Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/23/abusive-behavior.html

I thought recently of a quote from a Sopranos‘ Season 1
episode, A Hit
is a Hit, wherein Tony Soprano’s neighbor proclaims for laughs at a
party, Sometimes I think the only thing separating American business
from the Mob is [EXPLETIVE] whacking somebody.

The line stuck with me in the decade and a half since I heard it. When I
saw the episode in 1999, my career was basically just beginning, as I was
just finishing graduate school and had just begun working for the FSF. I’ve
often wondered over these years how close that quote — offered glibly to
explore a complex literary theme — matches reality.

Organized crime drama connects with audiences because such drama explores a
primal human theme: given the human capacity for physical violence and
notwithstanding the Enlightenment, how and why does physical violence find
its way into otherwise civilized social systems? A year before my own
birth, The Godfather explored the same theme famously with the
line, It’s not personal, Sonny. It’s strictly business. I’ve
actually heard a would-be community leader quote that line as a
warped justification for his verbally abusive behavior.

Before I explain further, I should state my belief that physical
violence always crosses a line that’s as wide as the Grand Canyon.
Film depictions consider the question of whether the line is blurry, but it’s
certainly not. However, what intrigues me is how often
“businesspeople” and celebrities will literally walk right up to
the edge of that Grand Canyon, and pace back and forth there for days —
and even years.

In the politics of Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS), some
people regularly engage in behavior right on that line: berating, verbal
abuse, and intimidation. These behaviors are consistently tolerated,
accepted, and sometimes lauded in FLOSS projects and organizations. I can
report from direct experience: if you think what happens on public mailing
lists is bad, what happens on the private phone calls and in-person meetings
is even worse. The types of behavior that would-be leaders employ would
surely shock you.

I regularly ponder whether I have a duty to disclose how much worse the
back-room behavior is compared to the already abysmal public actions. The
main reason I don’t (until a few decades from now in my memoirs —
drafting is already underway 😉 is that I suspect people won’t believe me.
The smart abusive people know how to avoid leaving a record of their most
abusive behavior perpetrated against their colleagues. I know of
at least one person who will refuse to have a discussion via email or
IRC and insist on in-person or telephone meetings specifically
because the person outright plans to act abusively and doesn’t want a
record.

While it’s certainly a relief that I cannot report a single incident of
actual assault in the FLOSS community, I have seen behavior escalate
from ill-advised and mean political strategies to downright menacing. For
example, I often receive threats of public character assassination,
and character
assassination in the backchannel rumor mill remains ongoing. At a USENIX
conference in the late 1990s, I saw Hans Reiser screaming and wagging his
finger menacingly in the face of another Linux developer.
During many FLOSS community
scandals, women
have received threats of physical violence. Nevertheless, many FLOSS
“leaders” still consider psychological intimidation a completely
reasonable course of action and employ it regularly.

How long are we going to tolerate this, and should we simply
tolerate it, merely because it doesn’t cross that huge chasm (on the other
side of which lies physical violence)? How close are we willing to get? Is
it really true that any words are fair game, and nothing you
can say is off-limits? (In my experience, verbally abusive people
often use that claim as an iron-clad excuse.) But, if we don’t start asking
these questions regularly, our community culture will continue to
deteriorate.

I realize I’m just making a statement, and not proposing real action,
which (I admit) is only marginally helpful.
As Tor
recently showed, though, making a statement is the first step. In other
words, saying “No, this behavior is not acceptable” is
undoubtedly the only way to begin. Our community has been way too slow
in taking that one step, so we’ve now got a lot of catching up to get to the
right place in a reasonable timeframe.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/23/abusive-behavior.html

I thought recently of a quote from a Sopranos‘ Season 1
episode, A Hit
is a Hit, wherein Tony Soprano’s neighbor proclaims for laughs at a
party, Sometimes I think the only thing separating American business
from the Mob is [EXPLETIVE] whacking somebody.

The line stuck with me in the decade and a half since I heard it. When I
saw the episode in 1999, my career was basically just beginning, as I was
just finishing graduate school and had just begun working for the FSF. I’ve
often wondered over these years how close that quote — offered glibly to
explore a complex literary theme — matches reality.

Organized crime drama connects with audiences because such drama explores a
primal human theme: given the human capacity for physical violence and
notwithstanding the Enlightenment, how and why does physical violence find
its way into otherwise civilized social systems? A year before my own
birth, The Godfather explored the same theme famously with the
line, It’s not personal, Sonny. It’s strictly business. I’ve
actually heard a would-be community leader quote that line as a
warped justification for his verbally abusive behavior.

Before I explain further, I should state my belief that physical
violence always crosses a line that’s as wide as the Grand Canyon.
Film depictions consider the question of whether the line is blurry, but it’s
certainly not. However, what intrigues me is how often
“businesspeople” and celebrities will literally walk right up to
the edge of that Grand Canyon, and pace back and forth there for days —
and even years.

In the politics of Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS), some
people regularly engage in behavior right on that line: berating, verbal
abuse, and intimidation. These behaviors are consistently tolerated,
accepted, and sometimes lauded in FLOSS projects and organizations. I can
report from direct experience: if you think what happens on public mailing
lists is bad, what happens on the private phone calls and in-person meetings
is even worse. The types of behavior that would-be leaders employ would
surely shock you.

I regularly ponder whether I have a duty to disclose how much worse the
back-room behavior is compared to the already abysmal public actions. The
main reason I don’t (until a few decades from now in my memoirs —
drafting is already underway 😉 is that I suspect people won’t believe me.
The smart abusive people know how to avoid leaving a record of their most
abusive behavior perpetrated against their colleagues. I know of
at least one person who will refuse to have a discussion via email or
IRC and insist on in-person or telephone meetings specifically
because the person outright plans to act abusively and doesn’t want a
record.

While it’s certainly a relief that I cannot report a single incident of
actual assault in the FLOSS community, I have seen behavior escalate
from ill-advised and mean political strategies to downright menacing. For
example, I often receive threats of public character assassination,
and character
assassination in the backchannel rumor mill remains ongoing. At a USENIX
conference in the late 1990s, I saw Hans Reiser screaming and wagging his
finger menacingly in the face of another Linux developer.
During many FLOSS community
scandals, women
have received threats of physical violence. Nevertheless, many FLOSS
“leaders” still consider psychological intimidation a completely
reasonable course of action and employ it regularly.

How long are we going to tolerate this, and should we simply
tolerate it, merely because it doesn’t cross that huge chasm (on the other
side of which lies physical violence)? How close are we willing to get? Is
it really true that any words are fair game, and nothing you
can say is off-limits? (In my experience, verbally abusive people
often use that claim as an iron-clad excuse.) But, if we don’t start asking
these questions regularly, our community culture will continue to
deteriorate.

I realize I’m just making a statement, and not proposing real action,
which (I admit) is only marginally helpful.
As Tor
recently showed, though, making a statement is the first step. In other
words, saying “No, this behavior is not acceptable” is
undoubtedly the only way to begin. Our community has been way too slow
in taking that one step, so we’ve now got a lot of catching up to get to the
right place in a reasonable timeframe.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/23/abusive-behavior.html

I thought recently of a quote from a Sopranos‘ Season 1
episode, A Hit
is a Hit, wherein Tony Soprano’s neighbor proclaims for laughs at a
party, Sometimes I think the only thing separating American business
from the Mob is [EXPLETIVE] whacking somebody.

The line stuck with me in the decade and a half since I heard it. When I
saw the episode in 1999, my career was basically just beginning, as I was
just finishing graduate school and had just begun working for the FSF. I’ve
often wondered over these years how close that quote — offered glibly to
explore a complex literary theme — matches reality.

Organized crime drama connects with audiences because such drama explores a
primal human theme: given the human capacity for physical violence and
notwithstanding the Enlightenment, how and why does physical violence find
its way into otherwise civilized social systems? A year before my own
birth, The Godfather explored the same theme famously with the
line, It’s not personal, Sonny. It’s strictly business. I’ve
actually heard a would-be community leader quote that line as a
warped justification for his verbally abusive behavior.

Before I explain further, I should state my belief that physical
violence always crosses a line that’s as wide as the Grand Canyon.
Film depictions consider the question of whether the line is blurry, but it’s
certainly not. However, what intrigues me is how often
“businesspeople” and celebrities will literally walk right up to
the edge of that Grand Canyon, and pace back and forth there for days —
and even years.

In the politics of Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS), some
people regularly engage in behavior right on that line: berating, verbal
abuse, and intimidation. These behaviors are consistently tolerated,
accepted, and sometimes lauded in FLOSS projects and organizations. I can
report from direct experience: if you think what happens on public mailing
lists is bad, what happens on the private phone calls and in-person meetings
is even worse. The types of behavior that would-be leaders employ would
surely shock you.

