[P2P-F] transparency issue of p2p-foundation

[willi uebelherr]

Dear friends,

in this answer from Michel i found a very interesting part on the end.

 > but don't forget that countless progressive outlets had to fold and
 > were destroyed, because they refused to maintain their culture, such
 > as for example Indymedia accepting anti-semitism  and a slew of
 > conspiracy theorists (I have read about this without knowing the ins
 > and outs)

Indymedia, especially in the german and french speaking space, was 
occupied by the zionist propaganda apparatus, Hasbara. The same we find 
in Attac in Europe. This was the background, why Ignacio Ramonet from 
"le monde diplomatique", has distanced itself from the german and French 
edition. And from Attac.

The last Semites are the Palestinians. I absolutly stay behind the 
Palestinians for a free palestine. And consequently, for the dissolving 
of Israel. Israel is a zionist project and have nothing to do with the 
jewish culture.

I know, Gilad Atzmon see that different. I understand this, because he 
lived long time as a young person in Israel and he was member of the 
military. So he see directly the zionist propaganda and lies.

With that we see the big lies with the term "anti-semitism". It is a 
zionist propaganda against local self organisation, against the right of 
self detemination. And always for the state to destroy local independence.

I know, that this my position to palestine was the real reason for my 
exclusion from the P2P-lang-es maillist. Not for the NetworkedLabour 
list. But the base for the attacks from Hellekin against me.

And now i see, that Michel act on the same level. Therefore i understand 
this personal conflict.

many greetings, willi
Popayan, Colombia



Am 22/08/2014 um 02:56 schrieb Michel Bauwens:
> Dear Denis,
>
> you raise the transparency issue,
>
> on this list, what you see is what you get, i.e. there are indivduals, with
> various levels of influence obtained either from within or outside the
> list, that communicate around an issue; I have no technical power, both
> because I don't like it and have no time for it, but also actually as a
> conscious decision, i.e. I can't exclude anyone by myself;
>
> then the p2p-foundation, well, to be frank, it's a group of people who are
> communicating in various ways, pragmatically, and hence, it is easy to feel
> excluded in some way, because it is not always visible .. most of our
> communication are just list of email addresses, of whatever people are most
> appropriate to contribute to a certain project .. ; the end result is, and
> personally, in a network of volunteers, I do not think this is a bad thing,
> is that it is the contributors that discuss , consensually, what needs to
> be done ;
>
> we are now trying to be more formal, to avoid the tyranny of
> structurelessness, this is done by using Loomio; if I have understood the
> process well, a first phase is an open discussion, then the decision tool
> is used for the major orientation decisions, and it then moves over to the
> implementors to take the day to day decisions amongst themselves
>
> remember, nobody is getting paid for this directly (we all have indirect
> strategies of making a living), though kevin will likely join us as first
> paid employee this october ..., and for people who work hard for free and
> with limited time, it is impossible to listen for ever to people who are on
> the sidelines thinking they have the right idea of how it should be done,
> without doing it themselves ..
>
> if we were a membership organisation, or a coop, of course we would need to
> do it differently and insure every member has a vote (which would be a
> counterpart of their monetary or labor contributions)
>
> but peer production networks almost never work that way, and it has been
> rather well studied; we are not very different from others in this, except
> that we are too small to entertain a formally democratic FLOSS Foundation
>
> but the people who complain that do not have it, should be the ones
> building and constructing it,
>
> discussions of the list are different, here everyone has a voice provided
> that a few social rules are adhered to,
>
> in this case, we are insisting that the rule of no personal attacks and
> difamation are adhered too; no one wants to take away willi's freedom of
> speech, there are millions of outlets where mutual insults are the norm,
> and I have no issue with these freely chosen cultures of discourse,
>
> but don't forget that countless progressive outlets had to fold and were
> destroyed, because they refused to maintain their culture, such as for
> example Indymedia accepting anti-semitism  and a slew of conspiracy
> theorists (I have read about this without knowing the ins and outs)
>
> but if that were the culture here, I would unsubscribe,
>
> Michel
>