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

Mon Aug 16 19:54:27 CEST 2010

Thanks Ryan,

your wise words are much appreciated, things seem to be calming down now

you have a remark for list support,

that probably merits a remark by Kevin, who could start a search for a
replacement, if that is really necessary?

Michel

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry, I've been off a bit.  It is probably appropriate for someone else to
> pick up my list support duties as my personally life keeps me too busy to do
> much.
>
> I have liked Alex and I don't see this as parallel to Nathan or the other
> fellow whose name I forget.
>
> Alex is not loony.  He is angry.  What is coming through here is a
> frustration, to my mind, with the idea of Michel's guidance of the
> foundation as its founder and, effectively, it's proxy owner or surrogate.
> I don't think that frustration is merited.  I think a point was being
> made...but that lives were at stake in the discussion.  Namely, Michel has a
> personal stake in his role in what the Foundation is and what it becomes,
> and anyone who doesn't understand that has never started anything.
>
> That said, organizations have the right to govern themselves how they see
> fit within the law.  In fact, I think that's what Alex has been saying as
> I've read it.  But organizations don't follow ideals and are imperfect.
> That much I know.
>
> I have long admired Michel as I do still, and he is a man of ideals while
> yet, as anyone, imperfect.
>
> Sadly, language has been used here on both sides that burned bridges.  In
> business, I've long learned to avoid such language.  No good comes of it.
> Ever.  It merely raises stakes until someone must crack and walk.  If that's
> the intent, it is a form of "chicken" as in racing two cars toward each
> other until someone flinches.
>
> I recommend, you both try to write something conciliatory...and if that is
> impossible to find a path of mutually beneficial advancement, I recommend
> Alex move on.  He is a smart guy and has a thousand futures.  I also
> recommend that the governance processes of the Foundation become more
> formal...whatever the ideal in play.  Organizations always have crises, and
> this one will be no different.  Mechanisms to face them will always be
> necessary.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  I don't know what came over me but I can see it was a mistake to get in
>> a fight here.  I apologize for my part in it.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On Aug 15, 2010, at 3:00 PM, Michel Bauwens < <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>> michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>   Alex,
>>
>> this is a voluntary organisation around a shared goal and both the peer
>> governance of the community and the democracy of the formal foundation have
>> certainly their place; at the same time, autocracy has no place, and
>> everybody has a right to build influence and trust through proven
>> contributions. This is what I have tried to do myself, and as we can see
>> from the last few weeks, I have no independent power to stop you, and have
>> not taken any administrive measures to stop you, because I can't (first I
>> didn't want though now I think we do need some protections against hostile
>> takeovers)
>>
>> you certainly have the right to communicate and to share your vision with
>> others
>>
>> it is also a special project of which I'm the founder, and we're at a
>> delicate stage of moving towards a more collective project,
>>
>> there are two visions at stake, as I see it,
>>
>> a pluralist vision where multiple views are possible honouring each other
>> through mutuality, and where code is subordinated to the creation of
>> knowledge; and where procedures are secondary to prior effort at consensus
>> and conflit resolution through dialogue and accepted community arbitrage
>>
>> and the way I see it, a vision which claims to know what p2p is, wants to
>> create tools to enact it in practice, and a very activist board that aims to
>> steer this effort and does not leave room for other views, which it seeks to
>> displace and dominate; certainly that is the way I see my experience in the
>> last few weeks and months
>>
>> indeed, in your practice, in the past few months, I see the following, you
>> enacted code and were insensitive to any challenges to your vision of it,
>> you created policy documents given the impression of officialdom without
>> acknowledging their private proposal status, and you have a habit of
>> bullying  and insulting the people who disagree with you, in the private
>> emails that accommpany the public debate .. you fight to win and dominate
>> and behaved like an autocrat
>>
>> none of the problems would have arisen if you had been more modest about
>> your actions, acknowledged differences graciously, and acknowledged me as a
>> peer with some influence because of the prior work I have done here. I have
>> four years of practice to prove that I have never imposed my views
>>
>> instead, you sought dominance and power, create code and policy which aims
>> to dislodge plurality, and openly declare that you are in the game to oust
>> me
>>
>> in theory, yes, this is legitimate, but given the strategy of the coucou
>> you have been following, I cannot accept, not the challenge, but the fact
>> that it would consume a large amount of destructive energies, and that there
>> is someone on board who does not respect the plural vision, the mutuality
>> required by cooperation
>>
>> I'm assuming that seeking dominance for you is second nature, and I am not
>> sure that you are even aware that you do it, neverthless, imposing and
>> dominating is what you attempt to do, and you use process and democracy to
>> hide behind it
>>
>> Since you cannot accept the slightest challenge to your all-knowing
>> certainty about the direction of the p2p foundation, and in my view see it