I regularly ponder whether I have a duty to disclose how much worse the
back-room behavior is compared to the already abysmal public actions. The
main reason I don’t (until a few decades from now in my memoirs —
drafting is already underway 😉 is that I suspect people won’t believe me.
The smart abusive people know how to avoid leaving a record of their most
abusive behavior perpetrated against their colleagues. I know of
at least one person who will refuse to have a discussion via email or
IRC and insist on in-person or telephone meetings specifically
because the person outright plans to act abusively and doesn’t want a
record.

While it’s certainly a relief that I cannot report a single incident of
actual assault in the FLOSS community, I have seen behavior escalate
from ill-advised and mean political strategies to downright menacing. For
example, I often receive threats of public character assassination,
and character
assassination in the backchannel rumor mill remains ongoing. At a USENIX
conference in the late 1990s, I saw Hans Reiser screaming and wagging his
finger menacingly in the face of another Linux developer.
During many FLOSS community
scandals, women
have received threats of physical violence. Nevertheless, many FLOSS
“leaders” still consider psychological intimidation a completely
reasonable course of action and employ it regularly.

How long are we going to tolerate this, and should we simply
tolerate it, merely because it doesn’t cross that huge chasm (on the other
side of which lies physical violence)? How close are we willing to get? Is
it really true that any words are fair game, and nothing you
can say is off-limits? (In my experience, verbally abusive people
often use that claim as an iron-clad excuse.) But, if we don’t start asking
these questions regularly, our community culture will continue to
deteriorate.

I realize I’m just making a statement, and not proposing real action,
which (I admit) is only marginally helpful.
As Tor
recently showed, though, making a statement is the first step. In other
words, saying “No, this behavior is not acceptable” is
undoubtedly the only way to begin. Our community has been way too slow
in taking that one step, so we’ve now got a lot of catching up to get to the
right place in a reasonable timeframe.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/23/abusive-behavior.html

I thought recently of a quote from a Sopranos‘ Season 1
episode, A Hit
is a Hit, wherein Tony Soprano’s neighbor proclaims for laughs at a
party, Sometimes I think the only thing separating American business
from the Mob is [EXPLETIVE] whacking somebody.

The line stuck with me in the decade and a half since I heard it. When I
saw the episode in 1999, my career was basically just beginning, as I was
just finishing graduate school and had just begun working for the FSF. I’ve
often wondered over these years how close that quote — offered glibly to
explore a complex literary theme — matches reality.

Organized crime drama connects with audiences because such drama explores a
primal human theme: given the human capacity for physical violence and
notwithstanding the Enlightenment, how and why does physical violence find
its way into otherwise civilized social systems? A year before my own
birth, The Godfather explored the same theme famously with the
line, It’s not personal, Sonny. It’s strictly business. I’ve
actually heard a would-be community leader quote that line as a
warped justification for his verbally abusive behavior.

Before I explain further, I should state my belief that physical
violence always crosses a line that’s as wide as the Grand Canyon.
Film depictions consider the question of whether the line is blurry, but it’s
certainly not. However, what intrigues me is how often
“businesspeople” and celebrities will literally walk right up to
the edge of that Grand Canyon, and pace back and forth there for days —
and even years.

In the politics of Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS), some
people regularly engage in behavior right on that line: berating, verbal
abuse, and intimidation. These behaviors are consistently tolerated,
accepted, and sometimes lauded in FLOSS projects and organizations. I can
report from direct experience: if you think what happens on public mailing
lists is bad, what happens on the private phone calls and in-person meetings
is even worse. The types of behavior that would-be leaders employ would
surely shock you.

I regularly ponder whether I have a duty to disclose how much worse the
back-room behavior is compared to the already abysmal public actions. The
main reason I don’t (until a few decades from now in my memoirs —
drafting is already underway 😉 is that I suspect people won’t believe me.
The smart abusive people know how to avoid leaving a record of their most
abusive behavior perpetrated against their colleagues. I know of
at least one person who will refuse to have a discussion via email or
IRC and insist on in-person or telephone meetings specifically
because the person outright plans to act abusively and doesn’t want a
record.

While it’s certainly a relief that I cannot report a single incident of
actual assault in the FLOSS community, I have seen behavior escalate
from ill-advised and mean political strategies to downright menacing. For
example, I often receive threats of public character assassination,
and character
assassination in the backchannel rumor mill remains ongoing. At a USENIX
conference in the late 1990s, I saw Hans Reiser screaming and wagging his
finger menacingly in the face of another Linux developer.
During many FLOSS community
scandals, women
have received threats of physical violence. Nevertheless, many FLOSS
“leaders” still consider psychological intimidation a completely
reasonable course of action and employ it regularly.

How long are we going to tolerate this, and should we simply
tolerate it, merely because it doesn’t cross that huge chasm (on the other
side of which lies physical violence)? How close are we willing to get? Is
it really true that any words are fair game, and nothing you
can say is off-limits? (In my experience, verbally abusive people
often use that claim as an iron-clad excuse.) But, if we don’t start asking
these questions regularly, our community culture will continue to
deteriorate.

I realize I’m just making a statement, and not proposing real action,
which (I admit) is only marginally helpful.
As Tor
recently showed, though, making a statement is the first step. In other
words, saying “No, this behavior is not acceptable” is
undoubtedly the only way to begin. Our community has been way too slow
in taking that one step, so we’ve now got a lot of catching up to get to the
right place in a reasonable timeframe.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/23/abusive-behavior.html

I thought recently of a quote from a Sopranos‘ Season 1
episode, A Hit
is a Hit, wherein Tony Soprano’s neighbor proclaims for laughs at a
party, Sometimes I think the only thing separating American business
from the Mob is [EXPLETIVE] whacking somebody.

The line stuck with me in the decade and a half since I heard it. When I
saw the episode in 1999, my career was basically just beginning, as I was
just finishing graduate school and had just begun working for the FSF. I’ve
often wondered over these years how close that quote — offered glibly to
explore a complex literary theme — matches reality.

Organized crime drama connects with audiences because such drama explores a
primal human theme: given the human capacity for physical violence and
notwithstanding the Enlightenment, how and why does physical violence find
its way into otherwise civilized social systems? A year before my own
birth, The Godfather explored the same theme famously with the
line, It’s not personal, Sonny. It’s strictly business. I’ve
actually heard a would-be community leader quote that line as a
warped justification for his verbally abusive behavior.

Before I explain further, I should state my belief that physical
violence always crosses a line that’s as wide as the Grand Canyon.
Film depictions consider the question of whether the line is blurry, but it’s
certainly not. However, what intrigues me is how often
“businesspeople” and celebrities will literally walk right up to
the edge of that Grand Canyon, and pace back and forth there for days —
and even years.

In the politics of Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS), some
people regularly engage in behavior right on that line: berating, verbal
abuse, and intimidation. These behaviors are consistently tolerated,
accepted, and sometimes lauded in FLOSS projects and organizations. I can
report from direct experience: if you think what happens on public mailing
lists is bad, what happens on the private phone calls and in-person meetings
is even worse. The types of behavior that would-be leaders employ would
surely shock you.

I regularly ponder whether I have a duty to disclose how much worse the
back-room behavior is compared to the already abysmal public actions. The
main reason I don’t (until a few decades from now in my memoirs —
drafting is already underway 😉 is that I suspect people won’t believe me.
The smart abusive people know how to avoid leaving a record of their most
abusive behavior perpetrated against their colleagues. I know of
at least one person who will refuse to have a discussion via email or
IRC and insist on in-person or telephone meetings specifically
because the person outright plans to act abusively and doesn’t want a
record.

While it’s certainly a relief that I cannot report a single incident of
actual assault in the FLOSS community, I have seen behavior escalate
from ill-advised and mean political strategies to downright menacing. For
example, I often receive threats of public character assassination,
and character
assassination in the backchannel rumor mill remains ongoing. At a USENIX
conference in the late 1990s, I saw Hans Reiser screaming and wagging his
finger menacingly in the face of another Linux developer.
During many FLOSS community
scandals, women
have received threats of physical violence. Nevertheless, many FLOSS
“leaders” still consider psychological intimidation a completely
reasonable course of action and employ it regularly.

How long are we going to tolerate this, and should we simply
tolerate it, merely because it doesn’t cross that huge chasm (on the other
side of which lies physical violence)? How close are we willing to get? Is
it really true that any words are fair game, and nothing you
can say is off-limits? (In my experience, verbally abusive people
often use that claim as an iron-clad excuse.) But, if we don’t start asking
these questions regularly, our community culture will continue to
deteriorate.

I realize I’m just making a statement, and not proposing real action,
which (I admit) is only marginally helpful.
As Tor
recently showed, though, making a statement is the first step. In other
words, saying “No, this behavior is not acceptable” is
undoubtedly the only way to begin. Our community has been way too slow
in taking that one step, so we’ve now got a lot of catching up to get to the
right place in a reasonable timeframe.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/23/abusive-behavior.html

I thought recently of a quote from a Sopranos‘ Season 1
episode, A Hit
is a Hit, wherein Tony Soprano’s neighbor proclaims for laughs at a
party, Sometimes I think the only thing separating American business
from the Mob is [EXPLETIVE] whacking somebody.

