Fwd: [Solar-general] Un aplauso para Alexander Oliva

[Diego Saravia]

que suma de porquerias!!!!

habria que traducirlo para que la gente entienda con que clase de
ideas excrementales trata


cosas como:

"Should I be concerned about who was responsible for the attack on the
UTUTO servers?  I was referring to no more than your campaign to
discredit Daniel Olivera.  Are you saying these two issues are actually
related?"


Daniel, a confesion de partes relevo de pruebas.

o "Please remember that our confidentiality agreement had one exception:
information could be shared with newer members, if this would help the
organization.  I would rightfully and legitimately use this exception to
try and stop the organization from lying (which it might do if it were
to believe you), "


"and to avoid placing excessive trust on someone who
does not deserve so much of it."

es evidente que aqui oliva se da cuenta de algo muy importante

o

"We were talking about whether Vía Libre controlled FSFLA.  I have no
idea of what specific decision you're talking about."

" While on the one hand you
play the “doing as an individual” card, in the other you try to get the
FSFLA board to interfere with what *I* do, on personal capacity, to try
to resolve a long-term mess that Vía Libre dragged FSFLA into.  I can
understand why the thought of having that resolved terrifies you.
Sorry, I'm not the one with skeletons hidden in the proverbial backyard,
and I'm not interested in paying for the ones your left in ours."

que esqueletos dejaron en el jardin de la fsfla?


interesante, seran tan interesantes todos los mails de "team"?


luego de esto queda absolutamtente claro que la fsfla tiene todas las
caracteristicas de una mafia, acuerdos de proteccion confidenciales
incluidos y cadaveres enterrados.

increible, que este tipo de organizaciones sean las hermanas de la fsf
en america latina, sera tambien asi la fsf?

debieran renunciar todos.

no parece ser suficiente que pidan disculpas  y reparen el daño para
volver a tener relaciones con organizaciones asi.

despues uno escucha que la politica es sucia!

la verdad, nunca en mis actividades politicas escuche este tipo de
dialogos y miren que he escuchado cosas.




