaciones. No es correcto hablar de alguien cuando no puede defenderse.
Nota: Me extraña que seas el moderador de esta lista. Espero que la política de esta lista no sea la de la censura como fue en la de FLOK. Quiliro no me parece nada honesto desacreditar a FLOK de esta manera.
No la he desacreditado yo. Se lo ha hecho a sí misma por las acciones de su administración.
En absoluto. Eres tú el que la desacredita y el que introduce aquí a FLOK sin que venga a cuento, mostrándote como víctima. "La política", como dices, de la lista de FLOK, no ha sido la de la censura sino la de evitar, democrática y deliberativamente, que un Troll sabotee los procesos comunitarios.
Sin embargo, no has contestado la pregunta de si la política de censura va a ser la misma que en FLOK.
Aquí sigues enturbiando más aún el asunto. Ahora dices que no he contestado a la pregunta... pero si acabo de entrar a esta lista por primera vez en mi vida hace apenas unas horas... ¿cómo voy a responderte a esta pregunta Quiliro? Yo no soy el administrador de esta lista...
La decisión de moderar tus mensajes fue el resultado de una discusión en la lista, en la que se votó tu moderación con 9 votos y muchos argumentos a favor la moderación y 2 votos en contra, de los cuales uno era el tuyo, y el otro de una persona que apenas había participado en la lista y que se limitó a proponer que se hiciera una reunión presencial para postponer tu moderación (algo inviable dada la agenda de las personas de aquella lista y las tareas urgente a realizar para el proyecto). Llamar a una lista "la lista de la censura" porque se haya tomado la molestia de debatir durante 72 horas tu moderación (que no es ni bloqueo ni expulsión), haciendo el proceso democrático, me parece faltar a la verdad de una forma interesada y tendenciosa.
Fui en primera instancia censurado (impedido de expresarme libremente en la lista) en primera instancia y luego expulsado como les sucedió a otras personas más. Puedo probar al menos un caso más.
En efecto, se trata de Willi. Esto es lo que alguien con experiencia me dijo de Willi "he is systematically making disinformation statements and racialist statements, and I was warned by several global commoners that he was a troll with a systematic history of creating trouble in mailing lists." Aquí dejo una perla que soltó y provocó la expulsión inmediata, para que juzgue la gente de esta lista: "Michel Bauwens is acting as an apostle of the Austrian School of economics. Everything has to be a commodity. The value comes on the market in exchange. Freedom is defined as the freedom of capital. Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich August von Hayek to Milton Friedman and many others are their theorists."
Puedo encontrar que muchos de los votos para censurarme vinieron desde empleados de FLOK.
Alguien que te lea podría pensar que hubo gente "obligada" a votar en tu contra porque su salario corría peligro, porque su jefe le obligaba. "Curiosamente" te olvidas de matizar que 6 de los 9 votos fueron de personas que NO son empleados de FLOK (frente a un sólo voto a tu favor, que ni siquiera te defendía). De los tres restantes uno es el director de FLOK (su suelto no corre peligro por este hecho, aunque sí por tus troleos) los otros dos no dependen económicamente de FLOK, técnicamente ni siquiera son empleados de FLOK.
Sin embargo, la censura por medio de una democracia sigue siendo censura. Entonces, decir que la moderación en una lista de correo por parte de la administración no es censura no justifica el hacerla.