The line stuck with me in the decade and a half since I heard it. When I
saw the episode in 1999, my career was basically just beginning, as I was
just finishing graduate school and had just begun working for the FSF. I’ve
often wondered over these years how close that quote — offered glibly to
explore a complex literary theme — matches reality.

Organized crime drama connects with audiences because such drama explores a
primal human theme: given the human capacity for physical violence and
notwithstanding the Enlightenment, how and why does physical violence find
its way into otherwise civilized social systems? A year before my own
birth, The Godfather explored the same theme famously with the
line, It’s not personal, Sonny. It’s strictly business. I’ve
actually heard a would-be community leader quote that line as a
warped justification for his verbally abusive behavior.

Before I explain further, I should state my belief that physical
violence always crosses a line that’s as wide as the Grand Canyon.
Film depictions consider the question of whether the line is blurry, but it’s
certainly not. However, what intrigues me is how often
“businesspeople” and celebrities will literally walk right up to
the edge of that Grand Canyon, and pace back and forth there for days —
and even years.

In the politics of Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS), some
people regularly engage in behavior right on that line: berating, verbal
abuse, and intimidation. These behaviors are consistently tolerated,
accepted, and sometimes lauded in FLOSS projects and organizations. I can
report from direct experience: if you think what happens on public mailing
lists is bad, what happens on the private phone calls and in-person meetings
is even worse. The types of behavior that would-be leaders employ would
surely shock you.

I regularly ponder whether I have a duty to disclose how much worse the
back-room behavior is compared to the already abysmal public actions. The
main reason I don’t (until a few decades from now in my memoirs —
drafting is already underway 😉 is that I suspect people won’t believe me.
The smart abusive people know how to avoid leaving a record of their most
abusive behavior perpetrated against their colleagues. I know of
at least one person who will refuse to have a discussion via email or
IRC and insist on in-person or telephone meetings specifically
because the person outright plans to act abusively and doesn’t want a
record.

While it’s certainly a relief that I cannot report a single incident of
actual assault in the FLOSS community, I have seen behavior escalate
from ill-advised and mean political strategies to downright menacing. For
example, I often receive threats of public character assassination,
and character
assassination in the backchannel rumor mill remains ongoing. At a USENIX
conference in the late 1990s, I saw Hans Reiser screaming and wagging his
finger menacingly in the face of another Linux developer.
During many FLOSS community
scandals, women
have received threats of physical violence. Nevertheless, many FLOSS
“leaders” still consider psychological intimidation a completely
reasonable course of action and employ it regularly.

How long are we going to tolerate this, and should we simply
tolerate it, merely because it doesn’t cross that huge chasm (on the other
side of which lies physical violence)? How close are we willing to get? Is
it really true that any words are fair game, and nothing you
can say is off-limits? (In my experience, verbally abusive people
often use that claim as an iron-clad excuse.) But, if we don’t start asking
these questions regularly, our community culture will continue to
deteriorate.

I realize I’m just making a statement, and not proposing real action,
which (I admit) is only marginally helpful.
As Tor
recently showed, though, making a statement is the first step. In other
words, saying “No, this behavior is not acceptable” is
undoubtedly the only way to begin. Our community has been way too slow
in taking that one step, so we’ve now got a lot of catching up to get to the
right place in a reasonable timeframe.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/23/abusive-behavior.html

I thought recently of a quote from a Sopranos‘ Season 1
episode, A Hit
is a Hit, wherein Tony Soprano’s neighbor proclaims for laughs at a
party, Sometimes I think the only thing separating American business
from the Mob is [EXPLETIVE] whacking somebody.

The line stuck with me in the decade and a half since I heard it. When I
saw the episode in 1999, my career was basically just beginning, as I was
just finishing graduate school and had just begun working for the FSF. I’ve
often wondered over these years how close that quote — offered glibly to
explore a complex literary theme — matches reality.

Organized crime drama connects with audiences because such drama explores a
primal human theme: given the human capacity for physical violence and
notwithstanding the Enlightenment, how and why does physical violence find
its way into otherwise civilized social systems? A year before my own
birth, The Godfather explored the same theme famously with the
line, It’s not personal, Sonny. It’s strictly business. I’ve
actually heard a would-be community leader quote that line as a
warped justification for his verbally abusive behavior.

Before I explain further, I should state my belief that physical
violence always crosses a line that’s as wide as the Grand Canyon.
Film depictions consider the question of whether the line is blurry, but it’s
certainly not. However, what intrigues me is how often
“businesspeople” and celebrities will literally walk right up to
the edge of that Grand Canyon, and pace back and forth there for days —
and even years.

In the politics of Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS), some
people regularly engage in behavior right on that line: berating, verbal
abuse, and intimidation. These behaviors are consistently tolerated,
accepted, and sometimes lauded in FLOSS projects and organizations. I can
report from direct experience: if you think what happens on public mailing
lists is bad, what happens on the private phone calls and in-person meetings
is even worse. The types of behavior that would-be leaders employ would
surely shock you.

I regularly ponder whether I have a duty to disclose how much worse the
back-room behavior is compared to the already abysmal public actions. The
main reason I don’t (until a few decades from now in my memoirs —
drafting is already underway 😉 is that I suspect people won’t believe me.
The smart abusive people know how to avoid leaving a record of their most
abusive behavior perpetrated against their colleagues. I know of
at least one person who will refuse to have a discussion via email or
IRC and insist on in-person or telephone meetings specifically
because the person outright plans to act abusively and doesn’t want a
record.

While it’s certainly a relief that I cannot report a single incident of
actual assault in the FLOSS community, I have seen behavior escalate
from ill-advised and mean political strategies to downright menacing. For
example, I often receive threats of public character assassination,
and character
assassination in the backchannel rumor mill remains ongoing. At a USENIX
conference in the late 1990s, I saw Hans Reiser screaming and wagging his
finger menacingly in the face of another Linux developer.
During many FLOSS community
scandals, women
have received threats of physical violence. Nevertheless, many FLOSS
“leaders” still consider psychological intimidation a completely
reasonable course of action and employ it regularly.

How long are we going to tolerate this, and should we simply
tolerate it, merely because it doesn’t cross that huge chasm (on the other
side of which lies physical violence)? How close are we willing to get? Is
it really true that any words are fair game, and nothing you
can say is off-limits? (In my experience, verbally abusive people
often use that claim as an iron-clad excuse.) But, if we don’t start asking
these questions regularly, our community culture will continue to
deteriorate.

I realize I’m just making a statement, and not proposing real action,
which (I admit) is only marginally helpful.
As Tor
recently showed, though, making a statement is the first step. In other
words, saying “No, this behavior is not acceptable” is
undoubtedly the only way to begin. Our community has been way too slow
in taking that one step, so we’ve now got a lot of catching up to get to the
right place in a reasonable timeframe.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/23/abusive-behavior.html

I thought recently of a quote from a Sopranos‘ Season 1
episode, A Hit
is a Hit, wherein Tony Soprano’s neighbor proclaims for laughs at a
party, Sometimes I think the only thing separating American business
from the Mob is [EXPLETIVE] whacking somebody.

The line stuck with me in the decade and a half since I heard it. When I
saw the episode in 1999, my career was basically just beginning, as I was
just finishing graduate school and had just begun working for the FSF. I’ve
often wondered over these years how close that quote — offered glibly to
explore a complex literary theme — matches reality.

Organized crime drama connects with audiences because such drama explores a
primal human theme: given the human capacity for physical violence and
notwithstanding the Enlightenment, how and why does physical violence find
its way into otherwise civilized social systems? A year before my own
birth, The Godfather explored the same theme famously with the
line, It’s not personal, Sonny. It’s strictly business. I’ve
actually heard a would-be community leader quote that line as a
warped justification for his verbally abusive behavior.

Before I explain further, I should state my belief that physical
violence always crosses a line that’s as wide as the Grand Canyon.
Film depictions consider the question of whether the line is blurry, but it’s
certainly not. However, what intrigues me is how often
“businesspeople” and celebrities will literally walk right up to
the edge of that Grand Canyon, and pace back and forth there for days —
and even years.

In the politics of Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS), some
people regularly engage in behavior right on that line: berating, verbal
abuse, and intimidation. These behaviors are consistently tolerated,
accepted, and sometimes lauded in FLOSS projects and organizations. I can
report from direct experience: if you think what happens on public mailing
lists is bad, what happens on the private phone calls and in-person meetings
is even worse. The types of behavior that would-be leaders employ would
surely shock you.

I regularly ponder whether I have a duty to disclose how much worse the
back-room behavior is compared to the already abysmal public actions. The
main reason I don’t (until a few decades from now in my memoirs —
drafting is already underway 😉 is that I suspect people won’t believe me.
The smart abusive people know how to avoid leaving a record of their most
abusive behavior perpetrated against their colleagues. I know of
at least one person who will refuse to have a discussion via email or
IRC and insist on in-person or telephone meetings specifically
because the person outright plans to act abusively and doesn’t want a
record.