El 8 de agosto de 2009 17:30, Juan Carlos Gentile <jucar en hipatia.info> escribió:
>
> Hay una muy intresante frase.
> Hay que leerlo.
>
> " You're the one asking me to stand up for you
> personally, asking me to lie to protect you.  *That* is too hard."
>
> y.... es una frase de Alexander a mafioheinz.
>
> gracias Alexander
>
> juan
>
>
>
>
> Re: [Team] Mea culpa: Error acerca de la Historia de la FSFLA
>  Date: Yesterday 08:18:31 pm
>  From: Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva en fsfla.org>  (Free thinker, not speaking for
> FSF Latin America)
>  To: Federico Heinz <fheinz en vialibre.org.ar>
>  CC: team en fsfla.org
>
> Switching to team, for cons@ is for discussions in portuñol, and this
> one is in English.
>
> Upthread, Federico disputed the fact, that I posted on personal capacity
> to a public list, that FSFLA in its early days was effectively under
> control of Vía Libre, and formally requested me to take it back.
>
> He then proceeded to disavow and discredit myself, Daniel Olivera, and
> “these people” from SOLAR and Hipatia, that I've been talking to.
>
> In case anyone is interested, the thread starts here.
> http://www.fsfla.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/cons/2009-August/001499.html
> in response to these public messages in Spanish:
> http://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/solar-general/2009-August/050547.html
> http://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/solar-general/2009-August/050540.html
>
> On Aug  6, 2009, Federico Heinz <fheinz en vialibre.org.ar> wrote:
>
> > I stand by the decision I took at that moment, as an individual, and
> > Vía Libre had nothing to do with it.
>
> We were talking about whether Vía Libre controlled FSFLA.  I have no
> idea of what specific decision you're talking about.
>
> Is it about that SELF project sponsored by the European Union, that
> *Fernanda* had arranged for *FSFLA* to participate in along with other
> FSFes?  http://www.selfproject.eu/bg/project/whoiswho
>
> Is it about the *two* people that we were invited to appoint to
> represent *FSFLA* in the GPLv3 conference in Japan?
> http://web.archive.org/web/20061029232747/http://gplv3.fsij.org/
> http://web.archive.org/web/20061205234934/http://gplv3.fsij.org/
>
> Or is it something covered by the confidentiality agreement you demanded
> before y'all'd let us reboot FSFLA?
>
> What you're trying to do is pretty obvious.  While on the one hand you
> play the “doing as an individual” card, in the other you try to get the
> FSFLA board to interfere with what *I* do, on personal capacity, to try
> to resolve a long-term mess that Vía Libre dragged FSFLA into.  I can
> understand why the thought of having that resolved terrifies you.
> Sorry, I'm not the one with skeletons hidden in the proverbial backyard,
> and I'm not interested in paying for the ones your left in ours.
>
>
>
> >> If you really want to pursue this, please do so in the same forums
> >> where the claims were made.  Then I'll back up my claims there.
>
> > No.
>
> Excellent.
>
> > You made a false assertion in public, and I ask you to retract it
>
> I've already told you what you should do in case you'd like to pursue
> the request for me to retract the claim that Vía Libre effectively
> controlled the early FSFLA, but it seems that you missed it, so I'll
> repeat:
>
> You want me to retract something I said on personal capacity on a public
> forum, ask *me*, on personal capacity, on the same public forum, and
> face the consequences.
>
> You want to *FSFLA* to do that, you're barking up the wrong tree: FSFLA
> didn't make such a claim.
>
> You want FSFLA to disavow my claim, then our internal lists would be the
> right forum, but that's not what you asked for.
>
>
> Please remember that our confidentiality agreement had one exception:
> information could be shared with newer members, if this would help the
> organization.  I would rightfully and legitimately use this exception to
> try and stop the organization from lying (which it might do if it were
> to believe you), and to avoid placing excessive trust on someone who
> does not deserve so much of it.
>
> > for the sake of the good relations of FSFLA with a fellow free
> > software organization.
>
> Why are you taking the very kind of “with us or against us” attitude
> that you and Bea warned me about in Rosario?  Is Hipatia not the only
> organization that allegedly hates whatever other organization it can't
> control?  Isn't this what shrinks refer to as projection?
>
> >> [...] One gets to wonder what your motives are to try and discredit him and
> >> the attack the project he leads suffered.
>
> > Perfect! Now you are spreading unfounded suspicion, wondering at hidden
> > motives.
>
> The motives are quite plain to me, and the suspicion is far from
> unfounded.  You have a long tradition of discrediting people who oppose
> you, your points of view, or who know about your dirty secrets.  You're
> very good at discrediting your opponents and covering your tracks.
>
> > No wonder you get on so good with the flamers. I only hope someone
> > will find out who was responsible for the attack (assuming there even
> > was one).
>
> Should I be concerned about who was responsible for the attack on the
> UTUTO servers?  I was referring to no more than your campaign to
> discredit Daniel Olivera.  Are you saying these two issues are actually
> related?
>
> > Even the fact that I bother writing these messages should be
> > indication enough for you that I care enough about FSFLA and the way
> > you are hurting its image.
>
> And it's just a coincidence that you chose to do so along with a demand
> to retract a claim that did the *opposite* of hurting its image, and
> that seems to have actually put an end to the attacks on it because of
> the *false* image created by, let's see, the organization whose image
> you *actually* care about.
>
> > Sorry if in trying to help FSFLA I am very critical of you personally