Primero: nadie te impide expresarte libremente en cualquier lugar. De hecho me siguen llegando mensajes tuyos insistiendo sobre tus obsesiones. Nadie te ha cortado internet ni te ha metido a la cárcel por expresar algo ni te ha amenazado. La gente que ha sufrido censura sabe lo que es. Que se te modere en una lista de correo, después de dedicarle 72 horas y docenas de mensajes al asunto para tomar una decisión justa y democrática, no es censura, es simplemente un intento desesperado de evitar que un troll dinamite el trabajo de una comunidad. Aquí parece que vas a volver a intentarlo :(
Este tipo de estrategias totalitarias en una comunidad p2p o
Quiliro en qué estamos? o es totalitaria o es democrática? Sigues intoxicando esta lista. Yo no creo que este sea lugar para seguir dándole vueltas a FLOK. Tampoco es esta lista lugar para hablar de tu gestión de la Asociación de Software Libre de Ecuador, de la que misteriosamente has dejado de ser presidente. Parece que quieres que todos juguemos aquí a destruir comunidades sin otro objetivo que el de satisfacer nuestros egos. A mi me parece todo esto tristísimo. Y espero que termine. saludos, xabier -- wget -O - http://sindominio.net/~xabier/xabier.gpg.asc | gpg --import xabier BARANDIARAN | http://www.barandiaran.net "There is no need for fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons" DELEUZE
El lun 07 jul 2014 11:35:57 ECT, xabier escribió:
Respondo entre líneas. Y pido disculpas por adelantado a la lista por este hilo. Este será mi último mensaje de respuesta a Quiliro en relación a este tema.
Que pena. Sería bueno que respondas por lo que afirmas.
On 07/07/14 17:34, Quiliro Ordóñez Baca wrote:
El 07/07/14 02:11, xabier escribió:
On 07/07/14 01:24, Quiliro Ordóñez Baca wrote:
El 06/07/14 11:06, Bernardo Gutiérrez escribió:
Hello you all (perdón por el inglés para la lista en español).
Sugiero que escribas a la lista en inglés. En esa lista Gordon se puede defender de tus acusaciones. No es correcto hablar de alguien cuando no puede defenderse.
Nota: Me extraña que seas el moderador de esta lista. Espero que la política de esta lista no sea la de la censura como fue en la de FLOK.
Quiliro no me parece nada honesto desacreditar a FLOK de esta manera.
No la he desacreditado yo. Se lo ha hecho a sí misma por las acciones de su administración.
En absoluto. Eres tú el que la desacredita y el que introduce aquí a FLOK sin que venga a cuento, mostrándote como víctima. "La política", como dices, de la lista de FLOK, no ha sido la de la censura sino la de evitar, democrática y deliberativamente, que un Troll sabotee los procesos comunitarios.
Varias personas en la lista de FLOK han questionado que se me califique como trol y que haya saboteado los procesos comunitarios. Pregunta al mismo Michel Bauwens. Pregunta también qué opinión tiene del proceder de la administración de FLOK como ya lo ha expresado aquí mismo. FLOK viene a colación porque quiere tomarse el nombre del p2p sin ejercer sus preceptos. Hay que aclararlo para que no se sorprenda a otros.
Sin embargo, no has contestado la pregunta de si la política de censura va a ser la misma que en FLOK.
Aquí sigues enturbiando más aún el asunto. Ahora dices que no he contestado a la pregunta... pero si acabo de entrar a esta lista por primera vez en mi vida hace apenas unas horas... ¿cómo voy a responderte a esta pregunta Quiliro? Yo no soy el administrador de esta lista...
Cierto. Es Bernardo. Esperaba su respuesta. Me apena que haya expresado que la política de esta lista es la misma que en las listas de FLOK. Procederé de la misma manera que allá y demostrará eso si en la práctica se ejerce esas mismas políticas.
Fui en primera instancia censurado (impedido de expresarme libremente en la lista) en primera instancia y luego expulsado como les sucedió a otras personas más. Puedo probar al menos un caso más.
En efecto, se trata de Willi. Esto es lo que alguien con experiencia me dijo de Willi "he is systematically making disinformation statements and racialist statements, and I was warned by several global commoners that he was a troll with a systematic history of creating trouble in mailing lists."
Aquí dejo una perla que soltó y provocó la expulsión inmediata, para que juzgue la gente de esta lista: "Michel Bauwens is acting as an apostle of the Austrian School of economics. Everything has to be a commodity. The value comes on the market in exchange. Freedom is defined as the freedom of capital. Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich August von Hayek to Milton Friedman and many others are their theorists."