While it’s certainly a relief that I cannot report a single incident of
actual assault in the FLOSS community, I have seen behavior escalate
from ill-advised and mean political strategies to downright menacing. For
example, I often receive threats of public character assassination,
and character
assassination in the backchannel rumor mill remains ongoing. At a USENIX
conference in the late 1990s, I saw Hans Reiser screaming and wagging his
finger menacingly in the face of another Linux developer.
During many FLOSS community
scandals, women
have received threats of physical violence. Nevertheless, many FLOSS
“leaders” still consider psychological intimidation a completely
reasonable course of action and employ it regularly.

How long are we going to tolerate this, and should we simply
tolerate it, merely because it doesn’t cross that huge chasm (on the other
side of which lies physical violence)? How close are we willing to get? Is
it really true that any words are fair game, and nothing you
can say is off-limits? (In my experience, verbally abusive people
often use that claim as an iron-clad excuse.) But, if we don’t start asking
these questions regularly, our community culture will continue to
deteriorate.

I realize I’m just making a statement, and not proposing real action,
which (I admit) is only marginally helpful.
As Tor
recently showed, though, making a statement is the first step. In other
words, saying “No, this behavior is not acceptable” is
undoubtedly the only way to begin. Our community has been way too slow
in taking that one step, so we’ve now got a lot of catching up to get to the
right place in a reasonable timeframe.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/23/abusive-behavior.html

I thought recently of a quote from a Sopranos‘ Season 1
episode, A Hit
is a Hit, wherein Tony Soprano’s neighbor proclaims for laughs at a
party, Sometimes I think the only thing separating American business
from the Mob is [EXPLETIVE] whacking somebody.

The line stuck with me in the decade and a half since I heard it. When I
saw the episode in 1999, my career was basically just beginning, as I was
just finishing graduate school and had just begun working for the FSF. I’ve
often wondered over these years how close that quote — offered glibly to
explore a complex literary theme — matches reality.

Organized crime drama connects with audiences because such drama explores a
primal human theme: given the human capacity for physical violence and
notwithstanding the Enlightenment, how and why does physical violence find
its way into otherwise civilized social systems? A year before my own
birth, The Godfather explored the same theme famously with the
line, It’s not personal, Sonny. It’s strictly business. I’ve
actually heard a would-be community leader quote that line as a
warped justification for his verbally abusive behavior.

Before I explain further, I should state my belief that physical
violence always crosses a line that’s as wide as the Grand Canyon.
Film depictions consider the question of whether the line is blurry, but it’s
certainly not. However, what intrigues me is how often
“businesspeople” and celebrities will literally walk right up to
the edge of that Grand Canyon, and pace back and forth there for days —
and even years.

In the politics of Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS), some
people regularly engage in behavior right on that line: berating, verbal
abuse, and intimidation. These behaviors are consistently tolerated,
accepted, and sometimes lauded in FLOSS projects and organizations. I can
report from direct experience: if you think what happens on public mailing
lists is bad, what happens on the private phone calls and in-person meetings
is even worse. The types of behavior that would-be leaders employ would
surely shock you.

I regularly ponder whether I have a duty to disclose how much worse the
back-room behavior is compared to the already abysmal public actions. The
main reason I don’t (until a few decades from now in my memoirs —
drafting is already underway 😉 is that I suspect people won’t believe me.
The smart abusive people know how to avoid leaving a record of their most
abusive behavior perpetrated against their colleagues. I know of
at least one person who will refuse to have a discussion via email or
IRC and insist on in-person or telephone meetings specifically
because the person outright plans to act abusively and doesn’t want a
record.

While it’s certainly a relief that I cannot report a single incident of
actual assault in the FLOSS community, I have seen behavior escalate
from ill-advised and mean political strategies to downright menacing. For
example, I often receive threats of public character assassination,
and character
assassination in the backchannel rumor mill remains ongoing. At a USENIX
conference in the late 1990s, I saw Hans Reiser screaming and wagging his
finger menacingly in the face of another Linux developer.
During many FLOSS community
scandals, women
have received threats of physical violence. Nevertheless, many FLOSS
“leaders” still consider psychological intimidation a completely
reasonable course of action and employ it regularly.

How long are we going to tolerate this, and should we simply
tolerate it, merely because it doesn’t cross that huge chasm (on the other
side of which lies physical violence)? How close are we willing to get? Is
it really true that any words are fair game, and nothing you
can say is off-limits? (In my experience, verbally abusive people
often use that claim as an iron-clad excuse.) But, if we don’t start asking
these questions regularly, our community culture will continue to
deteriorate.

I realize I’m just making a statement, and not proposing real action,
which (I admit) is only marginally helpful.
As Tor
recently showed, though, making a statement is the first step. In other
words, saying “No, this behavior is not acceptable” is
undoubtedly the only way to begin. Our community has been way too slow
in taking that one step, so we’ve now got a lot of catching up to get to the
right place in a reasonable timeframe.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/23/abusive-behavior.html

I thought recently of a quote from a Sopranos‘ Season 1
episode, A Hit
is a Hit, wherein Tony Soprano’s neighbor proclaims for laughs at a
party, Sometimes I think the only thing separating American business
from the Mob is [EXPLETIVE] whacking somebody.

The line stuck with me in the decade and a half since I heard it. When I
saw the episode in 1999, my career was basically just beginning, as I was
just finishing graduate school and had just begun working for the FSF. I’ve
often wondered over these years how close that quote — offered glibly to
explore a complex literary theme — matches reality.

Organized crime drama connects with audiences because such drama explores a
primal human theme: given the human capacity for physical violence and
notwithstanding the Enlightenment, how and why does physical violence find
its way into otherwise civilized social systems? A year before my own
birth, The Godfather explored the same theme famously with the
line, It’s not personal, Sonny. It’s strictly business. I’ve
actually heard a would-be community leader quote that line as a
warped justification for his verbally abusive behavior.

Before I explain further, I should state my belief that physical
violence always crosses a line that’s as wide as the Grand Canyon.
Film depictions consider the question of whether the line is blurry, but it’s
certainly not. However, what intrigues me is how often
“businesspeople” and celebrities will literally walk right up to
the edge of that Grand Canyon, and pace back and forth there for days —
and even years.

In the politics of Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS), some
people regularly engage in behavior right on that line: berating, verbal
abuse, and intimidation. These behaviors are consistently tolerated,
accepted, and sometimes lauded in FLOSS projects and organizations. I can
report from direct experience: if you think what happens on public mailing
lists is bad, what happens on the private phone calls and in-person meetings
is even worse. The types of behavior that would-be leaders employ would
surely shock you.

I regularly ponder whether I have a duty to disclose how much worse the
back-room behavior is compared to the already abysmal public actions. The
main reason I don’t (until a few decades from now in my memoirs —
drafting is already underway 😉 is that I suspect people won’t believe me.
The smart abusive people know how to avoid leaving a record of their most
abusive behavior perpetrated against their colleagues. I know of
at least one person who will refuse to have a discussion via email or
IRC and insist on in-person or telephone meetings specifically
because the person outright plans to act abusively and doesn’t want a
record.

While it’s certainly a relief that I cannot report a single incident of
actual assault in the FLOSS community, I have seen behavior escalate
from ill-advised and mean political strategies to downright menacing. For
example, I often receive threats of public character assassination,
and character
assassination in the backchannel rumor mill remains ongoing. At a USENIX
conference in the late 1990s, I saw Hans Reiser screaming and wagging his
finger menacingly in the face of another Linux developer.
During many FLOSS community
scandals, women
have received threats of physical violence. Nevertheless, many FLOSS
“leaders” still consider psychological intimidation a completely
reasonable course of action and employ it regularly.

How long are we going to tolerate this, and should we simply
tolerate it, merely because it doesn’t cross that huge chasm (on the other
side of which lies physical violence)? How close are we willing to get? Is
it really true that any words are fair game, and nothing you
can say is off-limits? (In my experience, verbally abusive people
often use that claim as an iron-clad excuse.) But, if we don’t start asking
these questions regularly, our community culture will continue to
deteriorate.

I realize I’m just making a statement, and not proposing real action,
which (I admit) is only marginally helpful.
As Tor
recently showed, though, making a statement is the first step. In other
words, saying “No, this behavior is not acceptable” is
undoubtedly the only way to begin. Our community has been way too slow
in taking that one step, so we’ve now got a lot of catching up to get to the
right place in a reasonable timeframe.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/23/abusive-behavior.html

I thought recently of a quote from a Sopranos‘ Season 1
episode, A Hit
is a Hit, wherein Tony Soprano’s neighbor proclaims for laughs at a
party, Sometimes I think the only thing separating American business
from the Mob is [EXPLETIVE] whacking somebody.

The line stuck with me in the decade and a half since I heard it. When I
saw the episode in 1999, my career was basically just beginning, as I was
just finishing graduate school and had just begun working for the FSF. I’ve
often wondered over these years how close that quote — offered glibly to
explore a complex literary theme — matches reality.