>
> No hard feelings about that, it's perfectly understandable given the
> circumstances.  Even more so from someone who long ago told me he didn't
> believe in a subconscious mind, to conclude that he have conscious
> control of all his actions.
>
> >> Now, if you honestly want to help us advance and thrive, you might as well
> >> help us improve FSFLA's relationships with SOLAR and Hipatia.
>
> > No, for two reasons:
>
> > 1) I try my best never to attempt impossibles, it's bad for my blood
> pressure.
> >    Long odds I can take, but miracles is not my department.
>
> Oh, wow, I didn't realize I could do miracles! ;-)
>
> > 2) Good relations with SoLAr and Hipatia are not a precondition for
> advancing
> >    and thriving, or doing useful work and advocacy for free software in
> Latin
> >    America.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >    If they wish to be contentious
>
> Surprise!  They're not the ones being contentious any more.
>
> >    just let them do their stuff, and let FSFLA do its own.
>
> We've done that for a while.  Likewise with Vía Libre.
>
> As in FSFLA's declaration, I wish we could all work together to
> accomplish more.
>
> But that doesn't make working together easy.
>
> > You make it damn hard to stand up for you personally
>
> I don't ask that of you.  You're the one asking me to stand up for you
> personally, asking me to lie to protect you.  *That* is too hard.
>
> >> Attitudes in Martín's and Diego's followups to the messages below, such
> >> as “accepting apologies”, rather than suspicion, claim-disputing and
> >> feeling fooled and insulted, don't come across as trollish to me.
>
> > Are you surprised they would do that when you write that Bea and I are
> > not trustworthy, and that FSFLA was controlled by Vía Libre?
>
> Not at all.  It was no surprise to me that they shared my feelings and
> related well with that.  It's not like I told them anything about you
> that they didn't already know, so why should you be concerned with it?
>
> Heck, I went to great lengths to protect you, even while that spoke
> against myself and FSFLA, because I somehow got stuck in this thinking
> that the confidentiality agreement implied some moral obligation to
> protect you.
>
> But you know what?, you recently advised me to talk to my shrink about
> it.  That was all talked about on my regular weekly session on Monday,
> on an extra session on Wednesday.  As you could see yourself, the
> Wednesday session was quite liberating for me.  Thanks for the advice.
>
> > Do you realize that by saying those things you jeopardize the proven
> > goodwill of an organization that has always been willing to work with
> > FSFLA
>
> Hey, take back this threat to the shop where you got it, and demand a
> replacement, it might still be under warranty.  Threats are not supposed
> to be empty.  I don't know of any good we have ever got from Vía Libre.
> I'm not willing to live a lie to get what I understand Vía Libre has
> historically offered me and FSFLA.  Now, maybe you could prove me wrong,
> and rather than making vague and improvable claims such as “there is not
> a single instance in which either Vía Libre or I personally failed to
> help FSFLA when it was within our reach to do so”, name whatever you
> have done for FSFLA in the past 5 years.  Bear in mind that FSFLA is not
> Vía Libre, or a platform to advance Vía Libre; I remember you had a bit
> of a hard time telling them apart back in the days.
>
> As for your threatening FSFLA because of *I* said *I* had trusted you
> and Bea more than you deserved, I was not talking about the organization
> you run, but rather about two people.  Are you meddling your personal
> life with the institutional life of organizations you run, again?
>
>
> I suggest you to let Bea deal with these issues if they come up again.
> She's not even close to as insulting and demeaning as you are, and
> that's not the only reason why she is on these lists and you aren't.
>
> Thank you,
>
> --
> Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
> You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
> Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
> Free Software Evangelist      Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer
> _______________________________________________
> Team mailing list
> Team en fsfla.org
> http://www.fsfla.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/te
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> Fingerprint = EBFC CDE9 E57C 3EAD 65B1  2A59 5364 48C8 EACF 7357
> Public key = 0xEACF7357 at http://pgp.mit.edu
>
>
> ---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
> From: Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva en fsfla.org>
> To: Federico Heinz <fheinz en vialibre.org.ar>
> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:18:31 -0300
> Subject: Re: [Team] Mea culpa: Error acerca de la Historia de la FSFLA
> Switching to team, for cons@ is for discussions in portuñol, and this
> one is in English.
>
> Upthread, Federico disputed the fact, that I posted on personal capacity
> to a public list, that FSFLA in its early days was effectively under
> control of Vía Libre, and formally requested me to take it back.
>
> He then proceeded to disavow and discredit myself, Daniel Olivera, and
> “these people” from SOLAR and Hipatia, that I've been talking to.
>
> In case anyone is interested, the thread starts here.
> http://www.fsfla.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/cons/2009-August/001499.html
> in response to these public messages in Spanish:
> http://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/solar-general/2009-August/050547.html
> http://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/solar-general/2009-August/050540.html
>
> On Aug  6, 2009, Federico Heinz <fheinz en vialibre.org.ar> wrote:
>
> > I stand by the decision I took at that moment, as an individual, and