No veo qué tiene de trol esa expresión. Es una opinión totalmente válida aunque yo no la comparta. Quizá no vaya con alabanzas hacia Michel. Sin embargo, no es más que un punto de vista sobre las propuestas. No es justificación el opinar de distinta manera para que se le censure tachándolo de trol.
Puedo encontrar que muchos de los votos para censurarme vinieron desde empleados de FLOK.
Alguien que te lea podría pensar que hubo gente "obligada" a votar en tu contra porque su salario corría peligro, porque su jefe le obligaba. "Curiosamente" te olvidas de matizar que 6 de los 9 votos fueron de personas que NO son empleados de FLOK (frente a un sólo voto a tu favor, que ni siquiera te defendía). De los tres restantes uno es el director de FLOK (su suelto no corre peligro por este hecho, aunque sí por tus troleos) los otros dos no dependen económicamente de FLOK, técnicamente ni siquiera son empleados de FLOK.
Técnicamente, este foro es de p2p. Veamos cuánto lo es en la práctica. Las iniciativas p2p son como Michel propone: inclusivas y colaborativas en lugar de ser estalinistas y totalitarias. Yo he sido crítico de Michel en el sitio web que él controla. Nunca me ha censurado.
Sin embargo, la censura por medio de una democracia sigue siendo censura. Entonces, decir que la moderación en una lista de correo por parte de la administración no es censura no justifica el hacerla.
Primero: nadie te impide expresarte libremente en cualquier lugar. De hecho me siguen llegando mensajes tuyos insistiendo sobre tus obsesiones. Nadie te ha cortado internet ni te ha metido a la cárcel por expresar algo ni te ha amenazado. La gente que ha sufrido censura sabe lo que es. Que se te modere en una lista de correo, después de dedicarle 72 horas y docenas de mensajes al asunto para tomar una decisión justa y democrática, no es censura, es simplemente un intento desesperado de evitar que un troll dinamite el trabajo de una comunidad. Aquí parece que vas a volver a intentarlo :(
Entiendo que en la censura que me han hecho no ha corrido riesgo mi vida. Sin embargo, he sido objeto de linchamiento verbal con insultos y calificativos que no vienen a lugar.
Este tipo de estrategias totalitarias en una comunidad p2p o
Quiliro en qué estamos? o es totalitaria o es democrática? Sigues intoxicando esta lista.
Los regímenes totalitarios frecuentemente se apoyan en la democracia para establecer sus medidas opresivas contra las minorías y a veces inclusive contra las mayorías engañándolas para que crean que es en su favor.
Yo no creo que este sea lugar para seguir dándole vueltas a FLOK. Tampoco es esta lista lugar para hablar de tu gestión de la Asociación de Software Libre de Ecuador, de la que misteriosamente has dejado de ser presidente. Parece que quieres que todos juguemos aquí a destruir comunidades sin otro objetivo que el de satisfacer nuestros egos. A mi me parece todo esto tristísimo. Y espero que termine.
Yo si creo que sea el lugar. Esta lista se refiere al p2p. FLOK dice serlo. Mi deber es proveer información para que las personas que quieran emprender el camino del p2p consideren muy bien la diferencia entre lo que FLOK aparece ser y lo que realmente es. Cada quien puede tener la opinión que quiera pero primero debe informarse.
El lun 07 jul 2014 03:32:19 ECT, Ramón Ramón Sánchez escribió:
Estimado Quiliro, no tengo el gusto de conocerte, pero entendí que esta lista era en español, es más, no hace mucho se abrió un hilo en este sentido porque para mí es muy frustrante que, como bien decía Michael en el mismo hilo, la única lista en español en la que además exista mayoría de hispanoparlantes se intercambian mensajes en otro idioma que excluyen a muchas personas como yo. No tengo tampoco el gusto de conocer al señor Gordon, si se por lo poco que he podido leer de los mensajes, que es cocinero y tiene problemas de viajes con Michael y Bernardo, pero poco más.
