[p2p-research] On Alex Rollin stated intentions to expel me from the P2P Foundation board

Wed Aug 11 21:36:04 CEST 2010

The personal letter that triggered Michel.

A

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: P2P_Foundation_Knowledge_Commons_Agriculture_and_Food_Channel
To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>

No Michel,

You used conditionals in what you said as it stood for the OUTCOME of the
work.  You are using your power to deny approval and you are insensitive to
your use of that power.  It is irresponsible for on your part and a betrayal
of the relationship as peers working towards a solution together.

You are not very sensitive to your own use of power in the community.  You
use your historical work to justify yourself as the expert and put yourself
in the position of holding the one (of Very few) positions to Veto.  You
also hold official office and regularly confuse the two, even though they
are not the same thing.

There are many situations in which you abuse your power.  Some of them can
be looked over because they are shortcomings of language.  Perhaps you are
not so conversant in the language of power.  Perhaps your naivete is a
passable short term excuse for your poor execution.  This is not a long term
solution, though, as you are a holder of office, and the abuse of power
while sitting in the position of governing a community asset is not
appropriate, don't you agree?

Some of your abuses are definitely your own way of exerting authority as a
"voice" for whatever, backed up by your power.  This is the case with your
quip.

My critique of your use of conditionals in your
quip<http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&q=define:quip&btnG=Search>
has
nothing to do with praise.  You are good at giving praise.  You need to be
an excellent purveyor of praise because your success is so reliant on the
works of others as you described your "opportunistic updating"
shtick<http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&q=define:shtick&btnG=Search>
.

Praise <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/praise>, however, has very little do
to with the actual exercise of power in a relationship.  Praise can make
things run smoothly.

Praise has nothing to do with the formal definition of approval, which is a
function of power.  It is that power which you wield in the statement below
that I am commenting on.

Approval <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/approval> is about exerting
authority and denying forward motion.  Withholding approval is power.  There
are two things about the withholding of approval that you do regularly that
are an excellent example of the easy abuse of this power.

First, you would convey that you do not fully approve of the solution I
created.

This in itself is an exercise of your power.  You are deeming it, the work,
unworthy for some purpose that you do not declare.  You offer no recourse.
 You do this in a public place.

Second, you would tell me that, once I point this out to you, that you think
I'm OK as a person (praise), even though I am mis-interpreting (wrong)  your
remark.  You offer that I am not seeing things clearly.  That I am, what,
crazy?

This second is a very difficult type of situation.  You use it quite a bit
more regularly in your conversations where you are guarding your authority.
 This withholding of approval, combined with the withholding of information
from the first example, makes conversations with you very difficult, and
makes collaboration impossible.

In the past you have sabotaged several agreements between us by the abuse of
power.  You are a leader of a purportedly public service organization ought
to be very careful about how you use power, don't you think?

When you withhold approval, you are saying that you have the authority to
stop it.

When you withhold information about what needs to be done so that the work
can meet your approval, you stop all forward progress.  No progress can be
made because no one knows what will meet your approval.  You might say
people can try again, but then of course they would need to ask for your
approval again.  Wouldn't you say their chances are better if they knew what
they were shooting for?  What is a "super editorial format"?  Is that what
it looks like when you can do 45 times as much writing in one day?  Or when
the tools are transparent?  How can anyone help make that happen?

You are actively disabling collaboration with this abuse of power.

So, building on this, you regularly say that even if someone does understand
how to meet your approval in one case, it is irrelevant because this still
doesn't meet with your approval because your concerns,in fact, lie in a
different direction entirely.  A direction which you say no one really
understands because no one listens to you.  Even if they do, there is no way
they could express or fully understand your concern.  You are very careful
not to write it down, or to approve any documents that do state these
concerns because the alleviation of concerns means that your power is
diminished and they may be able to build another solution besides the one
you think is appropriate.

A good example of changing the topic was in a recent
thread<http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2010-August/010189.html>
where
you said:

I want to hear that the other party understands that imposing this
direction further is not the way to go, to accept that there are other
people with different views who want to defend the nottingham forest
for further development, or to use another analogy, some natives just
prefer the oil stays in the ground, no matter how much of an other
kind of value it constructs for other people with a different logic

If this is what you want, then how do I do this?

You are asking me to do what, exatly?

I have read the http://p2pfoundation.net/Wiki_Use_Policy several
times.  This is not mentioned there.  If you think this is important,
don't you think that writing it there would be a good thing?  Wouldn't
that be good faith in participating in the process?

Again, you are abusing your power here.  You are saying, effectively,
that not only did I not "understand" you but that I do not "accept
that there are other people with different views" who want different
things.

Do you not think this is a bit..manipulative?  That you are explicitly
"not approving" whatever I have done to show mutual understanding in
this regard?  Do you really think there is any other way to interpret
this from my perspective?  Do you not think, then, that it might be
reasonable for others to hear your meaning as I hear it?  That you do
not approve?  This is your use of power. It is not a stretch.