> > Vía Libre had nothing to do with it.
>
> We were talking about whether Vía Libre controlled FSFLA.  I have no
> idea of what specific decision you're talking about.
>
> Is it about that SELF project sponsored by the European Union, that
> *Fernanda* had arranged for *FSFLA* to participate in along with other
> FSFes?  http://www.selfproject.eu/bg/project/whoiswho
>
> Is it about the *two* people that we were invited to appoint to
> represent *FSFLA* in the GPLv3 conference in Japan?
> http://web.archive.org/web/20061029232747/http://gplv3.fsij.org/
> http://web.archive.org/web/20061205234934/http://gplv3.fsij.org/
>
> Or is it something covered by the confidentiality agreement you demanded
> before y'all'd let us reboot FSFLA?
>
> What you're trying to do is pretty obvious.  While on the one hand you
> play the “doing as an individual” card, in the other you try to get the
> FSFLA board to interfere with what *I* do, on personal capacity, to try
> to resolve a long-term mess that Vía Libre dragged FSFLA into.  I can
> understand why the thought of having that resolved terrifies you.
> Sorry, I'm not the one with skeletons hidden in the proverbial backyard,
> and I'm not interested in paying for the ones your left in ours.
>
> >> > Again, I must officially ask you to take that back.
>
> >> If you really want to pursue this, please do so in the same forums
> >> where the claims were made.  Then I'll back up my claims there.
>
> > No.
>
> Excellent.
>
> > You made a false assertion in public, and I ask you to retract it
>
> I've already told you what you should do in case you'd like to pursue
> the request for me to retract the claim that Vía Libre effectively
> controlled the early FSFLA, but it seems that you missed it, so I'll
> repeat:
>
> You want me to retract something I said on personal capacity on a public
> forum, ask *me*, on personal capacity, on the same public forum, and
> face the consequences.
>
> You want to *FSFLA* to do that, you're barking up the wrong tree: FSFLA
> didn't make such a claim.
>
> You want FSFLA to disavow my claim, then our internal lists would be the
> right forum, but that's not what you asked for.
>
>
> Please remember that our confidentiality agreement had one exception:
> information could be shared with newer members, if this would help the
> organization.  I would rightfully and legitimately use this exception to
> try and stop the organization from lying (which it might do if it were
> to believe you), and to avoid placing excessive trust on someone who
> does not deserve so much of it.
>
> > for the sake of the good relations of FSFLA with a fellow free
> > software organization.
>
> Why are you taking the very kind of “with us or against us” attitude
> that you and Bea warned me about in Rosario?  Is Hipatia not the only
> organization that allegedly hates whatever other organization it can't
> control?  Isn't this what shrinks refer to as projection?
>
> >> [...] One gets to wonder what your motives are to try and discredit him and
> >> the attack the project he leads suffered.
>
> > Perfect! Now you are spreading unfounded suspicion, wondering at hidden
> > motives.
>
> The motives are quite plain to me, and the suspicion is far from
> unfounded.  You have a long tradition of discrediting people who oppose
> you, your points of view, or who know about your dirty secrets.  You're
> very good at discrediting your opponents and covering your tracks.
>
> > No wonder you get on so good with the flamers. I only hope someone
> > will find out who was responsible for the attack (assuming there even
> > was one).
>
> Should I be concerned about who was responsible for the attack on the
> UTUTO servers?  I was referring to no more than your campaign to
> discredit Daniel Olivera.  Are you saying these two issues are actually
> related?
>
> > Even the fact that I bother writing these messages should be
> > indication enough for you that I care enough about FSFLA and the way
> > you are hurting its image.
>
> And it's just a coincidence that you chose to do so along with a demand
> to retract a claim that did the *opposite* of hurting its image, and
> that seems to have actually put an end to the attacks on it because of
> the *false* image created by, let's see, the organization whose image
> you *actually* care about.
>
> > Sorry if in trying to help FSFLA I am very critical of you personally
>
> No hard feelings about that, it's perfectly understandable given the
> circumstances.  Even more so from someone who long ago told me he didn't
> believe in a subconscious mind, to conclude that he have conscious
> control of all his actions.
>
> >> Now, if you honestly want to help us advance and thrive, you might as well
> >> help us improve FSFLA's relationships with SOLAR and Hipatia.
>
> > No, for two reasons:
>
> > 1) I try my best never to attempt impossibles, it's bad for my blood pressure.
> >    Long odds I can take, but miracles is not my department.
>
> Oh, wow, I didn't realize I could do miracles! ;-)
>
> > 2) Good relations with SoLAr and Hipatia are not a precondition for advancing
> >    and thriving, or doing useful work and advocacy for free software in Latin
> >    America.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >    If they wish to be contentious
>
> Surprise!  They're not the ones being contentious any more.
>
> >    just let them do their stuff, and let FSFLA do its own.
>
> We've done that for a while.  Likewise with Vía Libre.
>
> As in FSFLA's declaration, I wish we could all work together to
> accomplish more.
>
> But that doesn't make working together easy.
>
> > You make it damn hard to stand up for you personally
>
> I don't ask that of you.  You're the one asking me to stand up for you
> personally, asking me to lie to protect you.  *That* is too hard.
>
> >> Attitudes in Martín's and Diego's followups to the messages below, such
> >> as “accepting apologies”, rather than suspicion, claim-disputing and
