[Chaoss-Board] CHAOSS response to FSF

Dawn Foster dawn at dawnfoster.com
Thu Apr 1 17:23:00 UTC 2021


Hi everyone,

+1 to keeping it internal as an email to the CHAOSS community (option 2). I
like the text as-is, and I'm also good with Kate's / Georg's suggestion of
free and open source software.

Since this is a community email, I don't think we need Sean's addition,
which seems more appropriate for an external statement, but it also
continues to give RMS additional attention for all of this, and I think
he's had enough attention. I think our statement takes the focus away from
RMS and turns it a bit more positively toward doing the right things for
our community.

Cheers,
Dawn

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 5:23 PM Amy Marrich <amy at demarco.com> wrote:

> As the person who brought this up, I like the idea of keeping it internal
> and the suggestions everyone is making.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Amy
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:06 AM Ildiko Vancsa <ildiko at openstack.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Georg and All,
>>
>> Thank you for writing up this summary of actions to consider and drafting
>> the communication to the community as well!
>>
>> Especially with our focus and efforts in DEI I think it is very important
>> to think it through how these events are affecting our work and how we
>> could and should react to it for the protection of our community as well as
>> the free and open source software ecosystem.
>>
>> I really like the letter to the community that you, Matt, Nicole, and
>> Elizabeth drafted. I think it is always good to remind ourselves to our
>> values and who we are and at times like this it is even more important to
>> remind the community of all these and point people to the code of conduct
>> should they find themselves in a situation where they might need it. I
>> think the letter does a great job at highlighting our values that ensures
>> the positive environment we have in CHAOSS.
>>
>> To Sean’s addition, I got a little confused. I would consider that
>> paragraph to belong in a public statement if we decide to release one
>> rather than in the message that we plan to send to our community. But I may
>> have misunderstood what that would be the extension of. In my view, if we
>> decide to release a public statement it is worthwhile to discuss what route
>> we prefer to take when it comes to demanding actions before taking taking
>> that step.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ildikó
>>
>> ———
>>
>> Ildikó Váncsa
>> Senior Manager, Community & Ecosystem
>> Open Infrastructure Foundation
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 1, 2021, at 16:30, Kate Stewart <kstewart at linuxfoundation.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Georg,
>> >      "free and open source software" is fine.   Just "open source" on
>> its own was going to
>> > be missing a key facet.
>> >
>> > Kate
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:27 AM Georg Link <linkgeorg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Kate,
>> >
>> > Thanks for forwarding the GCC email and suggesting to use "free
>> software".
>> > How about using "free and open source software" to accommodate the
>> intertwined history and relationship?
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Georg
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:05 AM Kate Stewart <
>> kstewart at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > Also of relevance to consider, that some of the FSF projects are
>> signaling
>> > they do not want to be associated with him as well.
>> >
>> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235245.html
>> >
>> > I'd consider using the term "free software" rather than "open source",
>> as he is actively
>> > harming the free software movement,  more than the open source one.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 7:14 AM Sean Goggins <s at goggins.com> wrote:
>> > To the letter drafted below, you may want to add something along the
>> lines of:
>> >
>> > As a community, we are aware of statements made by RMS in the past that
>> are exclusionary. Of equal, or perhaps great significance, is that as a
>> public figure in the open source community who is recognized for
>> passionately non-inclusive language, welcoming him onto the board of the
>> FSF would send a strong, and possibly lasting signal that Open Source
>> Software, in the very largest sense, remains a non-inclusive work context
>> for many. At CHAOSS, we are working to help advance open source toward a
>> more diverse, equitable, and inclusive future. In that light, we think it
>> is critical that we erase any doubt about our guiding principles of a more
>> diverse, equitable, and inclusive future for open source software. For
>> those reasons, we ask for the immediate removal of RMS from the Free
>> Software Foundation Board.
>> >
>> > Possibly too strong. However, my point that RMS is more of a risk to
>> the future of DEI in open source as a symbol of support for