Organized crime drama connects with audiences because such drama explores a
primal human theme: given the human capacity for physical violence and
notwithstanding the Enlightenment, how and why does physical violence find
its way into otherwise civilized social systems? A year before my own
birth, The Godfather explored the same theme famously with the
line, It’s not personal, Sonny. It’s strictly business. I’ve
actually heard a would-be community leader quote that line as a
warped justification for his verbally abusive behavior.

Before I explain further, I should state my belief that physical
violence always crosses a line that’s as wide as the Grand Canyon.
Film depictions consider the question of whether the line is blurry, but it’s
certainly not. However, what intrigues me is how often
“businesspeople” and celebrities will literally walk right up to
the edge of that Grand Canyon, and pace back and forth there for days —
and even years.

In the politics of Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS), some
people regularly engage in behavior right on that line: berating, verbal
abuse, and intimidation. These behaviors are consistently tolerated,
accepted, and sometimes lauded in FLOSS projects and organizations. I can
report from direct experience: if you think what happens on public mailing
lists is bad, what happens on the private phone calls and in-person meetings
is even worse. The types of behavior that would-be leaders employ would
surely shock you.

I regularly ponder whether I have a duty to disclose how much worse the
back-room behavior is compared to the already abysmal public actions. The
main reason I don’t (until a few decades from now in my memoirs —
drafting is already underway 😉 is that I suspect people won’t believe me.
The smart abusive people know how to avoid leaving a record of their most
abusive behavior perpetrated against their colleagues. I know of
at least one person who will refuse to have a discussion via email or
IRC and insist on in-person or telephone meetings specifically
because the person outright plans to act abusively and doesn’t want a
record.

While it’s certainly a relief that I cannot report a single incident of
actual assault in the FLOSS community, I have seen behavior escalate
from ill-advised and mean political strategies to downright menacing. For
example, I often receive threats of public character assassination,
and character
assassination in the backchannel rumor mill remains ongoing. At a USENIX
conference in the late 1990s, I saw Hans Reiser screaming and wagging his
finger menacingly in the face of another Linux developer.
During many FLOSS community
scandals, women
have received threats of physical violence. Nevertheless, many FLOSS
“leaders” still consider psychological intimidation a completely
reasonable course of action and employ it regularly.

How long are we going to tolerate this, and should we simply
tolerate it, merely because it doesn’t cross that huge chasm (on the other
side of which lies physical violence)? How close are we willing to get? Is
it really true that any words are fair game, and nothing you
can say is off-limits? (In my experience, verbally abusive people
often use that claim as an iron-clad excuse.) But, if we don’t start asking
these questions regularly, our community culture will continue to
deteriorate.

I realize I’m just making a statement, and not proposing real action,
which (I admit) is only marginally helpful.
As Tor
recently showed, though, making a statement is the first step. In other
words, saying “No, this behavior is not acceptable” is
undoubtedly the only way to begin. Our community has been way too slow
in taking that one step, so we’ve now got a lot of catching up to get to the
right place in a reasonable timeframe.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/03/conservancy-supporter.html

Recently, I was forwarded an email from an executive at a 501(c)(6) trade
association. In answering a question about accepting small donations for
an “Open Source” project through their organization, the Trade
Association Executive responded Accepting [small] donations [from
individuals] is possible, but [is] generally not a sustainable way to raise
funds for a project based on our experience. It’s extremely
difficult … to raise any meaningful or reliable amounts.

I was aghast, but not surprised. The current Zeitgeist of the broader
Open Source and Free Software community incubated his disturbing mindset.
Our community suffers now from regular and active cooption by for-profit
interests. The Trade Association Executive’s fundraising claim —
which probably even bears true in their subset of the community —
shows the primary mechanism of cooption: encourage funding only from a few,
big sources so they can slowly but surely dictate project policy.

Today, more revenue than ever goes to the development of code released
under licenses that respect software freedom. That belabored sentence
contains the key subtlety: most Free Software communities are not
receiving more funding than before, in fact, they’re probably receiving
less. Instead, Open Source became a fad, and now it’s “cool”
for for-profit companies to release code, or channel funds through some
trade associations to get the code they want written and released. This
problem is actually much worse
than traditional
open-washing. I’d call this for-profit cooption its own subtle
open-washing: picking a seemingly acceptable license for the software, but
“engineering” the “community” as a proxy group
controlled by for-profit interests.

This cooption phenomenon leaves the community-oriented efforts of Free
Software charities underfunded and (quite often) under attack. These same
companies that fund plenty of Open Source development also often oppose
copyleft. Meanwhile, the majority of
Free Software projects that predate the “Open Source Boom”
didn’t rise to worldwide fame and discover a funding bonanza. Such less
famous projects still struggle financially for the very basics. For
example, I participate in email threads nearly every day
with Conservancy
member projects who are just trying to figure out how to fund
developers to a conference to give a talk about their project.

Thus, a sad kernel of truth hides in the Trade Association Executive’s
otherwise inaccurate statement: big corporate donations buy influence, and
a few of our traditionally community-oriented Free Software projects have
been “bought” in various ways with this influx of cash. The
trade associations seek to facilitate more of this. Unless we change our
behavior, the larger Open Source and Free Software community may soon look
much like the political system in the USA: where a few lobbyist-like
organizations control the key decision-making through funding. In such a
structure, who will stand up for those developers who
prefer copyleft? Who will make sure
individual developers receive the organizational infrastructure they need?
In short, who will put the needs of individual developers and users ahead
of for-profit companies?

The answer is simple: non-profit 501(c)(3) charities in our community.
These organizations that are required by IRS regulation to pass
a public
support test, which means they must seek large portions of their
revenue from individuals in the general public and not receive too much
from any small group of sources. Our society charges these organizations
with the difficult but attainable tasks of (a) answering to the general
public, and never for-profit corporate donors, and (b) funding the organization
via mechanisms appropriate to that charge. The best part is
that you, the individual,
have the strongest say in reaching those goals.

Those who favor for-profit corporate control of “Open Source”
projects will always insist that Free Software initiatives and plans just
cannot be funded effectively via small, individual donations. Please, for
the sake of software freedom, help us prove them wrong. There’s even an
easy way that you can do that. For just $10 a month, you
can join the Conservancy
Supporter program. You can help Conservancy stand up for Free Software
projects who seek to keep project control in the hands of developers and
users.

Of course, I realize you might not like my work at Conservancy. If you
don’t, then give to the FSF instead.
If you don’t like Conservancy nor the FSF,
then give to the GNOME
Foundation. Just pick the 501(c)(3) non-profit charity in the Free
Software community that you like best and donate. The future of software
freedom depends on it.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/03/conservancy-supporter.html

Recently, I was forwarded an email from an executive at a 501(c)(6) trade
association. In answering a question about accepting small donations for
an “Open Source” project through their organization, the Trade
Association Executive responded Accepting [small] donations [from
individuals] is possible, but [is] generally not a sustainable way to raise
funds for a project based on our experience. It’s extremely
difficult … to raise any meaningful or reliable amounts.

I was aghast, but not surprised. The current Zeitgeist of the broader
Open Source and Free Software community incubated his disturbing mindset.
Our community suffers now from regular and active cooption by for-profit
interests. The Trade Association Executive’s fundraising claim —
which probably even bears true in their subset of the community —
shows the primary mechanism of cooption: encourage funding only from a few,
big sources so they can slowly but surely dictate project policy.

Today, more revenue than ever goes to the development of code released
under licenses that respect software freedom. That belabored sentence
contains the key subtlety: most Free Software communities are not
receiving more funding than before, in fact, they’re probably receiving
less. Instead, Open Source became a fad, and now it’s “cool”
for for-profit companies to release code, or channel funds through some
trade associations to get the code they want written and released. This
problem is actually much worse
than traditional
open-washing. I’d call this for-profit cooption its own subtle
open-washing: picking a seemingly acceptable license for the software, but
“engineering” the “community” as a proxy group
controlled by for-profit interests.

This cooption phenomenon leaves the community-oriented efforts of Free
Software charities underfunded and (quite often) under attack. These same
companies that fund plenty of Open Source development also often oppose
copyleft. Meanwhile, the majority of
Free Software projects that predate the “Open Source Boom”
didn’t rise to worldwide fame and discover a funding bonanza. Such less
famous projects still struggle financially for the very basics. For
example, I participate in email threads nearly every day
with Conservancy
member projects who are just trying to figure out how to fund
developers to a conference to give a talk about their project.

Thus, a sad kernel of truth hides in the Trade Association Executive’s
otherwise inaccurate statement: big corporate donations buy influence, and
a few of our traditionally community-oriented Free Software projects have
been “bought” in various ways with this influx of cash. The
trade associations seek to facilitate more of this. Unless we change our
behavior, the larger Open Source and Free Software community may soon look
much like the political system in the USA: where a few lobbyist-like
organizations control the key decision-making through funding. In such a
structure, who will stand up for those developers who
prefer copyleft? Who will make sure
individual developers receive the organizational infrastructure they need?
In short, who will put the needs of individual developers and users ahead
of for-profit companies?