> >> feeling fooled and insulted, don't come across as trollish to me.
>
> > Are you surprised they would do that when you write that Bea and I are
> > not trustworthy, and that FSFLA was controlled by Vía Libre?
>
> Not at all.  It was no surprise to me that they shared my feelings and
> related well with that.  It's not like I told them anything about you
> that they didn't already know, so why should you be concerned with it?
>
> Heck, I went to great lengths to protect you, even while that spoke
> against myself and FSFLA, because I somehow got stuck in this thinking
> that the confidentiality agreement implied some moral obligation to
> protect you.
>
> But you know what?, you recently advised me to talk to my shrink about
> it.  That was all talked about on my regular weekly session on Monday,
> on an extra session on Wednesday.  As you could see yourself, the
> Wednesday session was quite liberating for me.  Thanks for the advice.
>
> > Do you realize that by saying those things you jeopardize the proven
> > goodwill of an organization that has always been willing to work with
> > FSFLA
>
> Hey, take back this threat to the shop where you got it, and demand a
> replacement, it might still be under warranty.  Threats are not supposed
> to be empty.  I don't know of any good we have ever got from Vía Libre.
> I'm not willing to live a lie to get what I understand Vía Libre has
> historically offered me and FSFLA.  Now, maybe you could prove me wrong,
> and rather than making vague and improvable claims such as “there is not
> a single instance in which either Vía Libre or I personally failed to
> help FSFLA when it was within our reach to do so”, name whatever you
> have done for FSFLA in the past 5 years.  Bear in mind that FSFLA is not
> Vía Libre, or a platform to advance Vía Libre; I remember you had a bit
> of a hard time telling them apart back in the days.
>
> As for your threatening FSFLA because of *I* said *I* had trusted you
> and Bea more than you deserved, I was not talking about the organization
> you run, but rather about two people.  Are you meddling your personal
> life with the institutional life of organizations you run, again?
>
>
> I suggest you to let Bea deal with these issues if they come up again.
> She's not even close to as insulting and demeaning as you are, and
> that's not the only reason why she is on these lists and you aren't.
>
> Thank you,
>
> --
> Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
> You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
> Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
> Free Software Evangelist      Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer
> _______________________________________________
> Team mailing list
> Team en fsfla.org
> http://www.fsfla.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/team
>
>
> ---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
> From: Federico Heinz <fheinz en vialibre.org.ar>
> To: Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva en fsfla.org>
> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 18:59:23 -0300
> Subject: Re: [Team] Mea culpa: Error acerca de la Historia de la FSFLA
> In recognition of the fact that in my previous messages were written in an
> angry tone that never is called for, I will further refrain from it, and in turn
> ignore Alexandre's own angry tone, which was most probably caused by my own
> shrillness. While holding on to my criticism of Alexandre's actions, I
> apologize for the improper form I used to present them.
>
> On 07/08/2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > > I stand by the decision I took at that moment, as an individual, and
> > > Vía Libre had nothing to do with it.
>
> We were talking about the decision of keeping previous e-mail exchanges
> confidential. It should be obvious that I was still talking about the same
> subject.
>
> > Is it about that SELF project sponsored by the European Union, that
> > *Fernanda* had arranged for *FSFLA* to participate in along with other
> > FSFes?  http://www.selfproject.eu/bg/project/whoiswho
>
> This is a misconcepton that happens to not bear any connection with the real
> world at all. Fernanda had hoped to work herself for CIPSGA on this project.
> Then she went to Google instead, and she arranged for me to work for CIPSGA on
> the project, but when the project found out that CIPSGA would not be able to
> join the consortium due to formal issues, we offered Vía Libre as a replacement
> employer for me, and it was accepted by the consortium. FSFLA was not (and I
> understand still isn't) in a situation to participate in an EU project, and
> there never was any talk of FSFLA being part of it.
>
> > [...] While on the one hand you play the “doing as an individual” card, in the
> > other you try to get the FSFLA board to interfere with what *I* do, on
> > personal capacity, to try to resolve a long-term mess that Vía Libre dragged
> > FSFLA into.
>
> I'm sorry, but saying that your intervention in a public mailing list, where
> you are attempting to negotiate something-or-other to bring another organization
> closer to FSFLA is done in personal capacity is disingenious. You may not be
> aware of it, and you may wish it wasn't so, but that doesn't change the fact
> that you are publicly regarded as FSFLA's leader. It doesn't matter that this
> is not formally true. It is the way people see it. So when you speak publicly
> about FSFLA matters, from an FSFLA account even, the public perception is that
> it's FSFLA speaking.
>
> > Sorry, I'm not the one with skeletons hidden in the proverbial backyard
>
> Those are unwarranted accusations, repeated despite both acute and chronical
> lack of proof. I have no skeletons hidden anywhere, proverbial or otherwise,
> and you, having been the target of that very kind of unfounded accusations,
> should know better than listening to them.
>
> > You want me to retract something I said on personal capacity on a public
