[Chaoss-Board] CHAOSS response to FSF

Huesman, Nicole K nicole.k.huesman at intel.com
Mon Apr 5 14:57:41 UTC 2021

Thanks so much, Georg, for sending the email to our CHAOSS community, and to all of you for actively engaging. I’m so proud to be part of this community.


Nicole K. Huesman
Senior Marketing Manager
Developer & Community Advocate
Intel Architecture, Graphics & Software

From: CHAOSS-members <chaoss-members-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org> On Behalf Of Sean Goggins
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 8:19 AM
To: Amy <amy at demarco.com>
Cc: CHAOSS Members <chaoss-members at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Chaoss-Board] CHAOSS response to FSF

I think Georg has sufficient input to act, now, and I support however we proceed 100%.

Moderating the email list seems like too much labor. If I see something come across that I do not think follows our code of conduct, I will email according to the process outlined in the code of conduct itself.



On Apr 3, 2021, at 10:13 AM, Amy <amy at demarco.com<mailto:amy at demarco.com>> wrote:

I agree on the email and I can go either way on the blog post. I do not think we should moderate the mailing list.

Thanks for all the work and the discussions on this.


On Apr 3, 2021, at 4:50 AM, Daniel Izquierdo <daniel.izquierdo.cortazar at gmail.com<mailto:daniel.izquierdo.cortazar at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Georg, and everyone else,

Thanks for moving this forward. I think this is an important action to do.

I agree with the comments and the communication channel to use (email + blog post).

With respect to the mailing list moderation, we already have a CoC and this is referenced in the email proposal. I'm not against moderating the list for a while, but who are we to moderate someone's opinion? Another case is to moderate new people joining the discussion during these days as they may join for a specific reason.


El vie, 2 abr 2021 a las 15:58, Georg Link (<linkgeorg at gmail.com<mailto:linkgeorg at gmail.com>>) escribió:
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<mailto: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<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.

[1] CHAOSS DEI meeting from 2021-03-24, starting at minute 28:30<https://youtu.be/L_tuEhyLRt4?t=1714>

Georg Link, PhD

Georg Link, PhD
CHAOSS-members mailing list
CHAOSS-members at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:CHAOSS-members at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
CHAOSS-members mailing list
CHAOSS-members at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:CHAOSS-members at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
CHAOSS-members mailing list
CHAOSS-members at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:CHAOSS-members at lists.linuxfoundation.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/chaoss-members/attachments/20210405/53a80d70/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CHAOSS-members mailing list