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

Dom Ago 9 00:02:21 CEST 2009

Diego, pienso que es el caso de escribir a las 'hermanas'
ademas ya esta en ingles.

Obviamente que la Europa con greve tiene cadaveres tambien.

va para marroncito tambien.

z/juan

On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 06:30:32PM -0300, Diego Saravia wrote:
> 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
> >
> 

> _______________________________________________
> Solar-general mailing list
> Solar-general en lists.ourproject.org
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/solar-general