>> as a direct attack on the ego, what your call for democracy in reality
>> means  is a promise for endless scheming and opposing my ideas and vision ..
>>
>> It is not that they cannot be challenged, but there must be a certain
>> amount of acceptance of the road ahead as well, in order to have some form
>> of commonality amongst our diversity,
>>
>> so, peer governance will evolve, and you've seen it in action, we talk
>> amongst ourselves about the best way forward and how to deal with the
>> conflict, no one has been barking orders and it has been through the
>> presentation of the evidence of your actions in the past few weeks
>>
>> and we will also have a new board, discuss about the process to nominate
>> its members, and install democratic procedures
>>
>> but, I cannot accept someone who vows to destroy my work, has indeed made
>> it very hard in the last few weeks to progress on, and vows to continue
>> until he wins,
>>
>> you're win-loose propositions and mentality are in my view not the proper
>> way to engage with the P2P Foundation, and I reserve the right to make this
>> known, and to oppose it.
>>
>> here's a contribution below that expresses better than myself, what I
>> think happened, and why you are so fond of democracy and procedure, and are
>> writing an endless stream of policy pages.
>>
>> Again, I'm  normally opposed to psychologizing differences, since they can
>> be used to prove superiority, yet since it is my conviction that it is
>> central for what happened between us, I will share it, and to explain my
>> opposition to your use of democracy as  means to dominate and take over the
>> P2P Foundation. Not that I believe you will succeed, but because I believe
>> you will create further damage in the process, and I'm loathe to resume
>> productive work, without being drained by an endless conflict.
>>
>> This is why I'm asking you to retract your democratic threat to do all in
>> your power to take over this community and to fight me until I'm reduced to
>> total powerlessness as a user. I already have been in the position of user
>> vis a vis your imposed new rules and information architecture, I know how
>> much you have respected my rights to disagree, and I can no longer accept
>> this, and don't want such a regime to dominate all the good work we have
>> done so far.
>>
>> I have my own flaws, you have your opinion on it which you generously
>> shared and  I'm sure others can say more, but, I'm pretty sure that there is
>> no inkling of a desire for autocracy
>>
>> so, here is the anonymous quote, that sets behaviour into context:
>>
>> (send privately)
>>
>> Alex, believe me, you'd be so much happier if you stopped trying to be the
>> boss and to push other people down, you have great skills and abilities, you
>> would naturally rise through your contributions, and were, if you had not
>> sought and thought that you needed to push others away in order to achieve
>> your goals ... there was place for everybody here
>>
>> Michel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Alex Rollin < <alex.rollin at gmail.com><alex.rollin at gmail.com>
>> alex.rollin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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><michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>>> 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> <p2presearch at listcultures.org>
>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>>  <http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org><http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org>
>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>> <p2presearch at listcultures.org> <p2presearch at listcultures.org>
>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>> <http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org><http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org>
>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> P2P Foundation: <http://p2pfoundation.net/> <http://p2pfoundation.net/>
>> http://p2pfoundation.net  - <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/><http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/>
>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>
>> Connect: <http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/><http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/>
>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>> <http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org><http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org>
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>> Updates: <http://del.icio.us/mbauwens> <http://del.icio.us/mbauwens>
>> http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; <http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens><http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens>
>> http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; <http://twitter.com/mbauwens><http://twitter.com/mbauwens>
>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; <http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens><http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens>
>> http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>
>> Think tank:
>> <http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI><http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI>
>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> <p2presearch at listcultures.org>p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> <http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org>
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Lanham
> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
> P.O. Box 633
> Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
> Cayman Islands
> (345) 916-1712
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>

-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100817/c7dbd8d9/attachment.html>