I do not need nor seek your praise.  I do not even need you at all, in
general.  I am here to work with you because of who you are and what
you do and what you are attracting because we have 99% commonality.
But you seem to think that the 1% is something that should be enough
for you to continually crap on me with your disapproval to the entire
public list.

Use the process.  Keep your complaints clearly outlined on the page.
That is what the process is for.

I certainly cannot save you from yourself, but, as I said before, my
wish is that the institution is preserved.  If you could step down off
your high horse for awhile you might find that acting like a user,
like me, would be helpful to you.  You might see this process as the
only way you can get anything you want.  That's how I feel.  That
would be an appropriate thing for you to feel, too, I think.  It would
help me to see that you think that there's some way of going about
things that using your authority won't get you.  I could care less
about your authority.  Really.  That's not why I engage the process.

I also don't care if you listen to my critique with open ears.  You
are not the kind of person I work with daily.  You are too irritable
and none-to civil when it comes to addressing grievances.  You are not
the person to set wiki poilicy in my eyes or perform any sort of
mediation services.  Your inability to curb your behavior when you are
raging shows me that you are not qualified to sit in a high traffic
position that deals with the public.  I have done this before.  You
piss me off, and you do it by abusing your authority and not
considering yourself a peer.  It is terrible behavior for someone who
is running a foundation that claims to encourage peer-to-peer
behavior.  You can bet I will vote you off the board as soon as I get
a chance, but in the mean time you would do very well to keep this
kind of thing under wraps.  It doesn't actually help you.  Some people
are attracted to this kind of power but it is 2 value systems back.
Your use of it jus shows that you have failed to adapt to the current
demands of a high traffic administrative position.  It is nothing to
be ashamed of, but, seriously, you can't expect people to praise you
for it or to approve of it for long.  To let you write all policy for
a community resource would almost insure tha no one participated in
the maintenance of the thing.  At the very least their participation
is based on their personal relationship with you and their peripheral
use of the resource as they are not makers or maintainers.  You build
a bubble around yourself with no one in it.  You have to appeal to a
team and convince them of your worth all the time, cry about how much
traffic the wiki gets and remind people how great it is.  You have to
do this because they are not inside taking ownership with you.  Your
behavior insures that people can't get inside without dealing with all
your antiquated reactive behaviors.  Your abuse of power causes
needless headaches and confusion when it comes time to look for
solutions.  Your inability to act as a user, like a peer like everyone
else, puts you on the high horse and makes it equally difficult for
you to QUIT using power language.  It starts to seem, I'm sure, like
you said before, that if you DON't use and abuse your reactive power
no one listens.  They don't listen.  You drove them all away.  Your
behaviors tend to do that, and especially your use of power.

If you want real power in a community you have to realize it comes
from other people.  You act for others because they LET you do that,
through their approval system.  Whatever power you have now is vapor
because you don't really have that much support to depend on.  James,
Sam, Kasper and myself are your tech team. How long before the tech
shit hits the fan?  How long do you want to be crying out for help
with no one really caring?  Wouldn't it be nicer to act like a peer?
To say something like:

This wiki is amazing.  I have been using it for hours every day for
years.  I hope that everyone who uses it has as much fun as I do with
it.  If you like this wiki then I hope you will consider joining the
P2P Foundation.  As a community of "maker members" we work together
and vote on the changes and policy that drive the whole community.
It's a fun place to be because we are all working together to keep
this community resource going."

When was the last time you said something like that, Michel?  Guess
how many times I said something like that this week.  You want to
guess?  It might freak you out how many times I did.  I am a "maker
member" of more communities than you have close friends.

I want to do my documentation here.  P2P uses network theory.  I am in
this to be able to make that statement.  To insure that some ass like
you can't fuck everything up every couple days.  You can make all the
noise you want.  What concerns me is that you have power.  I would
seek to move any of that power out to a wider group.  Your use is too
often abuse.

The next time you say something nasty about me, think about what I
wrote here just before you hit send.  Go back and edit that email.
Take all your accusations out of it.  Go back again.  Take all the
names out of it.  Go back again and look at what you are saying about
what you want to happen.  Own it.  Claim that vision as your wish.  Go
back again.  Did you ask for help?  Try that.  See if you can figure
out how to invite others into your vision.  Make it explicit, like my
invitation above.  Go back again.  Is this something you would write
on the wiki?  Go back again and edit it into something you would write
on the wiki with your name on it.  Is it related to official process
for the foundation?  Which process.  How would this be handled in that
process?  Make a reference to that process.  Go back to your email and
figure out why someone would be interested in you vision.  Make that
point.  Go back again and ask yourself, am I being clear in inviting
them into that process?

The next time you write an email, think about this.  You will want to
because you know I will happily publish this email on the wiki.

