so tbh, I have no interest taking part in a organisation which someone designed who thinks it's okay to first insist on open governance and transparency, and then write a governance proposal but chooses to withhold it from other members of the group that's supposed to be governed by it; claiming these people "don't have interest" isn't a valid excuse if it does still afffect them. As for myself, while I have stated that I don't have an interest in building such an organisation, I have also stated (multiple times!) that I wouldn't be opposed to joining one should someone else build one.

I am, however, opposed to joining one where the person working on its structure behaves in such a way. And I'm sorry, but for almost a year now we've been talking back and forth on what hacc is or is not. dcht00 , you may claim that hacc "is an established forum of hackers", but as far as I can see, that established forum is dead as a doornail, and all that remains — apart from some largely unmaintained pads and wiki entries — is this matrix channel, in which the absolute majority of messages are not "coordinating against the climate crisis" but precisely this endless discussion about hacc, and the only people who write anything at all are usually either you or someone of "the munich group", to the point of drowning out the occasional other people who really do just come here to ask questions like "hey, does anyone have any idea on xy".

If there really is more to this other hacc you keep talking about: where is it? Who are the people in it? What does it actually do, apart from arguing about itself? Don't get me wrong: when we first met in this chat, I was excited that there were other people who are part of hacc, and would've been excited to work with them on whatever projects there were. But that never happened. Instead this group was largely empty before then, and remained largely empty after it, until someone (mostly raphael, as i recall) organised the international calls, and even then it remained pretty quiet. All presence of hacc at rc3 came from "the munich group", when anyone could've done their own self-organised sessions; you like to claim someone is gatekeeping you, but how could anyone gatekeep open self-organised sessions? At divoc again all sessions were entered by us, and while you ended up moderating some of them, you also asked raphael to call you before each session so you wouldn't miss them.

So my enthusiasm at finding a larger hacc out there has largely faded. Instead I'm tired and exhausted of being shouted at for disrespecting the spirit of the original hacc sessions, as if the simple self-description "hacker against climate change" was somehow trademarked to just the people who were present at these sessions.

As you'll recall, at divoc we stumbled across the "hacking ecology" mailing list. I'm not sure if you signed up, but I did, and asked if anyone was still around. Some people answered, in what can (I think) be reasonably summarised by the following (taken from the only answer more than a sentence long): "Also I am not aware of any developments since then. [...] The initial group of people who gathered at 35C3 shared the enthusiasm, sparked by Theo's very nice talk back then. But that quickly faded away due to lack of time and clearly defined and achievable goals."

That seems to also be what largely happend to the hacc of 35C3. A lot of people were there, but the group faded away, and would probably be gone almost entirely if raphael hadn't started (and then maintained) the regular meetings in munich.

Anyways, this'll be my last message here; I'm leaving this chat. And while I don't really feel anyone can have an exclusive claim on a name as descriptive as "hackers against climate change", I'll suggest renaming "the munich group" during our next meeting. If the others agree, you would no longer have to bother yourself with us. Even if not, if you want to build some international organisation out of the name hacc, then go ahead! But I will now definitely not be part of it. Perhaps you will succeed, and eventually a hacc that isn't "the munich group" but closer to whatever you have in mind will do something that's not arguing with itself, and help efforts to minimise climate damage. And that would be great! But for now all I can see of that hacc is a sad, half-dead and intransparent organisation build on ideas of authoritarian communism where people may just be kept out the loop, with in-built organisational hypocrisy. Though obviously, I would quite like to be proven wrong on that count.

And meanwhile, if you do want to propose changes to the infra which "the munich group" does, then open a issue on the meta discussion repository.

Great, we are almost ready to continue working.

I will comment only on a few details of this mess:

A) My document blipp mentions, is a proposal draft. I shared the contents with him alone, because i trust him personally. I hope it's ok with everyone I draft documents and give my friends pre-access for feedback? Or is my Munich friend correct that this is "authoritarian communist" and "shadowy government"? I also announced I'm working on this document on 2020-08-24, on this channel, if anyone wants to check. Also, Stuebinm immediately discredited the idea then, with a long rant against "protocols", which made the situation hostile for anyone else to welcome the work. Yes, it's that simple. This is how domination works. Calling me "insulting" every other message is another aspect. Everyone that knows any history, or general group dynamics, understands this. And this is ending right now.