Gordon Cook es un investigador que tuvo desacuerdos con FLOK como varias otras personas. Puedes ver su informe sobre FLOK en cookreport.com
Realmente debe ser importante su trabajo y alguien de mucho reconocimiento, no lo pongo en duda, pero... si además, y como mencionas, existen otras listas que se habla en ese otro idioma, no tiene mucho sentido ser tan excluyentes, ¿no te parece?
¿Qué es lo excluyente? -- Saludos libres, Quiliro Ordóñez 600 8579
El 07/07/14 10:10, Quiliro Ordóñez Baca escribió:
El lun 07 jul 2014 03:32:19 ECT, Ramón Ramón Sánchez escribió:
Estimado Quiliro, no tengo el gusto de conocerte, pero entendí que esta lista era en español, es más, no hace mucho se abrió un hilo en este sentido porque para mí es muy frustrante que, como bien decía Michael en el mismo hilo, la única lista en español en la que además exista mayoría de hispanoparlantes se intercambian mensajes en otro idioma que excluyen a muchas personas como yo. No tengo tampoco el gusto de conocer al señor Gordon, si se por lo poco que he podido leer de los mensajes, que es cocinero y tiene problemas de viajes con Michael y Bernardo, pero poco más. Gordon Cook es un investigador que tuvo desacuerdos con FLOK como varias otras personas. Puedes ver su informe sobre FLOK en cookreport.com
Por cierto que hay la versión castellana que colaboré en traducir. No se tomó mucho en cuenta mis opiniones con el fin de protegerme (aunque no lo pedí) pero mucho de lo que dice concuerda con mi percepción de lo que pasó. Gordon parece que tiene cierto sexto sentido para saber lo que pasará y para percibir lo que ha pasado antes de tener las pruebas. Busca las pruebas sobre lo que tiene esa intuición y luego lo publica. Por eso imagino que quiso protegerme. Sabía la forma en la que se reaccionaría en mi contra. -- Saludos libres, Quiliro Ordóñez 600 8579
El 07/07/14 17:39, Quiliro Ordóñez Baca escribió:
El 07/07/14 10:10, Quiliro Ordóñez Baca escribió:
El lun 07 jul 2014 03:32:19 ECT, Ramón Ramón Sánchez escribió:
Estimado Quiliro, no tengo el gusto de conocerte, pero entendí que esta lista era en español, es más, no hace mucho se abrió un hilo en este sentido porque para mí es muy frustrante que, como bien decía Michael en el mismo hilo, la única lista en español en la que además exista mayoría de hispanoparlantes se intercambian mensajes en otro idioma que excluyen a muchas personas como yo. No tengo tampoco el gusto de conocer al señor Gordon, si se por lo poco que he podido leer de los mensajes, que es cocinero y tiene problemas de viajes con Michael y Bernardo, pero poco más. Gordon Cook es un investigador que tuvo desacuerdos con FLOK como varias otras personas. Puedes ver su informe sobre FLOK en cookreport.com Por cierto que hay la versión castellana que colaboré en traducir. No se tomó mucho en cuenta mis opiniones con el fin de protegerme (aunque no lo pedí) pero mucho de lo que dice concuerda con mi percepción de lo que pasó. Gordon parece que tiene cierto sexto sentido para saber lo que pasará y para percibir lo que ha pasado antes de tener las pruebas. Busca las pruebas sobre lo que tiene esa intuición y luego lo publica. Por eso imagino que quiso protegerme. Sabía la forma en la que se reaccionaría en mi contra.
_______________________________________________ Wiki: http://p2pfoundation.net/Spanish_P2P_WikiSprint Lista https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-lang-es Hola de nuevo Quiliro, o bien se siguen cruzando temas -seguramente porque se han traído a esta lista unos debates de otra lista e idioma- o bien no logro entender tu explicación. ¿Te refieres a la versión castellana o mejor dicho traducción de todos los correos con la polémica o debate de FLOK? Porque me temo que yo no he recibido casi nada en castellano y si un montón de correos en inglés que ni entiendo ni quiero entender por no ser el idioma que entienda ni el de esta lista. Y de nuevo me hablas del señor Gordon, al que no tengo tampoco el gusto de conocer, pero por lo que se ve es un gran protector tuyo y una persona de sexto sentido, algo admirable, pero que.... insisto... realmente me causa más duda que otra cosa.