The answer is simple: non-profit 501(c)(3) charities in our community.
These organizations that are required by IRS regulation to pass
a public
support test, which means they must seek large portions of their
revenue from individuals in the general public and not receive too much
from any small group of sources. Our society charges these organizations
with the difficult but attainable tasks of (a) answering to the general
public, and never for-profit corporate donors, and (b) funding the organization
via mechanisms appropriate to that charge. The best part is
that you, the individual,
have the strongest say in reaching those goals.

Those who favor for-profit corporate control of “Open Source”
projects will always insist that Free Software initiatives and plans just
cannot be funded effectively via small, individual donations. Please, for
the sake of software freedom, help us prove them wrong. There’s even an
easy way that you can do that. For just $10 a month, you
can join the Conservancy
Supporter program. You can help Conservancy stand up for Free Software
projects who seek to keep project control in the hands of developers and
users.

Of course, I realize you might not like my work at Conservancy. If you
don’t, then give to the FSF instead.
If you don’t like Conservancy nor the FSF,
then give to the GNOME
Foundation. Just pick the 501(c)(3) non-profit charity in the Free
Software community that you like best and donate. The future of software
freedom depends on it.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/03/conservancy-supporter.html

Recently, I was forwarded an email from an executive at a 501(c)(6) trade
association. In answering a question about accepting small donations for
an “Open Source” project through their organization, the Trade
Association Executive responded Accepting [small] donations [from
individuals] is possible, but [is] generally not a sustainable way to raise
funds for a project based on our experience. It’s extremely
difficult … to raise any meaningful or reliable amounts.

I was aghast, but not surprised. The current Zeitgeist of the broader
Open Source and Free Software community incubated his disturbing mindset.
Our community suffers now from regular and active cooption by for-profit
interests. The Trade Association Executive’s fundraising claim —
which probably even bears true in their subset of the community —
shows the primary mechanism of cooption: encourage funding only from a few,
big sources so they can slowly but surely dictate project policy.

Today, more revenue than ever goes to the development of code released
under licenses that respect software freedom. That belabored sentence
contains the key subtlety: most Free Software communities are not
receiving more funding than before, in fact, they’re probably receiving
less. Instead, Open Source became a fad, and now it’s “cool”
for for-profit companies to release code, or channel funds through some
trade associations to get the code they want written and released. This
problem is actually much worse
than traditional
open-washing. I’d call this for-profit cooption its own subtle
open-washing: picking a seemingly acceptable license for the software, but
“engineering” the “community” as a proxy group
controlled by for-profit interests.

This cooption phenomenon leaves the community-oriented efforts of Free
Software charities underfunded and (quite often) under attack. These same
companies that fund plenty of Open Source development also often oppose
copyleft. Meanwhile, the majority of
Free Software projects that predate the “Open Source Boom”
didn’t rise to worldwide fame and discover a funding bonanza. Such less
famous projects still struggle financially for the very basics. For
example, I participate in email threads nearly every day
with Conservancy
member projects who are just trying to figure out how to fund
developers to a conference to give a talk about their project.

Thus, a sad kernel of truth hides in the Trade Association Executive’s
otherwise inaccurate statement: big corporate donations buy influence, and
a few of our traditionally community-oriented Free Software projects have
been “bought” in various ways with this influx of cash. The
trade associations seek to facilitate more of this. Unless we change our
behavior, the larger Open Source and Free Software community may soon look
much like the political system in the USA: where a few lobbyist-like
organizations control the key decision-making through funding. In such a
structure, who will stand up for those developers who
prefer copyleft? Who will make sure
individual developers receive the organizational infrastructure they need?
In short, who will put the needs of individual developers and users ahead
of for-profit companies?

The answer is simple: non-profit 501(c)(3) charities in our community.
These organizations that are required by IRS regulation to pass
a public
support test, which means they must seek large portions of their
revenue from individuals in the general public and not receive too much
from any small group of sources. Our society charges these organizations
with the difficult but attainable tasks of (a) answering to the general
public, and never for-profit corporate donors, and (b) funding the organization
via mechanisms appropriate to that charge. The best part is
that you, the individual,
have the strongest say in reaching those goals.

Those who favor for-profit corporate control of “Open Source”
projects will always insist that Free Software initiatives and plans just
cannot be funded effectively via small, individual donations. Please, for
the sake of software freedom, help us prove them wrong. There’s even an
easy way that you can do that. For just $10 a month, you
can join the Conservancy
Supporter program. You can help Conservancy stand up for Free Software
projects who seek to keep project control in the hands of developers and
users.

Of course, I realize you might not like my work at Conservancy. If you
don’t, then give to the FSF instead.
If you don’t like Conservancy nor the FSF,
then give to the GNOME
Foundation. Just pick the 501(c)(3) non-profit charity in the Free
Software community that you like best and donate. The future of software
freedom depends on it.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/03/conservancy-supporter.html

Recently, I was forwarded an email from an executive at a 501(c)(6) trade
association. In answering a question about accepting small donations for
an “Open Source” project through their organization, the Trade
Association Executive responded Accepting [small] donations [from
individuals] is possible, but [is] generally not a sustainable way to raise
funds for a project based on our experience. It’s extremely
difficult … to raise any meaningful or reliable amounts.

I was aghast, but not surprised. The current Zeitgeist of the broader
Open Source and Free Software community incubated his disturbing mindset.
Our community suffers now from regular and active cooption by for-profit
interests. The Trade Association Executive’s fundraising claim —
which probably even bears true in their subset of the community —
shows the primary mechanism of cooption: encourage funding only from a few,
big sources so they can slowly but surely dictate project policy.

Today, more revenue than ever goes to the development of code released
under licenses that respect software freedom. That belabored sentence
contains the key subtlety: most Free Software communities are not
receiving more funding than before, in fact, they’re probably receiving
less. Instead, Open Source became a fad, and now it’s “cool”
for for-profit companies to release code, or channel funds through some
trade associations to get the code they want written and released. This
problem is actually much worse
than traditional
open-washing. I’d call this for-profit cooption its own subtle
open-washing: picking a seemingly acceptable license for the software, but
“engineering” the “community” as a proxy group
controlled by for-profit interests.

This cooption phenomenon leaves the community-oriented efforts of Free
Software charities underfunded and (quite often) under attack. These same
companies that fund plenty of Open Source development also often oppose
copyleft. Meanwhile, the majority of
Free Software projects that predate the “Open Source Boom”
didn’t rise to worldwide fame and discover a funding bonanza. Such less
famous projects still struggle financially for the very basics. For
example, I participate in email threads nearly every day
with Conservancy
member projects who are just trying to figure out how to fund
developers to a conference to give a talk about their project.

Thus, a sad kernel of truth hides in the Trade Association Executive’s
otherwise inaccurate statement: big corporate donations buy influence, and
a few of our traditionally community-oriented Free Software projects have
been “bought” in various ways with this influx of cash. The
trade associations seek to facilitate more of this. Unless we change our
behavior, the larger Open Source and Free Software community may soon look
much like the political system in the USA: where a few lobbyist-like
organizations control the key decision-making through funding. In such a
structure, who will stand up for those developers who
prefer copyleft? Who will make sure
individual developers receive the organizational infrastructure they need?
In short, who will put the needs of individual developers and users ahead
of for-profit companies?

The answer is simple: non-profit 501(c)(3) charities in our community.
These organizations that are required by IRS regulation to pass
a public
support test, which means they must seek large portions of their
revenue from individuals in the general public and not receive too much
from any small group of sources. Our society charges these organizations
with the difficult but attainable tasks of (a) answering to the general
public, and never for-profit corporate donors, and (b) funding the organization
via mechanisms appropriate to that charge. The best part is
that you, the individual,
have the strongest say in reaching those goals.

Those who favor for-profit corporate control of “Open Source”
projects will always insist that Free Software initiatives and plans just
cannot be funded effectively via small, individual donations. Please, for
the sake of software freedom, help us prove them wrong. There’s even an
easy way that you can do that. For just $10 a month, you
can join the Conservancy
Supporter program. You can help Conservancy stand up for Free Software
projects who seek to keep project control in the hands of developers and
users.

Of course, I realize you might not like my work at Conservancy. If you
don’t, then give to the FSF instead.
If you don’t like Conservancy nor the FSF,
then give to the GNOME
Foundation. Just pick the 501(c)(3) non-profit charity in the Free
Software community that you like best and donate. The future of software
freedom depends on it.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/03/conservancy-supporter.html

Recently, I was forwarded an email from an executive at a 501(c)(6) trade
association. In answering a question about accepting small donations for
an “Open Source” project through their organization, the Trade
Association Executive responded Accepting [small] donations [from
individuals] is possible, but [is] generally not a sustainable way to raise
funds for a project based on our experience. It’s extremely
difficult … to raise any meaningful or reliable amounts.