>> non-inclusivity, than he is a threat to DEI individually is the main one.
>> >
>> > Sean
>> >
>> >> On Mar 31, 2021, at 3:40 PM, Georg Link <linkgeorg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi CHAOSS Board members,
>> >>
>> >> In the DEI Working Group call [1] there was discussion about the
>> recent/ongoing concerns related to RMS rejoining the FSF board. As the DEI
>> WG is committed to helping organizations and communities center DEI in
>> their open source work, the question was raised whether CHAOSS could or
>> should have any response. It is possible that the Linux Foundation is also
>> responding to this (or already has) and any insight on that would be
>> helpful too.
>> >>
>> >> We have three decisions to make and I would love your input.
>> >> We don't need to make the choice right now, we can first discuss.
>> >> I will voice my own opinion in a response to this email tomorrow.
>> >>
>> >> # Decision 1 - YES/NO: Public Statement: Does CHAOSS make a public
>> statement?
>> >>
>> >> Other organizations have publicly stated how they stand on the subject
>> of bringing RMS back on board but more broadly about expecting respect and
>> dignity from free software and open source leaders. Examples:
>> >>      • OpenUK:
>> https://openuk.uk/openuk-response-to-richard-stallmans-reinstatement-to-fsf-board/
>> >>      • RedHat:
>> https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hat-statement-about-richard-stallmans-return-free-software-foundation-board
>> >>      • Outreachy:
>> https://www.outreachy.org/blog/2021-03-23/fsf-participation-barred/
>> >>
>> >> # Decision 2 - YES/NO: Community Communication: Do we, as the board,
>> send a message to our community members?
>> >>
>> >> We are lucky with how inclusive the CHAOSS community is and now might
>> be a good time to reinforce that this is by design and choice, affirming to
>> our community members that we value and strive for DEI, respect, and
>> positive.
>> >>
>> >> Here is a draft for the CHAOSS mailing list that we can discuss:
>> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> Hello CHAOSS Community members,
>> >>
>> >> In light of recent events surrounding the FSF, we wanted to reach out
>> to our community; specifically those who may feel uncertain what our stance
>> is. We wanted to assure you that this community does not condone or
>> tolerate harassment or inappropriate conduct at any time.
>> >>
>> >> We would also like to extend our sincere thank you to all of you. Your
>> effort and contributions are what make the CHAOSS community who we are. We
>> welcome and support everyone.You have all been excellent in creating a
>> positive environment by:
>> >>      • Using welcoming and inclusive language
>> >>      • Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
>> >>      • Gracefully accepting constructive criticism
>> >>      • Focusing on what is best for the community
>> >>      • Showing empathy towards other community members
>> >> Should you notice unacceptable behavior, please use our process in our
>> Code of Conduct to allow us to restore the positive environment we are
>> currently enjoying in CHAOSS.
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Thank you to Matt, Nicole, and Elizabeth for helping with the draft.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> # Decision 3 - YES/NO: Sign Open Letter: Does CHAOSS sign the open
>> letter to FSF?
>> >>
>> >> This is the letter: https://rms-open-letter.github.io/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What are your thoughts?
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> Georg
>> >>
>> >> PS: Please remember that the CHAOSS Board mailing list has a public
>> archive. You can share your thoughts privately with me and other board
>> members by sending a direct email.
>> >>
>> >> [1] CHAOSS DEI meeting from 2021-03-24, starting at minute 28:30
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Georg Link, PhD
>> >> (he/him)
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> CHAOSS-members mailing list
>> >> CHAOSS-members at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chaoss-members
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CHAOSS-members mailing list
>> > CHAOSS-members at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chaoss-members
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Georg Link, PhD
>> > (he/him)
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CHAOSS-members mailing list
>> > CHAOSS-members at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chaoss-members
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CHAOSS-members mailing list
>> CHAOSS-members at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chaoss-members
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CHAOSS-members mailing list
> CHAOSS-members at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chaoss-members
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/chaoss-members/attachments/20210401/b32eb9d4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the CHAOSS-members mailing list