Saludos y ojalá que podamos centrarnos en todo lo que tenía que ver con esta lista, con la participación e intercambio de ideas entorno al conocimiento libre, etc. etc. Aún recuerdo con mucho cariño el wikisprint y todo lo que se logró mover (gracias Bernardo por ser el gran motor de aquello) Saludos y ojalá que se puedan retomar los temas en positivo, y si no, al menos que sean temas constructivos y que podamos entender. -- Ramón Ramón Sánchez Mi blog: http://ramonramon.org/blog Mi perfil profesional:http://www.linkedin.com/in/ramonramon Otras redes http://twitter.com/ramonramon http://identi.ca/ramonramon http://apps.facebook.com/blognetworks/blog/software_libre_y_cooperaci%C3%B3n... "Compartiendo y cooperando conseguiremos un futuro mejor para todos" Fundador y portavoz de Iniciativa Focus http://iniciativafocus.org/ Integrante de la Red Internacional de Software Libre http://www.risol.org
Hola de nuevo Quiliro, o bien se siguen cruzando temas -seguramente porque se han traído a esta lista unos debates de otra lista e idioma- o bien no logro entender tu explicación.
Parece que no has logrado entender mi explicación. Quizá deban explicártelo de mejor manera Michel Bauwens o Gordon Cook. -- Saludos libres, Quiliro Ordóñez 600 8579
Efectivamente, no logro entenderlo. Si Michel o Gordon quieren, yo encantado. Saludos Enviado desde mi android, excusa mi brevedad y posibles faltas ortográficas El 07/07/2014 22:51, "Quiliro Ordóñez Baca" <[email protected]> escribió:
Hola de nuevo Quiliro, o bien se siguen cruzando temas -seguramente porque se han traído a esta lista unos debates de otra lista e idioma- o bien no logro entender tu explicación.
Parece que no has logrado entender mi explicación. Quizá deban explicártelo de mejor manera Michel Bauwens o Gordon Cook.
-- Saludos libres, Quiliro Ordóñez 600 8579
Thanks Bernardo, Though the case of Gordon comes up a lot, I never bring it up on my own, only as a reaction to disinformation, literally every single time I bring it up, it's because of this. While the case of Gordon was particularly galling and he was singled out for abuse, you know as well as me that it happened with every single person who left the flok. That is what I find symptomatic, the inablitity to disagree or leave without this whole attempt at character assasination. There is a difference between the attitude of flok mgt, where this scapegoating is used as a way to maintain internal coherence around the leader, and done by people who were there, and you, who came afterwards (yes indeed, though you participated remotely as well), spread the disinfo externally, and kept maintaining the message even after receiving corrected info. It's one thing to trash people in kaffee klatsch, to use it for internal group cohesion against perceived enemies, but quite another to use public mailing lists to keep repeating false charges. But let's move on. I am happy to see that the only charges retained now for Gordo is that he used copyright for his newsletters and is ill. We're making progress. Same thing for AD and the others, I don't mind that you trash him, (them) privately, it's your right, but if you repeated spread the charge that he is a spy, you have to come up with proof. I think it would be an entirely more productive use of your time, and that of others, to focus on the continued construction of flok, and to forget about attacking perceived enemies and trying to suppress autonomous evaluations. I think we are reaching that space, and can leave the negativity behind. If you had read the blogpost and fb discussion about my evaluation, , you will have seen that I say the same thing as you, i.e. I'm concluding that it was not a strategic transition project but that many seeds have been sown that will have an effect in Ecuador, but that globally it still remains a turning point that it was made possible. I also mention the participatory methodology as one of its innovations in policy making. There is nothing improper in evaluating a project and its pro's and con's, and I'm glad you are giving your perspective here. I agree with the three points, despite their imperfect execution, which is quite normal in the real world. This is why many people will continue working on post-flok experiments with various names. You and I played different roles in this, you through communication and myself and the research team (augmented by all those who participated and co-constructed the documents), did our part. And as you agree, not just us, this is why it is so important not to malign the other people who participated, even if they left the project for various reasons. The difference for