I was aghast, but not surprised. The current Zeitgeist of the broader
Open Source and Free Software community incubated his disturbing mindset.
Our community suffers now from regular and active cooption by for-profit
interests. The Trade Association Executive’s fundraising claim —
which probably even bears true in their subset of the community —
shows the primary mechanism of cooption: encourage funding only from a few,
big sources so they can slowly but surely dictate project policy.

Today, more revenue than ever goes to the development of code released
under licenses that respect software freedom. That belabored sentence
contains the key subtlety: most Free Software communities are not
receiving more funding than before, in fact, they’re probably receiving
less. Instead, Open Source became a fad, and now it’s “cool”
for for-profit companies to release code, or channel funds through some
trade associations to get the code they want written and released. This
problem is actually much worse
than traditional
open-washing. I’d call this for-profit cooption its own subtle
open-washing: picking a seemingly acceptable license for the software, but
“engineering” the “community” as a proxy group
controlled by for-profit interests.

This cooption phenomenon leaves the community-oriented efforts of Free
Software charities underfunded and (quite often) under attack. These same
companies that fund plenty of Open Source development also often oppose
copyleft. Meanwhile, the majority of
Free Software projects that predate the “Open Source Boom”
didn’t rise to worldwide fame and discover a funding bonanza. Such less
famous projects still struggle financially for the very basics. For
example, I participate in email threads nearly every day
with Conservancy
member projects who are just trying to figure out how to fund
developers to a conference to give a talk about their project.

Thus, a sad kernel of truth hides in the Trade Association Executive’s
otherwise inaccurate statement: big corporate donations buy influence, and
a few of our traditionally community-oriented Free Software projects have
been “bought” in various ways with this influx of cash. The
trade associations seek to facilitate more of this. Unless we change our
behavior, the larger Open Source and Free Software community may soon look
much like the political system in the USA: where a few lobbyist-like
organizations control the key decision-making through funding. In such a
structure, who will stand up for those developers who
prefer copyleft? Who will make sure
individual developers receive the organizational infrastructure they need?
In short, who will put the needs of individual developers and users ahead
of for-profit companies?

The answer is simple: non-profit 501(c)(3) charities in our community.
These organizations that are required by IRS regulation to pass
a public
support test, which means they must seek large portions of their
revenue from individuals in the general public and not receive too much
from any small group of sources. Our society charges these organizations
with the difficult but attainable tasks of (a) answering to the general
public, and never for-profit corporate donors, and (b) funding the organization
via mechanisms appropriate to that charge. The best part is
that you, the individual,
have the strongest say in reaching those goals.

Those who favor for-profit corporate control of “Open Source”
projects will always insist that Free Software initiatives and plans just
cannot be funded effectively via small, individual donations. Please, for
the sake of software freedom, help us prove them wrong. There’s even an
easy way that you can do that. For just $10 a month, you
can join the Conservancy
Supporter program. You can help Conservancy stand up for Free Software
projects who seek to keep project control in the hands of developers and
users.

Of course, I realize you might not like my work at Conservancy. If you
don’t, then give to the FSF instead.
If you don’t like Conservancy nor the FSF,
then give to the GNOME
Foundation. Just pick the 501(c)(3) non-profit charity in the Free
Software community that you like best and donate. The future of software
freedom depends on it.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/03/conservancy-supporter.html

Recently, I was forwarded an email from an executive at a 501(c)(6) trade
association. In answering a question about accepting small donations for
an “Open Source” project through their organization, the Trade
Association Executive responded Accepting [small] donations [from
individuals] is possible, but [is] generally not a sustainable way to raise
funds for a project based on our experience. It’s extremely
difficult … to raise any meaningful or reliable amounts.

I was aghast, but not surprised. The current Zeitgeist of the broader
Open Source and Free Software community incubated his disturbing mindset.
Our community suffers now from regular and active cooption by for-profit
interests. The Trade Association Executive’s fundraising claim —
which probably even bears true in their subset of the community —
shows the primary mechanism of cooption: encourage funding only from a few,
big sources so they can slowly but surely dictate project policy.

Today, more revenue than ever goes to the development of code released
under licenses that respect software freedom. That belabored sentence
contains the key subtlety: most Free Software communities are not
receiving more funding than before, in fact, they’re probably receiving
less. Instead, Open Source became a fad, and now it’s “cool”
for for-profit companies to release code, or channel funds through some
trade associations to get the code they want written and released. This
problem is actually much worse
than traditional
open-washing. I’d call this for-profit cooption its own subtle
open-washing: picking a seemingly acceptable license for the software, but
“engineering” the “community” as a proxy group
controlled by for-profit interests.

This cooption phenomenon leaves the community-oriented efforts of Free
Software charities underfunded and (quite often) under attack. These same
companies that fund plenty of Open Source development also often oppose
copyleft. Meanwhile, the majority of
Free Software projects that predate the “Open Source Boom”
didn’t rise to worldwide fame and discover a funding bonanza. Such less
famous projects still struggle financially for the very basics. For
example, I participate in email threads nearly every day
with Conservancy
member projects who are just trying to figure out how to fund
developers to a conference to give a talk about their project.

Thus, a sad kernel of truth hides in the Trade Association Executive’s
otherwise inaccurate statement: big corporate donations buy influence, and
a few of our traditionally community-oriented Free Software projects have
been “bought” in various ways with this influx of cash. The
trade associations seek to facilitate more of this. Unless we change our
behavior, the larger Open Source and Free Software community may soon look
much like the political system in the USA: where a few lobbyist-like
organizations control the key decision-making through funding. In such a
structure, who will stand up for those developers who
prefer copyleft? Who will make sure
individual developers receive the organizational infrastructure they need?
In short, who will put the needs of individual developers and users ahead
of for-profit companies?

The answer is simple: non-profit 501(c)(3) charities in our community.
These organizations that are required by IRS regulation to pass
a public
support test, which means they must seek large portions of their
revenue from individuals in the general public and not receive too much
from any small group of sources. Our society charges these organizations
with the difficult but attainable tasks of (a) answering to the general
public, and never for-profit corporate donors, and (b) funding the organization
via mechanisms appropriate to that charge. The best part is
that you, the individual,
have the strongest say in reaching those goals.

Those who favor for-profit corporate control of “Open Source”
projects will always insist that Free Software initiatives and plans just
cannot be funded effectively via small, individual donations. Please, for
the sake of software freedom, help us prove them wrong. There’s even an
easy way that you can do that. For just $10 a month, you
can join the Conservancy
Supporter program. You can help Conservancy stand up for Free Software
projects who seek to keep project control in the hands of developers and
users.

Of course, I realize you might not like my work at Conservancy. If you
don’t, then give to the FSF instead.
If you don’t like Conservancy nor the FSF,
then give to the GNOME
Foundation. Just pick the 501(c)(3) non-profit charity in the Free
Software community that you like best and donate. The future of software
freedom depends on it.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/03/conservancy-supporter.html

Recently, I was forwarded an email from an executive at a 501(c)(6) trade
association. In answering a question about accepting small donations for
an “Open Source” project through their organization, the Trade
Association Executive responded Accepting [small] donations [from
individuals] is possible, but [is] generally not a sustainable way to raise
funds for a project based on our experience. It’s extremely
difficult … to raise any meaningful or reliable amounts.

I was aghast, but not surprised. The current Zeitgeist of the broader
Open Source and Free Software community incubated his disturbing mindset.
Our community suffers now from regular and active cooption by for-profit
interests. The Trade Association Executive’s fundraising claim —
which probably even bears true in their subset of the community —
shows the primary mechanism of cooption: encourage funding only from a few,
big sources so they can slowly but surely dictate project policy.

Today, more revenue than ever goes to the development of code released
under licenses that respect software freedom. That belabored sentence
contains the key subtlety: most Free Software communities are not
receiving more funding than before, in fact, they’re probably receiving
less. Instead, Open Source became a fad, and now it’s “cool”
for for-profit companies to release code, or channel funds through some
trade associations to get the code they want written and released. This
problem is actually much worse
than traditional
open-washing. I’d call this for-profit cooption its own subtle
open-washing: picking a seemingly acceptable license for the software, but
“engineering” the “community” as a proxy group
controlled by for-profit interests.

This cooption phenomenon leaves the community-oriented efforts of Free
Software charities underfunded and (quite often) under attack. These same
companies that fund plenty of Open Source development also often oppose
copyleft. Meanwhile, the majority of
Free Software projects that predate the “Open Source Boom”
didn’t rise to worldwide fame and discover a funding bonanza. Such less
famous projects still struggle financially for the very basics. For
example, I participate in email threads nearly every day
with Conservancy
member projects who are just trying to figure out how to fund
developers to a conference to give a talk about their project.