> > forum, ask *me*, on personal capacity, on the same public forum, and
> > face the consequences.
>
> I used to enjoy a good mud-slinging contest as much as the next guy, but I grew
> very wary of them, and I have long ago decided I will never again engage on one.
> Publicly challenging you wouldn't be good for anyone, so I won't do it, even if
> you trash-talk me in public.
>
> I'm asking you, in personal capacity and within FSFLA's walls, to take back the
> trash-talk you published about Bea, me, and Vía Libre. Of course, you may choose
> not to do so, based on a formal requirement you just made up that, which
> mandates that such requests must be done in the same forum, but that is just an
> excuse.
>
> > You want to *FSFLA* to do that, you're barking up the wrong tree: FSFLA
> > didn't make such a claim.
>
> What I'm urging FSFLA to do is to realize that you are a public relations
> disaster, and that it is in its best interest to instruct you to be more
> cautious of what you say in public, because it reflects badly on FSFLA, and to
> be more careful with the way you speak in public about fellow community members
> and organizations.
>
> > Why are you taking the very kind of “with us or against us” attitude
> > that you and Bea warned me about in Rosario?
>
> I'm not saying that you should not work with SoLAR or Hipatia. By all means,
> do! All I am asking is that, if and when you do, you please take care to do in a
> way that does not involve talking negative nonsense about fellow community
> members and organizations.
>
> > You have a long tradition of discrediting people who oppose you, your points
> > of view, or who know about your dirty secrets.  You're very good at
> > discrediting your opponents and covering your tracks.
>
> In essence, you are saying that I am not only evil, but even such a malevolent
> genius that I manage to do my evil deeds in such a way that they cannot be
> proven, and thus those who want to bring them to light end up being discredited.
>
> I must admit that you are flattering my intelligence, but there is a much
> simpler explanation: I'm not such a brilliant genius, I'm simply innocent of
> the alleged deeds, and those people ended up discredited because they didn't
> deserve any credit in the first place.
>
> > And it's just a coincidence that you chose to do so along with a demand
> > to retract a claim that did the *opposite* of hurting its image
>
> Talking badly about Bea and me will automatically earn you points in a subset of
> SoLAr's membership, but you will find that a very poor indicator of the
> opinion within Argentina's community at large. Had you managed to achieve that
> *without* trash-talking us, I would be complimenting you. The way you did it,
> those people will surely applaud you, while others (even within SoLAr) shake
> their heads and write you off. Net gain: in a very unlikely best case, zero.
>
> > > Do you realize that by saying those things you jeopardize the proven
> > > goodwill of an organization that has always been willing to work with
> > > FSFLA
> > Hey, take back this threat
>
> This is not a threat, it's just a statement of the obvious. For instance, I
> understand Bea has offered to distribute FSFLA's materials during Richard's
> upcoming talks in Buenos Aires. You can imagine it is awkward for us to hand
> those materials to people while the most conspicuous FSFLA spokesperson is
> saying that Vía Libre is run by untrustworthy people. We will do it anyway, but
> I guess you can understand that it takes all the fun out of cooperating.
>
>        Fede
> _______________________________________________
> Team mailing list
> Team en fsfla.org
> http://www.fsfla.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/team
>
>
> ---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
> From: Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva en fsfla.org>
> To: Federico Heinz <fheinz en vialibre.org.ar>, Karsten Gerloff <gerloff en fsfeurope.org>
> Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:14:23 -0300
> Subject: Re: [Team] Mea culpa: Error acerca de la Historia de la FSFLA
> Karsten,
>
> I'm very sorry to drag you into this, but this is related with the
> message that Mr Heinz sent you and other presidents of sister FSFs
> regarding myself.
>
> I'll send you and RMS, who can't easily get to the messages over the
> web, the rest of the thread.
>
> Please don't give credence to Mr Heinz's allegations without going
> through them.  That said, Fernanda and Georg, if asked, would probably
> advise you to disregard the whole thing, and warn you that trusting Mr
> Heinz can be dangerous, and that being dragged into Alex's discussions
> is probably a big waste of time.  I'd concur on all 3 accounts ;-)
>
>
> On Aug  7, 2009, Federico Heinz <fheinz en vialibre.org.ar> wrote:
>
> > I apologize for the improper form I used to present them.
>
> Mr Heinz,
>
> It was perfectly predictable to me that, as soon as the discussion came
> to a forum in which you know RMS is present, you'd tone it down, because
> going ballistic for such a change of forum is no longer an option.
> (Georg and Fernanda might remember what this is about)
>
> Some of the others you have trashtalked in this thread often claim that
> RMS never gets to see you attacking them.  No surprise that you chose to
> post your attack to a list that you thought RMS couldn't get to.  The
> bad news for you is that we no longer operate under covers.  We don't
> have another face to hide.
>
>
> > On 07/08/2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> > I stand by the decision I took at that moment, as an individual, and
> >> > Vía Libre had nothing to do with it.
>
> > We were talking about the decision of keeping previous e-mail exchanges
> > confidential.
>
> You requested me to take back the claim that Vía Libre effectively
> controlled FSFLA.  Let me refresh your memory.  From my public e-mail,