the post-flok projects I would like to undertake in the future, is that I believe the internal processes should be prefigurative of the kind of society we want to achieve. So, no, not asking the boss for permission if we want to talk somewhere (in these other emails where you make these arguments that this was proper, I was surprised, as I previously interpreted your position as being actually more radical than mine, i.e. some kind of more absolute p2p requirement; I have been surprised by your argument pro-hierarchical permission and control in the discussion elswhere), or meet with a particular person. There is no reason these processes should be centralized and controlled, it's actually counter-productive, but that's just my opinion. According to me, the internal processes were based on a triple deception, 1) in the communication with our funders. Though it is difficult to prove, I have significant anecdotal evidence to argue that our funders, until very recently, did not truly know what the flok was about and had misconceptions about it; it is probably my weakest claim, because it relies on anecdotes, but this very fact derives from the secrecy of the negotiations as well 2) disinformation of the own staff, I have extensive evidence that this is the case, and it would take at least six pages, to document this; and you have seen most of them; I have a very strong evidence-based argument for this; 3) a propaganda model of external communication, based on maintaining a mythology of absolute success, and attempts, such as yours, to prevent independent evaluations that question this narrative. My opinion is that it is not normal that an independent evaluation is seen as a threat, it should be part and parcel of any open project, that people can challenge it without be submitted to pressure. If you challenge any of these theses, I'd be happy to provide the evidence, and to hear the counter-evidence from you. I'm not saying this can't work, most of history has worked that way; what I'm saying is that it is very problematic to instantiate an open culture and society, based on methods that are not only alien to it, but actively opposed to it. Though I didn't like the opacity, really extreme hierarchical control, permission-based mgt style that was used internally, I realize it is one of the perennial choices that humans take in times of extreme stress. But please just use it internally, inside your present existing team, just don't try project it externally after I and others have left the project. I always accepted it, my red line is maligning third parties without proof, which is commonly called defamation. A part from that, I wish you and your team the best of luck in your freely accepted methodologies, As p2p-f network, with our friends and associates, we want to try a different track, where the internal processes match the external goals, and of course, we may fail, but I think it is worth trying after seeing the difficulties of the first attempt. This is how social learning works, and why it is important to have open discourse about it. Michel On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Bernardo Gutiérrez < [email protected]> wrote:
Hello you all (perdón por el inglés para la lista en español).
Nice to see that hostility is going down, Michel. As you know, the whole process and futures fork of FLOK are quite important. Having commited all the parts mistakes and havind a such a difficult scenarium (it is politic!), it would be childish to keep on fighting among us. I think that the 1%, the elite, is quite united, and that they will be enyoing this. But, anyway, the discussion, being constructive is always good.
You always speak about Gordon Cook, Michel. Among all the things you say..., by my side side there are just two things, that by, the way I just wrote in a mail feed (just one) in the most intense moment of the fight (before the summit) and never insisted in mailing lists, networks etc Even feeling that Cook Report is not fair and that he got private information from private communication, I did not comment it anywhere, never. I said that Gordon published copyright his whole life, until Cook Report. And that is ture. I said, in that moment, that 'defending a neocon' that uses NSA tactics (violating privacy) was not good idea. Reading some of his works, may be yes, he is not the classeical neocon, even more progressive than I thougt, havind some clear liberal ideas, that I respect, of course. So, I can beg your pardon Gordon, for saying that defending a neocon is not a good idea. And feel quite happy that your are not and that I am able to recognize mistakes!