I want to give you some praise.  To your credit you do reference
process. http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2010-August/010191.html

Now perhaps you would like to tell the world that you approve of the
process and that you submit to it.  Otherwise you are no better than
you accuse me of being.  You would also be using projection bias
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_(psychology)> which is
another poor quality for a leader, someone trusted with power over a
communities access to a common resource.  This is something I really
wish you would work on, which is why I spent an hour just now trying
to point it out for you.  If you want to stay in leadership this is an
important thing to work on.

Alex

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> hi alex,
>
> it's normal that you are now interpreting even my positive messages in a
> negative way ... fully understandable given the conflict
>
> but believe me, most outsiders would see "really great work" as a good
sign
> of approval ..
>
> Michel
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> would certainly be a major enhancement of our work and outreach,
>>
>> "would"?
>> How about IS?
>> You stink at approval.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Foundation_Knowledge_Commons_Agriculture_and_Food_Channel
>>
>> Dear Alex,
>>
>> thanks a lot for this, there are certainly details to improve and one day
>> I hope to see such things in a super editorial format, but such a channel
as
>> you have put together here, would certainly be a major enhancement of our
>> work and outreach,
>>
>> bravo! really great work,
>>
>> Michel
>>
>> --
>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>
>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>
>> Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
> Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
>
>
>
>

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear friends,
>
> Though my critique of Alex has been harsh, I have explained why I thought
> that was necessary, I have always made the disctinction between his
> contributions, and the fact that I was opposed to him imposing new
> technological directions for our wiki without process and taking into
> account the opinion of its main contributor.
>
> Alex of course retorts that all his propositions are viewable (some of them
> indeed are, many changes are not), but they are of such a volume that it is
> not possible to process by the communty, nor by myself. The result is a
> rapid escalation of changes, most of them beneficial, but some of them
> greatly complicating the editorial work, which I oppose. I never said this
> before, but I'd like to reveal now that from the very first day, Alex
> actually stated that he did not intend to ask for my permission or opinion
> on any matter, which is actually fine, as long as I have the same freedom,
> which I have not if technological changes are imposed.
>
> Because of my double evaluation, which recognizes alex's key contributions
> and importance, I even yesterday proposed to James Burke in a Skype
> conversation to reserve a place for Alex in the new board, pending our
> decision on which process we would use to make the choices. Because we do
> not have a membership, the idea was to propose a list of names, publish it
> on the list, and wait for reactions, in order to reach a consensus. Since we
> are seriously considering building a membership organisation, at some point
> in the next few years, probably this will happen through elections.
>
> This for the context, why the urgency.
>
> Alex has sent me a private letter, which I'm not suppose to divulge, and I
> will not, but it also contains a threat.
>
> Namely the following: "*You can bet I will vote you off the board as soon
> as I get a chance, but in the mean time you would do very well to keep this
> kind of thing under wraps*."
>
> Cleary Alex is not happy with the public discussion, hence the threat of:
> *"be quiet or else"* and at the same time, I'm unwilling to keep it under
> wraps, he knows that, we knew that, so the next step is already declared.
> This is valuable information.
>
> But I do think that his threat and position as a overt enemy in the
> organisation I have created with James, is not acceptable. I talked about a
> hostile IPO before, and perhaps nobody else saw this or felt this in quite
> the same way as I did, and of course, the primary issue was the imposition
> of a new policy and direction that I did not approve of.
>
> This is different, and a step in the escalation in which Alex declares
> himself an enemy.
>
> I do not think this is acceptable. Therefore, it is a matter of principle
> for me that Alex Rollin will NOT sit on the board, and I'm reinforced not
> only in the belief that there should be a fork, but now that this fork
> should be OUTSIDE of the P2P Foundation.
>
> Thanks for sharing your perspectives.
>
> My position is clear: it is not workable to have a declared enemy, opposed
> to the very organisation I have founded and tried to create.
>
> Once again, the P2P Foundation is pluralist, and strives for peer
> governance and democracy, but I do believe there is a justifiable boundary
> when sometimes declares an open civil war.
>
> Building the P2P Foundation is both a personal project and a collective
> project, where hopefully the collective can transcend the personal at some
> point, and obviously, I have my own limits. Nevertheless, I believe my
> personal contribution has been necessary and important, and that the
> continued growth of our work should be based on trust. We are not yet at a
> stage where factions vie for dominance, and perhaps never should.
>
> What I'm now asking is indeed trust. I have made an evaluation of Alex
> Rollin, I have tried first to privately convey my unhappiness at imposed
> policy stages, then made the issue public in face of any progress, but
> making a careful difference between the attempt to moderate the
> technological changes, and Alex' otherwise positive contributions.
>
> Alex however, is playing a different game, and clearly states his intention
> to expel me and to see support for this. It seems to me that this is a time
> of choosing, and I hope my friends and P2P Foundation supporters will
> support my continued efforts, and that since Alex finds my presence
> unacceptable, should found his own, using freely of course, all the material
> that has been collected so far, which is a commons for all to use.
>
> Michel Bauwens
>
> --
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
> Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100811/28b08d48/attachment.html>