First things first, I'm not looking for a mea culpa, not from you at least; but you need to understand that bearing the title that you bear (and take pride in), you will need to act as a representative. We cannot sort anything out by talking to Wilmore, the friendly guy. The only way we can sort something out here is by talking to either President or VP of your FES. I'm not looking for personal responsibility (and this is a sentiment that I explained before the split). As far as I'm concerned, the people responsible are the power structure of your FES, and as part of that, you take a share of my (and everyone else's, as it's become apparent in this thread and on IRC) anger.
I am open to all kinds of solutions, and you're kind of assuming a lot there, without much basis. In fact without any basis, given what I've tried to make happen in the past. That other people didn't agree, and that I could not persuade them, is not solely and exclusively my fault. I'm (yet again) trying here. [...]
I'm not looking for a scapegoat, but you cannot just isolate yourself from the society's decisions, even if you personally disagree with them. The issue at hand is: we suggested multiple changes to the society and the society's response (through its representative) was an impolite "go away, we don't need you, we are the only people who do something here" (this is just an example. There was more, including threatening Thork with a ban, filing out GitHub suggestion1 under "not a snowball's chance in hell" only to change it to "Soon" after the split, and then never accomplishing it anyway, etc.). The society, as a whole, needs to get its story straight. This isn't about what each person thought, or who put what efforts to get things going. I both believe and appreciate that you tried, but from a political standpoint, it doesn't mean that much. In fact, it only further exemplifies the urgent need of sorting out and formalising the FES's power structure.
Also, I think you just made it clear why closed-door discussions are terrible. You cannot expect people to magically know who tried doing what if a lot of it happens in secret.
I don't disagree with any of this so stated. In some ways this is as much a question of approach/attitude/tone, something you and I usually have issues with in public discussions. To be clear, I am in no way trying to brush away the problems with how the other forum is run, and to be absolutely explicit: the other forum is badly run, and has been for a long time.
I feel I've acknowledged that sufficiently, and there's not really much more I can say. What I want to do is work towards some sort of reconciliation. I fully expect people to vent at me, and I've been dealing with that for a long time and don't really have a problem with it. All I'll say is that I don't think it's constructive in discussions between us, but let's leave that there.
Let me state this as clearly as I possibly can (I really thought I had made this clear, but perhaps not): I do not think the two problems should be treated as one. That is why I said "...when that work [i.e. regarding trust] is done, we can discuss how to proceed in terms of consultation/mediation/negotiation...". Maybe you're annoyed, maybe you're angry, and maybe there's a touch of 'rage-post' going on here, but you're not really giving what I've said fair consideration or representation. I just think one necessarily has to happen before the other, and that it should be handled in private. When it comes to actually discussing practical matters, I'm happy to see that done in public. I've already said as much.
Then all we're in disagreement about is the order of events. I'm of the opinion that we should establish our goals before working on their implemenation. If the people of tfes.org want us to be involved with the administration of the hypothetically-reunified site (this is something that you seem to assume, while I do not), then we need to sort our differences out. If they do not want us involved, then we have one problem less to deal with.
Well, to be honest that's an initial decision you guys have to make, and not something I can initiate or really participate in, so I guess that's a process you'll need to begin. Beyond that, there will need to be some trust-building, and then a separate process of actually thrashing things out. So I think it's more that we were talking about different things, I suppose.
Keep in mind, however, that you ask the members of this forum to stop complaining about your administration here, arguing that "I would like to see the forum reunited, and I will do what I can to try and make that happen, but I think that's a conversation best handled privately, as in many ways this dispute is partly about personalities as well as policies." I am happy that we cleared the air around this.
As for Daniel: I am not treating you as a messenger (In fact, I specifically rejected you as such by asking if Daniel couldn't speak about his own views himself, instead of you posting them here). I am telling you that the only way this split can end is if Daniel starts talking to us, and starts taking his userbase seriously2. I don't know whether this is something you can influence or not, but that's what currently stands in the way. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't do anything about it, I'm just saying that nothing can really happen until Daniel has a change of heart.
1 - n.b. I know and understand that you did your best there, but again, if it didn't happen, it didn't happen. Ultimately, that's what matters, not who tried and how.
2 - either that or he'd have to lose a lot of his powers and delegate them to people who can do the job
I broadly agree, but I think it also needs to be acknowledged that Daniel's lack of trust is something that both you and Parsifal may need to engage with and help resolve, for reasons that I think are obvious.
Anyway, I am going to leave this here for now (though I'll happily respond if people want to throw verbal tomatoes etc). I guess you guys need to make the above decision and get back to me. I'm going to send you and Parsifal an email in a purely personal capacity.