But what we need is more version, stories about the FLOK not just yours, Michel. I understand that your not so optimistic now and that you felt dissapointed by some things. But there are such fantastic things that happened and that are still happening around the process, that it would be nice to light the positive things. Above, you can see a mail to a Spanish list from Daniel Vàzquez, director of the FLOK. Michel was in charge of the research that was part of a quite bigger process. I see, with some perspective, see some fantastic points of FLOK process:
*-FLOK as Method.* A new method for connecting academy with civil society, for connecting academy to politics, for connecting networks and movements to public policy. We have to remember that FLOK started as a quite top down project, more Goverment than civil society. And that now is completly different . The Summit was the prove that so many movements, networks, local leaders, indigenous people, hackers, worked hand by hand with politicians from local, regional and State.
*-FLOK as a prototype*. It was fantastic: all the papers of the research were considered drafts. A source code improved by collective intelligence. it is not easy for researchers to acknowledge that. And we have to flatter all of them. It was exciting to see George Dafermos, Restakis and Michel Bauwes seated with local people, working in this new academic prototype, real time public policy method. Just as an academic prototype it is quite an innovation. Here the PAD we created in Communication Team for openning the research: http://floksociety.org/pad/p/comunicainvestiga Even having done just a part, the work made, leaded by Michel, the one who used more networked methods in the research, was amazing. So, FLOK is an academic new sorce font remixing method.
-*Extitutions: new institucionality.* Some how, FLOK became a new type of institution, and in-out institution, a liquid one, not exactly State not exactly civil society, with some independet corners, commosn oriented, working inside the machine to create public policy. I like very much the concept of Extitución (spanish link), former institution http://viveroiniciativasciudadanas.net/2012/07/05/extitucion-netizens-y-mas/
For all of this, It would be nice to get more versions of FLOK. Now, there are 14 ecuatorian leaders working with the last part of this first era of FLOK and thinking how to implement de pilot projects. For me, It would complete this source font of the research with real projects, real time prorotypes. And would be wonderfull. Let´s ask them!
About the Partner State, Michel. I think that may be Ecuador is not prepared . I am sure that your commitment will develop this in other country in the next years. In my opinion, in Ecuador, the prototyping method of public policy has more chances of being real than the Partner State.
Thanks for flattering now the communication strategy, at least the guerrilla part. But in my 20 years in communication and have done (and do) many different things beyond guerrilla. From El Pais to Squire, from National Geographic to La Repubblica, from CLarin to Al Jazzera, I have publish (still do ) in some of the most important newspapers and magazines of the world. In the last years, my commitment with copylef is so big that I just write in copyleft media (many, just look for my name in the web). I research in academy (in the group of Manuel Castells), do consultant work for the commons, publish books (the last, collective, with Michael Hardt and Toni Negri) and I am jury of differente prizes, now ofr Gabriel García Márquez Journalims Prize (the most important in Latin America), in Technology field. So, I have some differente communicational aproches to share. I did share them in FLOK process. And, being honest, I think it worked in the creation of participation.
Best (above the mail of FLOK´s Director)
Bernardo
Daniel 13:18 (hace 23 horas)
para p2p-lang-es Hola!
Me apena ver que a veces todas (incluso personas muy inteligentes) pierden o perdemos la perspectiva sobre discusiones/estrategia, entrando en análisis de pobre calidad más guiados por sentimientos o pesimismo que sobre posibilidades, personalizando y en negativo frente a la linea más interesante de analizar en colectivo y pensar en vías de superación, en acciones que abran el escenario y permitan seguir avanzando con transformaciones que son un sueño.
Por supuesto, toda crítica o análisis es bienvenido, yo al menos me permito descartar los que no considero relevantes, por falta de tiempo, pero tambien ya sea en algunos casos por superficiales o por no incidir en construcción colectiva.
Quizás lo hago por que es obvio que no existe un proceso de medio o gran tamaño sin fallos, o porque los personalismos o fallos humanos en una acción colectiva me resultan irrelevantes, prefiero centrarme más en las posibilidades que se abren.
