[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fsfe-uk] Just a Minute

From: Martin Coxall
Subject: Re: [Fsfe-uk] Just a Minute
Date: 15 Apr 2002 16:17:38 +0100

> > As someone who wasn't there, will someone *please* tell me what the
> > hell was discussed that Martin Coxall feels didn't come across in
> > the notes? 
> Shortly into the meeting, the group split into two tables, as per the
> agenda. One table carried on the discussion detailed in the minutes. The
> other table (at which Mr Coxall[*] was present) had a much more
> free-ranging discussion, which was basically unminutable. 

Unminutable only if you define minutes as would, say, a management
consultant. What you have written there passes more comfortable for what
I would consider useful minutes than that embarassing document I saw
last night.
> [*] Sorry, I've forgotten his first name (Mark or Martin)!

Martin, altough you may continue to call me Mr Coxall if you wish...

> The two tables then re-formed into one group, and there was a loud
> disagreement between Phil Hands and Mr Coxall, during which discussion
> voices were raised, and not lowered even when this was requested in the
> interests of the random members of the public who were also in the pub.

That's why it might be better to have future meetings in, say, clara.net
and go to the pub afterwards. However, people shouldn't be afraid of
heated discussions and a few raised voices and angry exchanges. Least of
all in a political organisation. It's healthy, I tells ya.

> I expect Richard Smedley (sp?) gave up on attempting to minute the
> discussion which took place at Table 2, and that his minutes if any didn't
> make it into the amalgamated version posted to the list. I can't see how
> anyone could have failed to note the Hands/Coxall spat, even if they'd
> been half-way down the road! That it didn't make it into the minutes even
> as a one-liner "There was much heated discussion of the interrelationship
> of software patents and free software, and how this should affect AFFS as
> an organisation" strikes me as questionable.

Indeed. It certainly appears as if all dissent were simply airbrushed

> This doesn't excuse the *tone* of Mr Coxall's outburst, nor do I condone
> his attacks on the alleged officiousness and bureaucracy of those who are
> actually getting things done for AFFS. 

OK, my tone may have been somewhat BEMLI, but when I see people behaving
in an unnecessarily officious way, I automatically rail against it. I
have seen this kind of foolishness too many times. In any case, I wasn't
prepared to sit back and let such a seeming misrepresentation pass
without comment, so I acted. And frankly, I think it worked.

> I do however sympathise with the
> "general feeling" at his end of the table that they were having a fait
> accompli thrust upon them, in respect of the aims, ethos, strategy and
> structure of the organisation.

Indeed. And nobody can seriously expect intelligent people to accept
that kind of behaviour, which I accept may not have been intentional,
but which nevertheless still happened. 

Here is my positive suggestion:

I think we should forget the first set of minutes and try again, have a
new gathering whose intention it is to complete the process of working
out the structure and function of the AFFS, and this time, we should
make an effort to *get it right* instead of going off on some


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]