[p2p-research] Issue of bullying within private p2p-f communication

[Alex Rollin]

Michel, the energy behind your threat is associated with my stated
intentions to expel you from the board.  I said in private that I want to
vote you off the board.  I don't see a problem with this intention.  This is
how democracy works.

To me, this is about democracy, and this is good.  Voting for and against a
position or for a representative is a good thing.

Maybe this is the subject we should talk about?

If this was a democracy I would vote you off.

I say I have a right to critique your use of authority and the decisions you
make.

I want users to have rights.  I want users to be represented on the board.

I see democracy as an important part of a community.

I have a right to contact others. I have a right to learn from their
concerns and to share information with them.

Alex

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> I want to report on an issue that I had communicated privately, to honour
> my own promise to restrain myself, but given Sam Rose's reply which I'm not
> copying in without his permission, confirms that private bullying has gone
> on much more systematically. I must admit I find it hard to adopt this
> restraint, since I feel the very survival of what I have tried to build,
> with others, is at state, and people need to know also what happens 'behind
> the scenes'. As you will see from the development below, private
> communication can be used as a weapon, and it's part of the equation and the
> power play
>
> People who have been following this controversy know that it started from
> increasing frustration that my concerns were not heard, and replies like
> "read the f ..ing manual". A whole attitude of superiority and dismissal of
> concern. As you'll see below, I'm literally for Alex "a little man", as well
> as an "old man" who has to learn to share. I may be a little and old man
> (I'm 52), but I do not think that I need any lessons in sharing.
>
> I also reported on the habit of bullying, but perhaps underestimated how
> persuasive this was. While I have seen examples, I was unaware that similar
> communication had been directed to other people who expressed support here.
>
> I have also another deeper reason for this. James, who like me has a
> conciliatory and mediating personality (in this of course, I have not kept
> up that habit), tells me he does not wish to take any specific measures. My
> problem is that this means only certainly the following scenario unfolding,
> and bear with me for the explanation:
>
> - in the coming weeks, we will collect candidacies for the new board,
> present it to this list, and see who else wants on, and decide on a process
> for the nomination. Almost certainly, Alex will pose his candidacy, since he
> has openly declared that he wants in, and use his position to start a
> campaign for my ouster. As I indicated, I feel this is inaceptable at this
> stage of the budding life of the P2P Foundation as something more than a
> knowledge commons. Permanent 'civil war' will almost certainly dissipate the
> positive energies needed to continue construction of the movement. This
> means, that were his candidacy accepted, he would have won. It also means
> that all the changes that are meant to mold the foundation to his own image,
> would succeed. This would mean working under a regime that I would abhor,
> the construction of the P2P Foundation as an authorititarian cult. I accept
> that Alex has good intentions, but I also strongly believe that there is a
> lack of self-reflection and that he is not aware of his bullying manner, and
> prisoner to a conviction of righteousness. To use a historical analogy, when
> Stalin took over the power structure in Russia, he did not say, I'm an evil
> man who wants power and send everyone to the Gulag, but draped himself in
> righteousness, billed the others as enemies, used this righteousness as the
> standard, and send them to the Gulag. Of course, no such thing could happen
> in a voluntary organisation, but I want to indicate a similar process. As
> the policy documents produced by Alex indicate, the Board would consist of
> ultra-committed advocates, with only one thing in mind, i.e. they would be
> righteous, they would swear allegiance to his pledge of commitment, and a
> process would be in place to enforce a p2p orthodoxy that would go in the
> sense of what has been described. Even if no blood would be shed, the
> atmosphere would not be that of a congenial and convicial voluntary
> organisation, but that more akin of a cult, driven by a righteous leader.
> True all of this is now only visible in seed form, and most of you may not
> see this, but it is there already if you can see it.
>
> Needless to say, I do not want to be part of such an organisation, not of
> course, because I am against commitment, but because such a vision of p2p-f
> sees it not as a movement based on come and go voluntary contrbutions, but
> as something altogether different. I have indicated before that Alex'
> vision, however legimate as one choice within the p2p sphere, is entirely
> monological, since he things he can positively describe singular p2p
> principles and hold people accountable to them. My problem is NOT with that
> vision, but with the effort to impose that singular vision on the whole of
> the p2p-f and to make the work of us that disagree, subservient to that
> monological vision. If Alex has a vision of text as code, however legitimate
> as a hypothesis and belief, then he simply enacts it, refuses to  take into
> account any objections, and implicitely forces all of us to go along. If
> Alex has a vision of the P2P-F as an idealized cult of p2p monks, he writes
> up policy documents that if accepted, would be the basis to attack those
> that diverge from that idealized vision.
>
> In other words, if nothing happens, Alex comes on the Board and I refuse to
> enter it under those conditions, this is far from being only a personal
> matter only. I will have to create another vehicle for my work, and make
> sure that next time, there are minimum protective measures that can counter
> any strategy of the coucou, as we have just witnessed. The rest of you,
> those that do no wish to act against the imposition of a singular vision,
> will ultimately also live with the consequences. I expect that most of you
> would leave once they see the real consequences of the change, but others
> may come, who like the direction of a stern father figure telling them of
> the one way to salvation. In the process though, four years of work will
> have been hijacked, and morphed into something that goes against the orginal
> spirit.
>
> From your experience here, through the wiki, blog and mailing list
> discussion, you must already be aware of the counter-vision that I have
> proposed and enacted, with faults and warts but nevertheless as a sincere
> attempt,  that of the foundation as a pluralistic platform, with mutual
> respect, and where different visions can co-exist. Such co-existence can
> also include that of Alex, if he retracts his promise for a permanent civil
> war, and if he would learn to take his place as a peer instead of imposing
> his singular vision of everybody else. I have personally lost any confidence
> and trust that Alex would be capable of this, but would still accept it in
> the name of due process and giving everybody extra chances. But I won't be
> happy to work in a context where I have to fight constantly, be bullied. Why
> would I, since for me as well this is a voluntary engagement, and the new
> lord does not pay me to undergo this particular treatment.
>
> OK then, exhibit one:
>
> "it is a user regime.  it always will be, no matter how confused little men
> like you are.  you old people will have to learn to share, especially since
> you need the techs in order to do anything.
> [8/12/2010 7:15:28 PM]
>
> (Alex does not see the contradiction of advocating a user regime, while
> wanting to sit in the board and demote me as a user ... the new regime will
> not be a user regime, but a board-driven authoritarian organisation, where
> petty rules (the literarlly hundreds of pages are being produced as we
> speak) will drive process; what alex has in mind is not just the formal
> rules of the wikipedia but also it's power structure of powerful admins,
> that have successfully halted the growth of it)
>
>
> Exhibit two, a for now anonymous confirmation of my intuition:
>
> - You were more than justified. Alex went well into the realm of
> personal attacks, harassment and bullying towards you in these
> exchanges. I think the only way you were going to see it stop was to
> hold up a mirror for him, so that he could see how he was acting.
>
> Yes, this is just a waste of time at this point. I see this as
> bullying, because he's putting pressure on you in an abusive way to
> try and trip you up, then use this against you.
>
> When someone starts doing stuff like this, there's no need to extend
> the regular respect and patience that you might extend to most others.
> They don't deserve it.
>
>
> I really hope that other people will hear this, and take steps to avoid the
> metamorphosis of this project.
>
> Michel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100815/4bc0b9aa/attachment.html>