D) I have never explained in full, in writing, my logic of the reason why hacc did not work so far. Here it goes:
0. The reason hacc failed was hacc.wiki. The responsibility is not personal, it was several people. The wiki had a semi-consensus at 35c3, but definitely not a reasonalbe consensus. But most important - the wiki was a predicatable mistake, because it split the collaboration process between several platforms. This is completely impossible for an incipit organization.

1. I have personally told this would happen at the first meeting. I've fought everyone very strong for this to not happen.
2. I asked a question to all: "Does anyone have experience with supporting a group like this?" Answers were: no.
3. I have considerable experience with this, and I expressed readiness to take long-term responsibility with stewarding a large knowledge base, based on pads. I am an editor of one for 10 years. I maintain and develop collaboration software. The point: Ultimately it is not about "which type of wiki we will use", as some geeks would like to argue about for ages. It is about who takes responsibility to make it inclusive & to catalyze it with a dislocated community, & to keep doing the editorial work..
4. HACC will now stop failing, because it will finally adopt a functioning collaboration model of 100% pads.

Great, we are almost ready to continue working.

I will comment only on a few details of this mess:

A) My document blipp mentions, is a proposal draft. I shared the contents with him alone, because i trust him personally. I hope it's ok with everyone I draft documents and give my friends pre-access for feedback? Or is my Munich friend correct that this is "authoritarian communist" and "shadowy government"? I also announced I'm working on this document on 2020-08-24, on this channel, if anyone wants to check. Also, Stuebinm immediately discredited the idea then, with a long rant against "protocols", which made the situation hostile for anyone else to welcome the work. Yes, it's that simple. This is how domination works. Calling me "insulting" every other message is another aspect. Everyone that knows any history, or general group dynamics, understands this. And this is ending right now.

D) I have never explained in full, in writing, my logic of the reason why hacc did not work so far. Here it goes:
0. The reason hacc failed was hacc.wiki. The responsibility is not personal, it was several people. The wiki had a semi-consensus at 35c3, but definitely not a reasonalbe consensus. But most important - the wiki was a predicatable mistake, because it split the collaboration process between several platforms. This is completely impossible for an incipit organization.

1. I have personally told this would happen at the first meeting. I've fought everyone very strong for this to not happen.
2. I asked a question to all: "Does anyone have experience with supporting a group like this?" Answers were: no.
3. I told everyon I have have both experience & that I am ready to take long-term responsibility with stewarding a large knowledge base, on top of the pads. I am an editor of one for 10 years. I maintain and develop collaboration software. The point: Ultimately it is not about "which type of wiki we will use", as some geeks would like to argue about for ages. It is about who takes responsibility to make it inclusive & to catalyze it with a dislocated community, & to keep doing the editorial work..
4. HACC will now stop failing, because it will finally adopt a functioning collaboration model of 100% pads.

D) I have never explained in full, in writing, my logic of the reason why hacc did not work so far. Here it goes:
0. The reason hacc failed was hacc.wiki. The responsibility is not personal, it was several people. The wiki had a semi-consensus at 35c3, but definitely not a reasonalbe consensus. But most important - the wiki was a predicatable mistake, because it split the collaboration process between several platforms. This is completely impossible for an incipit organization.

1. I have personally told this would happen at the first meeting. I've fought everyone very strong for this to not happen.
2. I asked a question to all: "Does anyone have experience with supporting a group like this?" Answers were: no.
3. I have considerable experience with this, and I expressed readiness to take long-term responsibility with stewarding a large knowledge base, based on pads. I am an editor of one for 10 years. I maintain and develop collaboration software. The point: Ultimately it is not about "which type of wiki we will use", as some geeks would like to argue about for ages. It is about who takes responsibility to make it inclusive & to catalyze it with a dislocated community, & to keep doing the editorial work..
4. HACC will now stop failing, because it will finally adopt a functioning collaboration model of 100% pads.