[Chaoss-Board] CHAOSS response to FSF
dawn at dawnfoster.com
Sat Apr 3 09:34:47 UTC 2021
I think we should try to get the email out fairly soon. While I don't
object to following it up with a blog post, I have a slight preference for
not doing it. I think a statement to our community via email is enough to
let people know that we take this seriously.
At this point, I would not recommend moderating posts for the entire
mailing list. We have many existing community members who can be trusted to
There is a very small chance that some trolls could descend on the list and
cause trouble. If we see some suspicious behavior, we could reactively
enable this list admin setting for a week or 2 as the default for new
"default member moderation
Member postings are held for moderation if their moderation flag is turned
on. Note that only the list administrators can change the value of a
member’s moderation flag. You can control whether new members get their
moderation flag turned on or off by default when they subscribe to the
list. By turning this flag off by default, postings by members will be
allowed without further intervention (barring other restrictions such as
size or implicit recipient lists – see below). By turning the flag on, you
can quarantine new member postings to make sure that they meet your
criteria for netiquette, topicality, etc. Once you determine that the new
member understands the community’s posting rules, you can turn off their
moderation flag and let their postings go through unstopped."
However, I also wouldn't enable this unless we start to have a problem.
Regardless of what we decide, we should make sure that the people who admin
the ML are available (not on holiday) and ideally, spread out across time
zones when the email goes out.
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 4:29 PM Georg Link <linkgeorg at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
> I would post the email as is and by itself to the mailing list without any
> invitation to discuss it. The email is a statement that we, as the board,
> make. Period. No discussion needed.
> We can, as the board, decide whether to add the email to our blog. We can
> maybe wait a bit to see what response, if any, we get on the mailing list
> (again, without asking for feedback). To connect the email and blog post,
> we can preface the blog post with something like: "The CHAOSS Board shared
> the following email on the mailing list -- link to archived email. We're
> sharing it on the blog post for more visibility."
> Interesting idea to moderate all emails to the mailing list for a limited
> time after posting the email.
> I don't yet know where I stand on that.
> Pro: We can filter out inappropriate responses. We signal that we take
> Con: We signal that we're prepared to censor, but only someone who sends
> an email would find out. This might be low, risk given the little overall
> traffic on the mailing list.
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 9:55 AM Sean Goggins <s at goggins.com> wrote:
>> Should we share the letter as something the board intends to post on the
>> CHAOSS website to the entire membership before we post the letter publicly?
>> Pro: We are informing our members of our intent to do someting public, in
>> the CHAOSS name before we do it, without inviting discussion.
>> Con: Even without the invitation for discussion, the email informing our
>> membership could lead to a lot of email on the list, some of it potentially
>> “not good”.
>> Question: Will there be some members who “free write” their thoughts
>> about the letter, with varying levels of coherence, once its posted and
>> they did not know ahead of time?
>> Question: Should we add to our own work and approve each post to the
>> general list for a week or so in order to filter any potentially
>> incoherent, or non-inclusive rants that might result? There are a handful
>> of people on the list whom I can imagine writing such emails.
>> Always overthinking it,
>> On Apr 2, 2021, at 8:57 AM, Georg Link <linkgeorg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi CHAOSS Board Members,
>> TL/DR, proposals:
>> 1. Community Communication: YES, send Saturday (tomorrow).
>> 2. Public Statement: YES, publish the same email on our blog on
>> Monday (in 3 days).
>> 3. Sign Open Letter: NO.
>> Thank you for chiming in on this important topic.
>> Following is a summary of what I've heard (including private emails) and
>> proposals for each decision.
>> *# 1. Community Communication*
>> I heard only support for our internal email to CHAOSS members with the
>> following edit suggestions:
>> * Sean: Add statement about RMS. Suggestion was revoked to stay positive
>> and not give RMS more attention.
>> * Kate: Use "free and open source" instead of "open source" -- The email
>> contains neither, that was in Sean's proposal.
>> * Don: Spell out DEI -- The email doesn't contain DEI, that was only in
>> our comments.
>> ===> No changes made to the email draft.
>> *[x] Proposal:** YES*, send email. Following a lazy consensus approach,
>> I'll wait another day before sending the email to the CHAOSS community
>> mailing list. This will have given everyone 3 days to object and improve
>> the proposal.
>> *# 2. Public Statement*
>> I heard mixed opinions about this but no strong support. The email to our
>> members seems to do justice to the situation.
>> *[x] Proposal:** YES, but* we publish the same email also on our CHAOSS
>> blog to give it a bit more visibility long-term compared to the mailing
>> list archive only. Following a lazy consensus approach, I'll wait until
>> Monday before publishing the blog post, giving everyone another 3 days to
>> object to and improve this proposal.
>> *# 3. Sign Open Letter*
>> I heard very little on this topic because most discussion was about the
>> email to the community.
>> *[x] Proposal: **NO*. No lazy consensus needed since this is inaction.
>> We can change our mind any time.
>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:40 PM Georg Link <linkgeorg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi CHAOSS Board members,
>>> In the DEI Working Group call  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
>>> 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:
>>> - RedHat:
>>> - Outreachy:
>>> *# 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
>>> 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 <https://chaoss.community/about/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?
>>> 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.
>>>  CHAOSS DEI meeting from 2021-03-24, starting at minute 28:30
>>> Georg Link, PhD
>> Georg Link, PhD
>> CHAOSS-members mailing list
>> CHAOSS-members at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> Georg Link, PhD
> CHAOSS-members mailing list
> CHAOSS-members at lists.linuxfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CHAOSS-members