An attempt at mutual understanding II

So far, three rounds of discussion have taken place between Leon S. Kennedy and myself on the one hand, and NewMan and Caspar from the FCA team on the other. Time for a quick update. You can find the background information in the corresponding blog post.

The four texts in question are:

So what's new?

First of all, after the initial discussion at the end of March, I radically shortened the four texts in question for the time being, with red notes explaining the reasons. The aim was to remove the old controversial versions as long as we would be reviewing which passages were actually inaccurate/inappropriate and should be changed. The FCA team had requested this urgently. Once everything is discussed and the necessary corrections have been made, these gaps and notes will disappear again. red note

For a good month now, I've been given a rough outline of the changes FCA wants. We're using these notes as a guide for our discussions for now.

As a record of a past statement, my [farewell to FCA][farewell] was tough to work on: I can hardly write “in December 2022, I wrote the following message (2025 edition)”, that would be ridiculous. So instead, a comment was added to the text. The note explains a factual mistake in that post, because I had misunderstood the FCA/GSA's moderation guideline: I may have had a special veto rule for emergencies in mind (the veto of one board member should immediately stop the vetoed activity of the association until a regular board meeting democratically clarifies how to proceed) when drafting the moderation guideline, but it was not included in the final document. It was clearly my mistake to assume and write this without checking. I apologize. So all that remains of my “special” veto is a normal vehement objection, to which, of course, no one was bound by any written rules. I would also like to note that Mascha's statement, to which I am also referring, no longer appears to be visible in the GSA forum. She had mentioned that it was good and actually important to discuss such a letter within the association first, but then relativized this by saying that it was not practical in this case due to time pressure.

What remains painful is the decision of my fellow board members to ignore my final objection. Prioritize the matter. To prioritize the matter over the team member without necessity. Because for the letter in question, a signature “on behalf of the association” was unnecessary; it would just have been nice to have.

For the review of the 2024 events, the outline I've been given and our discussions have presented no specific comments on what I have written about the unauthorised publication of Shadows Project . Since this section only lists a handful of observations and citations anyway, I recently restored it.

The points discussed so far also result in changes to other texts, but more on that later since their review is still underway.

Previous Post

Add a comment