> you quoted exactly (except for translation and [bracketed] clarifiers)
> the portion below, ellipsis included:
>
> > The organization [FSFLA], still under control of Vía Libre, ...
>
> You wrote:
>
> > I must officially ask you to take that back.
>
> To that, I responded:
>
> > Considering that FSFLA and Vía Libre shared the president and a
> > majority of the executive, that a majority of the FSFLA board was
> > involved with Vía Libre, I beg to differ.  That decisions and actions
> > were taken by this majority that privileged Vía Libre in detriment of
> > FSFLA is just further evidence of where the control lied (pun not
> > intended).
>
> And you responded:
>
> > You are welcome to differ all you want, but that doesn't change the
> > facts. I stand by the decision I took at that moment, as an
> > individual, and Vía Libre had nothing to do with it.
>
> And then I asked which decision you were alluding to, enumerating a few
> of the decisions and actions taken by this majority that effectively
> controlled FSFLA, that privileged Vía Libre in detriment of FSFLA, such
> as Vía Libre's take-over of the SELF project that Fernanda offered to
> you, for you to have more time to devote to FSFLA, and the mysterious
> change in FSFLA's representation at the GPLv3 conference in Japan.
>
> This was all that occurred to me that could be brought up with
> information that was either public or obtained from parties who were
> external to FSFLA at the time they provided it.  I.e., information not
> covered by the confidentiality agreement you demanded.
>
> For example, Fernanda told me, during a short interlude in which she was
> not in FSFLA, about a conversation she had had with you over XMPP, on
> Feb 7, 2006: (now translated to English)
>
> (21:37:20) nanda: do you remember Self?
> (21:38:06) nanda: it has come for negotiation in the EU
> (21:38:55) nanda: but I'm no longer in Brazil
> (21:39:22) nanda: I wanna know whehter you'd help me coordinate this project
> (21:39:44) nanda: then Cipsga would hire you to take care of it, what do you think?
> (21:43:22) nanda: then you'd take care of Self and work for FSFLA
> (21:56:40) Fede: Ok, the question is whether VL wants a partnership?
>
> You were president of FSFLA, another FSFLA board member offered you a
> project so that you could work more for FSFLA, and your first thought
> was “how do I get Vía Libre involved in this?”  Sad for FSFLA, isn't it?
>
> You might remember the conversation continued like this:
>
> (21:56:47) nanda: no
> (21:56:55) nanda: the question is: do you want to work on this?
> (21:57:13) nanda: this project will enable you to have money to work for FSFLA
> (21:57:20) nanda: :)
> (21:57:51) nanda: you'd be like a Cipsga member working on the project...
> (21:57:52) nanda: just that...
> (21:58:21) nanda: you'd take care of what I should, since I'm no longer in Latin America
> (21:59:37) Fede: yes, I'm interested
> (21:59:40) nanda: ok
> (21:59:43) Fede: what is cipsga?
> (21:59:57) nanda: www.cipsga.org.br
>
> Now, you may also remember that we had a longer conversation with RMS
> about this and other matters in the GPLv3 conference in Barcelona.  Did
> you keep any of the commitments regarding this project that you made to
> myself and RMS then?  Do you even remember them?  Did you ever even
> bring any SELF-related issue to discussion within FSFLA?
>
>
> Back to the point, does Vía Libre have a different kind of cooperation
> to offer FSFLA nowadays?  You know, that kind of cooperation that is
> actually beneficial for both involved parties, like mutualistic
> symbiosis rather than parasitism?
>
>
> >> [...] While on the one hand you play the “doing as an individual”
> >> card, in the other you try to get the FSFLA board to interfere with
> >> what *I* do, on personal capacity, to try to resolve a long-term mess
> >> that Vía Libre dragged FSFLA into.
>
> > I'm sorry, but saying that your intervention in a public mailing list,
> > where you are attempting to negotiate something-or-other to bring
> > another organization closer to FSFLA is done in personal capacity is
> > disingenious.
>
> Meanwhile, you insist on playing the card of “participating in the FSFLA
> board on personal capacity”, while you had long been president of FVL,
> and you did a great job at promoting the interests of *that*
> organization, even within and in detriment of FSFLA.
>
> Nevermind that you also happened to be *actual* president of FSFLA, and
> people out there actually *knew* it.
>
>
> As for those who make false assumptions about my position at FSFLA, or
> about my acting on behalf of FSFLA, I correct those as often as they
> arise.  Every single e-mail I post from my @fsfla.org address explicitly
> clarifies that.  See my signature, see the Organization header.  Don't
> even bother trying to find any message from lxoliva en fsfla.org over the
> past few years that doesn't carry them.
>
>
> > Publicly challenging you wouldn't be good for anyone
>
> Of course not.  Nevertheless, you chose to do it in a semi-public forum,
> rather than in private.
>
> Trying to trashtalk me, in public or before my peers, *will* backfire on
> you, because *I* have nothing to hide.  FSFLA board members know about
> my abilities, shortcomings and progress in public relations.  Progress,
> aside from this thread, that is.
>
> On the good side, now they can also understand a bit of why I'm, let's
> say, so Fede up :-)
>
> Was that the good you expected to come from doing it in this alternate
> venue?
>
>
> > be more careful with the way you speak in public about fellow
> > community members and organizations.
>
> What I speak “within FSFLA's walls”, as you put it, is the same I speak
> in public.  Some people call that integrity.  Others call it ethics.
>
> What I speak is what I believe to be true.  Some people call that
> honesty.  Some people say I'm too honest.
>
> When you knew me, you might have got the impression that I wasn't so.
