[HACC] TW: TAKEOVER ATTEMPT OF HACC

Mon Aug 30 12:26:41 CEST 2021

Hi everyone,

I've been trying to stay out of the debate as much as possible so far,
but since my name has been coming up and David has been bugging me I
guess I have to pitch in.

First of all, thank you blipp, for your excellent mail, with which I
agree fully.

Regarding the "seth gave the name to HACC Munich" thing:
My memory is very hazy, but I vaguely remember being asked by Raphael
and answering something in the vein of "don't care". I took the time to
dig out the original conversation, and as it turns out, I didn't even
receive Raphael's mail or reply personally, due to mail setup / GPG foo.
nanooq called me and forwarded Raphael's question:

On 11.05.20 22:12, Raphael Weniger wrote:
> Hallo nanooq,
>
> wir sind gerade im Prozess aus HACC einen gemeinnützigen eingetragenen
> Verein zu machen.
>
> Besonders um unsere Serverinfrastruktur und Streamingdienste durch
> Spenden zu finanzieren (infra4future.de und hacc.media). Es ist sicher
> sinnvoll das gemeinsam abzusprechen. :-)
>
> Die erste Frage wäre in wie weit ihr noch mit dem Namen arbeitet?
>
> Viele Grüße
> Raphael

Translation:

> We're in the process of founding a HACC non-profit association.
>
> Particularly to finance our server infrastructure and streaming
services (infra4future.de and hacc.media) with donations. It's probably
sensible to discuss this together :-)
>
> The first question would be, in how far you still work with the name?

nanooqs answer:

On 13.05.20 13:42, nanooq wrote:
[...]
> Ich habe eben mit Seth telefoniert. Wir beide arbeiten zur Zeit nicht
mit dem Namen. Deshalb: Feuer frei!
[...]

Translation:

> I just had a call with seth. Neither of us are currently working with
the name. So: go ahead!

I don't recall the call with nanooq in detail, but I know that I was
very stressed out and disinterested at the time and likely told him
'whatever'.

So much for the historical facts. What's more important: That certainly
wasn't being excellent on my part and I would like to apologize for my
thoughtless response and lack of initiative in resolving the issue.
That said, I never felt I had any authority in the matter and never
intended to give my "[...] approval to use the name [as the] initiator
of the first sessions [...]" as stated on the hacc.earth website. And to
be honest, I'm quite disappointed about the disregard for the consensus
of the community and the deference to authority (however imagined it may
be).

Now, I don't want to shift the blame on Raphael or anyone else involved
in the founding of the HACC eV. Misunderstandings happen and as blipp
said, these mistakes are correctable. Plus, I appreciate the work that
has gone into the association and as far as I can tell, it has been a
valuable addition to HACC so far.

However, going forward, there are two options (I don't really see any
other):
- Either the HACC eV renames itself and as blibb has laid out. What that
would entail has been discussed at length in the matrix group.
- Or it adopted (via group consensus) as the official governing
structure and legal entity for the entirety of the (international) HACC
community.

I personally favor the second option, as I believe that this was at
least partly the original intention behind the founding of the
association. At least the statutes seem to me to be quite compatible
with that goal (thanks Raphael for the translation). This too would no
doubt require a number of changes (international HACCers becoming
members, translation of documents, handing over the domains to the eV,
plenty of introspection and discussion, ...), but I feel it would be
less wasteful and also less painful.

Regarding the consensus method:
As the premium-collective thing seems to be down and was german only and
IIRC poorly defined anyway, we need an alternative method. I don't
really know many alternatives, but I quite like the systemic consensing
approach. Most resources are in german unfortunately, but it's a simple
enough method: https://openpracticelibrary.com/practice/systemic-consensing/
The sk guys made an app for it too (proprietary freemium, unfortunatly):
https://www.acceptify.at/en/start
So my suggestion is to give this method a try and see if it can be
adopted as a model for general decision making within HACC.

I too would appreciate a meeting to discuss these issues further in
person, and would like to see more HACC eV people besides Raphael there,
too this time.

