[P2P-es] A parting of ways with Bernardo Gutierrez

Lun Jul 7 05:03:44 CEST 2014

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

> Hello you all (perdÃ³n por el inglÃ©s para la lista en espaÃ±ol).
>
> 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 VÃ zquez, 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 ExtituciÃ³n (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. LetÂ´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 GarcÃa
> MÃ¡rquez 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 FLOKÂ´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 anÃ¡lisis de pobre calidad mÃ¡s guiados por sentimientos o pesimismo
> que sobre posibilidades, personalizando y en negativo frente a la linea
> mÃ¡s interesante de analizar en colectivo y pensar en vÃas de superaciÃ³n,
> en acciones que abran el escenario y permitan seguir avanzando con
> transformaciones que son un sueÃ±o.
>
> Por supuesto, toda crÃtica o anÃ¡lisis 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 construcciÃ³n colectiva.
>
> QuizÃ¡s lo hago por que es obvio que no existe un proceso de medio o gran
> tamaÃ±o sin fallos, o porque los personalismos o fallos humanos en una
> acciÃ³n colectiva me resultan irrelevantes, prefiero centrarme mÃ¡s en las
> posibilidades que se abren.
>
> Desde ahÃ, el post de Michel es comprensible, tras un proceso de trabajo
> muy complejo en muy poco tiempo como ha sido FLOK me parece mÃ¡s un post
> de desahogo de estres que cualquier tipo de anÃ¡lisis meditado, creo que
> leyÃ©ndolo se ve claro, y que no hay que darle mÃ¡s transcendencia que
> esa. Obviamente no es su mejor contribuciÃ³n, pero tampoco tiene porquÃ©
> 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 mÃ¡s de 1500 personas,
> hablando con mÃ¡s 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 tambiÃ©n han colaborado directamente, ni mÃ¡s ni menos)
> a que ahora mismo un montÃ³n de movimientos sociales y acadÃ©micos estÃ©n
> debatiendo con las instituciones cÃ³mo aplicar las polÃticas pÃºblicas
> 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 increÃble, mucho mÃ¡s grande que cualquier nombre y apellido, se
> pierden que lo que querÃamos que sucediera estÃ¡ sucediendo, las
> propuestas de polÃticas pÃºblicas caminan hacia su implementaciÃ³n (no
> todas serÃ¡n posibles, que sean muchas dependerÃ¡ de nuestra inteligencia
> colectiva) en instituciones clave. Los proyectos pilotos van todavÃa un
> poco mÃ¡s atrÃ¡s y hay que empujarlos, esas serÃ¡n las prioridades de los
> colectivos y expertos Ecuatorianos que la semana que viene comienzan a
> trabajar el plan de implementaciÃ³n, un lujo poder verlo :)
>
> Un abrazo, seguimos con temas mÃ¡s interesantes.
>
> P.D: Ahora mismo vivo con 2 compaÃ±eros del equipo de investigaciÃ³n de
> FLOK, y es un lujo pensar y analizar con ellos, nuestras emocionantes
> discusiones van algo mÃ¡s allÃ¡ de los clÃ¡sicos atrasos de cualquier
> administraciÃ³n pÃºblica en realizar pagos, andan apasionados por empujar
> los proyectos pilotos que discuten con muchos compis ecuatorianos, ojalÃ¡
> podemos seguir ayudÃ¡ndoles con eso
>
>
> 2014-07-06 0:57 GMT-03:00 Michel Bauwens <michel en p2pfoundation.net>:
>
> 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 <cook en cookreport.com> 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 <michel en p2pfoundation.net>
>>> 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 GutiÃ©rrez <
>>> bernardobrasil en gmail.com> 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-transition-process-in-ecaudor/2014/07/01
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> 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 PatiÃ±o), 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 donÂ´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 RevoluciÃ³n, 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
>>>> SÃ£o 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
> SÃ£o 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/
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-lang-es/attachments/20140707/940043e7/attachment-0001.htm 