> If you did, you got me wrong.  The thing is that there was a
> confidentiality agreement in place, that I was reminded of every now and
> then, that prevented me from saying in public what I'd say within
> FSFLA's walls.
>
> That agreement, at times, required me to lie, by omitting or distorting
> what I knew.  I may very well have made a mistake in deciding what the
> lesser evil was.
>
>
> You, on the other hand, while being all nice and charming in public and
> before RMS, don't miss a beat before trashtalking others in private.
> And when you want to add intimidation to the discrediting campaign, you
> send the opponent a copy.
>
>
> > All I am asking is that, if and when you do, you please take care to
> > do in a way that does not involve talking negative nonsense
>
> Sure!  I won't talk negative *nonsense*.  I didn't.
>
> It's taking back the “FSFLA was effectively under control of Vía Libre”
> that would be talking negative nonsense.  I hereby promise I won't take
> it back.
>
>
> The attentive reader will notice the pattern of simultaneously
> disqualifying *both* the claim and the speaker, without offering any
> substance to either disqualification, other than similarity with cases
> of other victims.
>
> In our foundation assembly, you and Bea had successfully planted a
> firewall between their verbal attacks and my ears and eyes, so I'd
> disregard them as nonsense trashtalkers.
>
> And I did, for much longer than it took me to develop a more accurate
> picture of you and your behavior patterns.  I even defended you from the
> allegedly-nonsensical accusations from people you had trashtalked to me
> before.  This made myself and Georg be perceived as their enemies.
>
> I got the picture in the process of becoming another victim.  It's no
> surprise that I saw a similar picture that the other “nonsense
> trashtalkers” had of you.  However, the firewall was so effective that I
> have only come to realize the similarities between the pictures very
> recently, after I actively sought to put the firewall down.
>
> Now, if the picture wasn't accurate, how likely would it be that a bunch
> of reasonably intelligent people would have come to the same feelings
> and conclusions about you, independently and based on unrelated
> circumstances?
>
> Is it just coincidence that you are now attempting to plant firewalls
> between myself and others' ears and eyes?
>
>
> > you are saying [...] I manage to do my evil deeds in such a way that
> > they cannot be proven
>
> Sure!  Why would you demand the confidentiality agreement otherwise, if
> not to cover your tracks?
>
> I know, I know, the official excuse was that it would give FSFLA a
> fighting chance.  You know I never bought that.
>
> You never showed much concern for FSFLA over Vía Libre anyway.  Why
> would you have started showing such concern just before leaving?
>
> How arrogant is it to second-guess the value of the information in there
> to all future members of FSFLA, who might find themselves in the risky
> situation of cooperating with the people who formerly controlled it?
>
> If it was meant to promote FSFLA's interest, rather than yours and Vía
> Libre's, let *FSFLA* decide what, if anything, to bring to the public.
>
>
> There!, I did it, I killed your official excuse!
>
> Now, insisting in sustaining would show your ulterior motives.
>
> So you'll ponder on them and realize that nothing really
> earth-shattering will come out of it.  There are no more than some
> additional patterns of (mis)behavior, that might even require another
> victim to recognize, and no more than a few other issues for which there
> is no external record.
>
> You know what?, you're thinking, you might as well let go of the
> confidentiality agreement right now, to show off your apparent goodwill!
>
>
> So here's an idea: get together with your Vía Libre fellows and publish
> a statement, in the forums in which I mentioned the confidentiality
> agreement, in which you authorize the publication of any material in
> them, liberating all FSFLA members from back then from any obligations
> estipulated under that agreement.
>
> That will sound good for you, and will make me much happier.  Win-win,
> the very kind of cooperation I'm interested in.
>
>
> As for consequences of releasing us from the chains of the agreement, I
> promise you that, as far as I'm concerned, it won't come to much else,
> as long as you don't resort to bullying me further.
>
> And, you know what?  This might make for a very interesting case study
> for our observer Ana Maria Albuquerque.
>
> On top of her interests in Free Software and education, she is a
> psychologist who studies geniuses and cyberbullying.  A perfect fit!
>
> --
> Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
> You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
> Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
> Free Software Evangelist      Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer
> _______________________________________________
> Team mailing list
> Team en fsfla.org
> http://www.fsfla.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/team
>
>
> ---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
> From: Richard Stallman <rms en gnu.org>
> To: Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva en fsfla.org>
> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:39:56 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Team] Mea culpa: Error acerca de la Historia de la FSFLA
>    Upthread, Federico disputed the fact, that I posted on personal capacity
>    to a public list, that FSFLA in its early days was effectively under
>    control of Vía Libre, and formally requested me to take it back.
>
> That claim sounds like an exaggeration to me; I too am skeptical of it.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Team mailing list
> Team en fsfla.org
> http://www.fsfla.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/team
>