Desde ahí, el post de Michel es comprensible, tras un proceso de trabajo muy complejo en muy poco tiempo como ha sido FLOK me parece más un post de desahogo de estres que cualquier tipo de análisis meditado, creo que leyéndolo se ve claro, y que no hay que darle más transcendencia que esa. Obviamente no es su mejor contribución, pero tampoco tiene porqué serlo, Michel puede y debe escribir lo que quiera.
A Michel y a Bernardo hay que darles las gracias por lo que han hecho, incluso aunque ellos o yo nos hayamos equivocado en cosas (imposible no hacerlo en un reto de 8 meses, debatiendo con más de 1500 personas, hablando con más de 45 instituciones y decenas de colectivos y decenas de expertos) han contribuido con sus aportes (al igual que las otras 25-30 personas que también han colaborado directamente, ni más ni menos) a que ahora mismo un montón de movimientos sociales y académicos estén debatiendo con las instituciones cómo aplicar las políticas públicas propuestas que hemos construido de forma colectiva.
Y mientras esa multitud se organiza, debate y construye, algunas miran nombres y apellidos y se enredan en ver una "telenovela" muy personal; la pena es que mientras lo hacen o lo hacemos se pierden o nos perdemos algo increíble, mucho más grande que cualquier nombre y apellido, se pierden que lo que queríamos que sucediera está sucediendo, las propuestas de políticas públicas caminan hacia su implementación (no todas serán posibles, que sean muchas dependerá de nuestra inteligencia colectiva) en instituciones clave. Los proyectos pilotos van todavía un poco más atrás y hay que empujarlos, esas serán las prioridades de los colectivos y expertos Ecuatorianos que la semana que viene comienzan a trabajar el plan de implementación, un lujo poder verlo :)
Un abrazo, seguimos con temas más interesantes.
P.D: Ahora mismo vivo con 2 compañeros del equipo de investigación de FLOK, y es un lujo pensar y analizar con ellos, nuestras emocionantes discusiones van algo más allá de los clásicos atrasos de cualquier administración pública en realizar pagos, andan apasionados por empujar los proyectos pilotos que discuten con muchos compis ecuatorianos, ojalá podemos seguir ayudándoles con eso
2014-07-06 0:57 GMT-03:00 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>:
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/
_______________________________________________ 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/
Dear Michel, i don't know Bernardo, not the people from the different FLOK teams. I like very the statement of an ecuadorian person in your mail "an evaluation of the flok". I have read your main conclusion: "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 .." In the first part: "P2P politics must be prefigurative." Translated to german, i understand a predefined political structure. Maybe, its not full correct. I see it in many papers from FLOK. You use new values and want to attribute (or foist) to the old systems. It is impossible. But never we can define before, how the people organized himself. The method of organisation comes always from the people self. Remember, that the basics of P2P is our historical base. What we have to do is to recreate the environments for this old principles. And this we do it in our actual situation. With our actual possibilities. In the second part. The FLOK teams act like her sponsor want that they act. And also 2) and 3) is a result of her correct doing. This are principles of representative systems. To ly, to create propaganda, to create a theater, to hold the real things in closed areas. And be clear that you cooperate with this people. You give him your international recognition as a pledge. Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis wrote: "Maybe a reevaluation of the partner state strategy?" I don't know him. But also i ask you for rethinking your "partner state strategy". Never we can implement a P2P environment with a state. Black, red, green or any. And be clear, we never need a state. We need the people as selfdefined subjects and not as voting slaves in a consumerist environment. But this want to create the people of the Ecuador state institutions based on the pillage of the nature, the extractivism. Wrapped up in a new guise. many greetings, willi Medellin, Colombia Am 04/07/2014 21:41, schrieb Michel Bauwens:
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 _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
participants (8)
-
Bernardo Gutiérrez -
Daniel -
Gordon Cook -
Michel Bauwens -
Quiliro Ordóñez Baca -
Ramón Ramón Sánchez -
willi uebelherr -
xabier