Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Future Meetings

[Tim Dobson]

Tim Dobson wrote:
> TD: despite my affiliations, my personal point of view here, from the 
> point of view of unity and cooperation, I think we should try to remain 
> independent, but friendly with the fsf and fsfe until either of them 
> take a proactive role in the UK.

This is obviously a tender point, and rightly so.
This is at one level a very serious point from many peoples point of 
view while it should have very little impact on how the organisation 
will function to some extent.
I may as well admit here that that I have affiliations with the FSF and 
GNU. I do not intend to let current affiliations


MJ Ray wrote:
> Well, the UK is in Europe, not America, and FSFE *have* taken an
> proactive role in the UK, acting as a catalyst for the formation of
> the Association For Free Software (AFFS) and looking at starting an
> FSFE-UK chapter on at least two occasions that I'm aware of.

Simon Ward wrote:
> Personally, and I freelly admit being biased through my association, I
> think we should keep very close ties with the FSF, rather than being
> fragmented up all over the place.  If the FSF is seen as not having
> done much for the UK, let’s help them make it better.

Personally, if someone, Simon for instance, were to suggest staying FSF 
centric I would be happy with that, if it were up to me personally I 
would probably take a similar view to Simon,

However, it is evident when you look at the big picture, some people, 
and I know MJ Ray is not the only one, believe that the FSFE "cover 
Europe" and have been more active in the UK in general than the FSF thus 
have the opinion that the FSFE would be a better umbrella organisation 
to be part of.

These are obviously two views which take totally different angles.
The reason I suggest being "independent but friendly" is because I think 
it allows us more freedom and cohesion.

I would suggest that we can benefit from "the best of both worlds" if we 
stay independent, but that all members are encouraged to take part in 
and appreciate both the FSF and the FSFE.

This way no-one feels marginalised by supporting one organisation or the 
other, but support of and from both organisations can exist side by side.


MJ Ray wrote:
> That was part of the reason that AFFS was closer to FSFE, but I felt
> there was also a sticking point in AFFS-FSF relations: there seemed to
> be some fear of democratic popular associations in the FSF (which is
> self-perpetuating IIRC).

I would hope we can remain close to both organisation if we remain 
committed to our cause and avoid in-fighting, whatever the procedures 
within the organisation.

> I'm not aware of AFFS events since I resigned in about May 2005.
> www.affs.org.uk seems unmodified since 29-Dec-2005.  I feel it may be
> a good time to check whether anyone is up-to-date with the annual
> subscription (I'm not because I've had no payment request, unless
> there's no subscription fee at present) and ask them whether they want
> to elect a new Executive or invoke the dissolution clause and transfer
> remaining assets to FSFE.  Would any fsuk-manchester members be
> interested in reinvigorating AFFS?  Are any still paying subscriptions?

The reason I haven't commented though out the rest of my email about 
AFFS is simple, I don't feel I know enough about what it is/was to be 
able to come to a satisfactory conclusion on it.
*I* would suggest that any executive etc transferred assets to FSUK(when 
it is running), but that is not up to me really.

This raises a good question of whether FSUK should form the pheonix for 
AFFS or to form an independent organisation and let AFFS disappear (or 
just lurk!).

I, personally, don't feel I can comment here, because I know too little 
 the AFFS, it's history, members, executive etc. to have a calculated 
view on it.

--

Sorry for the miles of text,

Cheers

Tim

--
www.blog.tdobson.net
----
If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us
still has one object.
If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now
has two ideas.   -  George Bernard Shaw