Thus, a sad kernel of truth hides in the Trade Association Executive’s
otherwise inaccurate statement: big corporate donations buy influence, and
a few of our traditionally community-oriented Free Software projects have
been “bought” in various ways with this influx of cash. The
trade associations seek to facilitate more of this. Unless we change our
behavior, the larger Open Source and Free Software community may soon look
much like the political system in the USA: where a few lobbyist-like
organizations control the key decision-making through funding. In such a
structure, who will stand up for those developers who
prefer copyleft? Who will make sure
individual developers receive the organizational infrastructure they need?
In short, who will put the needs of individual developers and users ahead
of for-profit companies?

The answer is simple: non-profit 501(c)(3) charities in our community.
These organizations that are required by IRS regulation to pass
a public
support test, which means they must seek large portions of their
revenue from individuals in the general public and not receive too much
from any small group of sources. Our society charges these organizations
with the difficult but attainable tasks of (a) answering to the general
public, and never for-profit corporate donors, and (b) funding the organization
via mechanisms appropriate to that charge. The best part is
that you, the individual,
have the strongest say in reaching those goals.

Those who favor for-profit corporate control of “Open Source”
projects will always insist that Free Software initiatives and plans just
cannot be funded effectively via small, individual donations. Please, for
the sake of software freedom, help us prove them wrong. There’s even an
easy way that you can do that. For just $10 a month, you
can join the Conservancy
Supporter program. You can help Conservancy stand up for Free Software
projects who seek to keep project control in the hands of developers and
users.

Of course, I realize you might not like my work at Conservancy. If you
don’t, then give to the FSF instead.
If you don’t like Conservancy nor the FSF,
then give to the GNOME
Foundation. Just pick the 501(c)(3) non-profit charity in the Free
Software community that you like best and donate. The future of software
freedom depends on it.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/03/conservancy-supporter.html

Recently, I was forwarded an email from an executive at a 501(c)(6) trade
association. In answering a question about accepting small donations for
an “Open Source” project through their organization, the Trade
Association Executive responded Accepting [small] donations [from
individuals] is possible, but [is] generally not a sustainable way to raise
funds for a project based on our experience. It’s extremely
difficult … to raise any meaningful or reliable amounts.

I was aghast, but not surprised. The current Zeitgeist of the broader
Open Source and Free Software community incubated his disturbing mindset.
Our community suffers now from regular and active cooption by for-profit
interests. The Trade Association Executive’s fundraising claim —
which probably even bears true in their subset of the community —
shows the primary mechanism of cooption: encourage funding only from a few,
big sources so they can slowly but surely dictate project policy.

Today, more revenue than ever goes to the development of code released
under licenses that respect software freedom. That belabored sentence
contains the key subtlety: most Free Software communities are not
receiving more funding than before, in fact, they’re probably receiving
less. Instead, Open Source became a fad, and now it’s “cool”
for for-profit companies to release code, or channel funds through some
trade associations to get the code they want written and released. This
problem is actually much worse
than traditional
open-washing. I’d call this for-profit cooption its own subtle
open-washing: picking a seemingly acceptable license for the software, but
“engineering” the “community” as a proxy group
controlled by for-profit interests.

This cooption phenomenon leaves the community-oriented efforts of Free
Software charities underfunded and (quite often) under attack. These same
companies that fund plenty of Open Source development also often oppose
copyleft. Meanwhile, the majority of
Free Software projects that predate the “Open Source Boom”
didn’t rise to worldwide fame and discover a funding bonanza. Such less
famous projects still struggle financially for the very basics. For
example, I participate in email threads nearly every day
with Conservancy
member projects who are just trying to figure out how to fund
developers to a conference to give a talk about their project.

Thus, a sad kernel of truth hides in the Trade Association Executive’s
otherwise inaccurate statement: big corporate donations buy influence, and
a few of our traditionally community-oriented Free Software projects have
been “bought” in various ways with this influx of cash. The
trade associations seek to facilitate more of this. Unless we change our
behavior, the larger Open Source and Free Software community may soon look
much like the political system in the USA: where a few lobbyist-like
organizations control the key decision-making through funding. In such a
structure, who will stand up for those developers who
prefer copyleft? Who will make sure
individual developers receive the organizational infrastructure they need?
In short, who will put the needs of individual developers and users ahead
of for-profit companies?

The answer is simple: non-profit 501(c)(3) charities in our community.
These organizations that are required by IRS regulation to pass
a public
support test, which means they must seek large portions of their
revenue from individuals in the general public and not receive too much
from any small group of sources. Our society charges these organizations
with the difficult but attainable tasks of (a) answering to the general
public, and never for-profit corporate donors, and (b) funding the organization
via mechanisms appropriate to that charge. The best part is
that you, the individual,
have the strongest say in reaching those goals.

Those who favor for-profit corporate control of “Open Source”
projects will always insist that Free Software initiatives and plans just
cannot be funded effectively via small, individual donations. Please, for
the sake of software freedom, help us prove them wrong. There’s even an
easy way that you can do that. For just $10 a month, you
can join the Conservancy
Supporter program. You can help Conservancy stand up for Free Software
projects who seek to keep project control in the hands of developers and
users.

Of course, I realize you might not like my work at Conservancy. If you
don’t, then give to the FSF instead.
If you don’t like Conservancy nor the FSF,
then give to the GNOME
Foundation. Just pick the 501(c)(3) non-profit charity in the Free
Software community that you like best and donate. The future of software
freedom depends on it.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/12/03/conservancy-supporter.html

Recently, I was forwarded an email from an executive at a 501(c)(6) trade
association. In answering a question about accepting small donations for
an “Open Source” project through their organization, the Trade
Association Executive responded Accepting [small] donations [from
individuals] is possible, but [is] generally not a sustainable way to raise
funds for a project based on our experience. It’s extremely
difficult … to raise any meaningful or reliable amounts.

I was aghast, but not surprised. The current Zeitgeist of the broader
Open Source and Free Software community incubated his disturbing mindset.
Our community suffers now from regular and active cooption by for-profit
interests. The Trade Association Executive’s fundraising claim —
which probably even bears true in their subset of the community —
shows the primary mechanism of cooption: encourage funding only from a few,
big sources so they can slowly but surely dictate project policy.

Today, more revenue than ever goes to the development of code released
under licenses that respect software freedom. That belabored sentence
contains the key subtlety: most Free Software communities are not
receiving more funding than before, in fact, they’re probably receiving
less. Instead, Open Source became a fad, and now it’s “cool”
for for-profit companies to release code, or channel funds through some
trade associations to get the code they want written and released. This
problem is actually much worse
than traditional
open-washing. I’d call this for-profit cooption its own subtle
open-washing: picking a seemingly acceptable license for the software, but
“engineering” the “community” as a proxy group
controlled by for-profit interests.

This cooption phenomenon leaves the community-oriented efforts of Free
Software charities underfunded and (quite often) under attack. These same
companies that fund plenty of Open Source development also often oppose
copyleft. Meanwhile, the majority of
Free Software projects that predate the “Open Source Boom”
didn’t rise to worldwide fame and discover a funding bonanza. Such less
famous projects still struggle financially for the very basics. For
example, I participate in email threads nearly every day
with Conservancy
member projects who are just trying to figure out how to fund
developers to a conference to give a talk about their project.

Thus, a sad kernel of truth hides in the Trade Association Executive’s
otherwise inaccurate statement: big corporate donations buy influence, and
a few of our traditionally community-oriented Free Software projects have
been “bought” in various ways with this influx of cash. The
trade associations seek to facilitate more of this. Unless we change our
behavior, the larger Open Source and Free Software community may soon look
much like the political system in the USA: where a few lobbyist-like
organizations control the key decision-making through funding. In such a
structure, who will stand up for those developers who
prefer copyleft? Who will make sure
individual developers receive the organizational infrastructure they need?
In short, who will put the needs of individual developers and users ahead
of for-profit companies?

The answer is simple: non-profit 501(c)(3) charities in our community.
These organizations that are required by IRS regulation to pass
a public
support test, which means they must seek large portions of their
revenue from individuals in the general public and not receive too much
from any small group of sources. Our society charges these organizations
with the difficult but attainable tasks of (a) answering to the general
public, and never for-profit corporate donors, and (b) funding the organization
via mechanisms appropriate to that charge. The best part is
that you, the individual,
have the strongest say in reaching those goals.

Those who favor for-profit corporate control of “Open Source”
projects will always insist that Free Software initiatives and plans just
cannot be funded effectively via small, individual donations. Please, for
the sake of software freedom, help us prove them wrong. There’s even an
easy way that you can do that. For just $10 a month, you
can join the Conservancy
Supporter program. You can help Conservancy stand up for Free Software
projects who seek to keep project control in the hands of developers and
users.

Of course, I realize you might not like my work at Conservancy. If you
don’t, then give to the FSF instead.
If you don’t like Conservancy nor the FSF,
then give to the GNOME
Foundation. Just pick the 501(c)(3) non-profit charity in the Free
Software community that you like best and donate. The future of software
freedom depends on it.