Cheers, seth

> Dear HACC, HACC MUC, David, Peter, all,
>
> On August 11, 2021, David resurfaced the early email on the HACC mailing
> list that established vetoed consensus [1] as form of governance for
> HACC. Since at least then it should have become clear to you, HACC
> Munich, that there is a severe problem with the current situation. It
> should have become clear much earlier, but now I believe it is _very_
clear.
>
> I have been told that at some point, Seth agreed to “give HACC to them”
> when asked about it by HACC Munich. It is great that HACC Munich asked
> Seth, but both of them were mistaken in thinking that Seth should or can
> make that decision. They both forgot about the vetoed consensus model
> and about the fact that there are other people in the HACC movement.
>
> These mistakes are correctable. It is work, but possible, and important
> that it gets done. David and CHT did not disappear from HACC, which is
> how HACC Munich perceived it apparently. They are a part of HACC, and a
> valuable part of HACC.
>
> Several individuals from HACC Munich have expressed concerns, saying
> that they do not want such strict governance. I understand that you have
> frustration about governance, coming from the Fridays for Future
> movement. However, HACC was created with a vetoed consensus model from
> the beginning. This should be very clear by now. Also, a charitable
> association has been created on your end. This involves much more
> formalized governance than the vetoed consensus in HACC. I am sure your
> work of running infrastructure for activists can find a place within the
> vetoed-consensus-governed HACC.
>
> Concerning the association. I suspect most hackerspaces in Europe have a
> legal entity that officially rents the room and internet connections and
> hosts computer hardware. There is nothing weird principally in the fact
> that HACC Munich created such an association. It is a standard tool. It
> was a clear mistake not to discuss it on the HACC communication channels
> first. But it is valuable work to set up such an entity. Worst case, the
> association will be renamed. Maybe to something like “Hackers Against
> Climate Change München e.V.”, or really worst case, “Infra4Future e.V.”.
> In the best case, the HACC movement will come to the conclusion that the
> association is valuable globally, without restricting it to local
> activities by its name.
> As a side note, I want to emphasize that the statutes of the association
> are now available in English [3], thank for that link, Peter.
>
> I understand that for HACC Munich and their association it will be
> uncomfortable to adapt their narrative, their brand, their association,
> their websites, etc. And that it will be uncomfortable because this
> process will take time, until consensus decisions within HACC can be
> established. But it must be done and it can be done.
>
> HACC Munich,
>
> – I know you have strong opinions about pads, publicly editable
>   websites, and other details. These details should not be important for
>   the honest realization that there has been the mistake of (knowingly
>   or unknowingly) ignoring the consensus model.
>
> – I am willing to see these as mistakes that have _originally_ been
>   made unknowingly and/or not with bad intentions, as Peter said in his
>   email. But since they have been pointed out, and clear evidence has
>   been shown, you have to realize and  acknowledge that they have
>   happened and correct them. If you don't do that, it looks like you are
>   doing so knowingly and/or with bad intentions. It is unfair and unjust
>   and violating the founding statements of HACC not to act now.
>
> – If you want to talk about any of the points laid out in this email
>   with me, please reach out. For example, I think it is a good idea to
>   invite me to one of your next plenaries.
>
>
> On 26/08/2021 14:28, Peter wrote:
> > 1. I should have realized that registering domains could be
> > problematic
> > – but I did not, as it went so uncontested with hacc.wiki,
>
> I think nobody would ever have contested the hacc.wiki domain, because
> Seth announced the domain in the already cited email, kind of making it
> part of the HACC bootstrapping:
>
> On 03/01/2019 07:53, seth wrote:
> > Peter was nice enough to quickly register/find some domains, and the
> > wiki is already reachable at https://hacc.wiki, […]
>
>
>
> David, in case it is still not going forward, a next option I see is
> asking the CCC Arbitration Board if they would take on this case [2],
> although they might judge that it is outside their usual activity area,
> which seems to be issues immediately arising from or during CCC events.
>
> – blipp
>
>
> [1] There are surely many flavours of vetoed consensus. The flavour that
> was introduced in the beginning of HACC, the one used by the Premium
> collective, roughly: expects you to only veto a decision if you really
> cannot support it/live with it, in an effort to let the collective stay
> operational.
>
> [2] https://help.ccc.de/arbitration/index.en.html
>
> [3]
>
https://gitlab.infra4future.de/hacc/verein/satzung/-/blob/master/hacc_eV_Satzung_en.md