An Update Regarding the 2025 Open Source Initiative Elections
I’ve
explained in
other posts that I ran for the 2025 Open Source Initative Board of
Directors in the “Affiliate” district.
Voting closed on MON 2025-03-17 at 10:00 US/Pacific. One hour later,
candidates were surprised to receive an email from OSI demanding
that all candidates sign a Board agreement before results were
posted. This was surprising because during mandatory orientation,
candidates were told the opposite: that a Board agreement need not be
signed until the Board formally appointed you as a Director (as the
elections are only advisory &mdash: OSI’s Board need not follow election
results in any event. It was also surprising because the deadline was a
mere 47 hours later (WED 2025-03-19 at 10:00 US/Pacific).
Many of us candidates attempted to get clarification over the last 46
hours, but OSI has not
communicated clear answers in response to those requests. Based on
these unclear responses, the best we can surmise is that OSI intends to
modify the ballots cast by Affiliates and Members to remove any candidate
who misses this new deadline. We are loathe to assume the worst, but
there’s little choice given the confusing responses and surprising change
in requirements and deadlines.
In addition to
the twokeynotes
mentioned above, I propose these analogies that really are apt to
this situation:
Imagine if the Board of The Nature Conservancy told Directors they
would be required, if elected, to use a car service to attend Board
meetings. It’s easier, they argue, if everyone uses the same service and
that way, we know you’re on your way, and we pay a group rate anyway. Some
candidates for open Board seats retort that’s not environmentally sound,
and insist — not even that other Board members must stop using the
car service &mdash: but just that Directors who chose should be allowed to
simply take public transit to the Board meeting — even though it
might make them about five minutes late to the meeting. Are these Director
candidates engaged in “passive-aggressive politicking”?
Imagine if the Board of Friends of Trees made a decision that all
paperwork for the organization be printed on non-recycled paper made from
freshly cut tree wood pulp. That paper is easier to move around, they say
— and it’s easier to read what’s printed because of its quality.
Some candidates for open Board seats run on a platform that says Board
members should be allowed to get their print-outs on 100% post-consumer
recycled paper for Board meetings. These candidates don’t insist that
other Board members use the same paper, so, if these new Directors are
seated, this will create extra work for staff because now they have to do
two sets of print-outs to prep for Board meetings, and refill the machine
with different paper in-between. Are these new Director candidates, when
they speak up about why this position is important to them as a moral
issue, a “a distracting waste of time”?
Imagine if the Board of the APSCA made the decision that Directors must
work through lunch, and the majority of the Directors vote that they’ll get
delivery from a restaurant that serves no vegan food whatsoever. Is it
reasonable for this to be a non-negotiable requirement — such that
the other Directors must work through lunch and just stay hungry? Or
should they add a second restaurant option for the minority? After all,
the ASPCA condemns animal cruelty but doesn’t go so far as to
demand that everyone also be a vegan. Would the meat-eating directors then
say something like “opposing cruelty to animals could be so much more
than merely being vegan” to these other Directors?
An Update Regarding the 2025 Open Source Initiative Elections
I’ve
explained in
other posts that I ran for the 2025 Open Source Initative Board of
Directors in the “Affiliate” district.
Voting closed on MON 2025-03-17 at 10:00 US/Pacific. One hour later,
candidates were surprised to receive an email from OSI demanding
that all candidates sign a Board agreement before results were
posted. This was surprising because during mandatory orientation,
candidates were told the opposite: that a Board agreement need not be
signed until the Board formally appointed you as a Director (as the
elections are only advisory &mdash: OSI’s Board need not follow election
results in any event. It was also surprising because the deadline was a
mere 47 hours later (WED 2025-03-19 at 10:00 US/Pacific).
Many of us candidates attempted to get clarification over the last 46
hours, but OSI has not
communicated clear answers in response to those requests. Based on
these unclear responses, the best we can surmise is that OSI intends to
modify the ballots cast by Affiliates and Members to remove any candidate
who misses this new deadline. We are loathe to assume the worst, but
there’s little choice given the confusing responses and surprising change
in requirements and deadlines.
In addition to
the twokeynotes
mentioned above, I propose these analogies that really are apt to
this situation:
Imagine if the Board of The Nature Conservancy told Directors they
would be required, if elected, to use a car service to attend Board
meetings. It’s easier, they argue, if everyone uses the same service and
that way, we know you’re on your way, and we pay a group rate anyway. Some
candidates for open Board seats retort that’s not environmentally sound,
and insist — not even that other Board members must stop using the
car service &mdash: but just that Directors who chose should be allowed to
simply take public transit to the Board meeting — even though it
might make them about five minutes late to the meeting. Are these Director
candidates engaged in “passive-aggressive politicking”?
Imagine if the Board of Friends of Trees made a decision that all
paperwork for the organization be printed on non-recycled paper made from
freshly cut tree wood pulp. That paper is easier to move around, they say
— and it’s easier to read what’s printed because of its quality.
Some candidates for open Board seats run on a platform that says Board
members should be allowed to get their print-outs on 100% post-consumer
recycled paper for Board meetings. These candidates don’t insist that
other Board members use the same paper, so, if these new Directors are
seated, this will create extra work for staff because now they have to do
two sets of print-outs to prep for Board meetings, and refill the machine
with different paper in-between. Are these new Director candidates, when
they speak up about why this position is important to them as a moral
issue, a “a distracting waste of time”?
Imagine if the Board of the APSCA made the decision that Directors must
work through lunch, and the majority of the Directors vote that they’ll get
delivery from a restaurant that serves no vegan food whatsoever. Is it
reasonable for this to be a non-negotiable requirement — such that
the other Directors must work through lunch and just stay hungry? Or
should they add a second restaurant option for the minority? After all,
the ASPCA condemns animal cruelty but doesn’t go so far as to
demand that everyone also be a vegan. Would the meat-eating directors then
say something like “opposing cruelty to animals could be so much more
than merely being vegan” to these other Directors?
Update 2025-03-21: During the 2025 Open Source Initiative
I used my blog as a campaigning tool (for reasons discussed below) before I
knew how much interest there would ultimately be in the
FOSS community
about the 2025 OSI Board of Directors election. Since this was used as a
source for the LWN article, keeping the original record easy to find is
obviously important and folks shouldn’t have to go to archive.org/web to
find it. Nevertheless, if you’re just digging into this story fresh, I
don’t really recommend reading the below. Instead, I suggest just
reading Brockmeier’s
LWN article because he’s a journalist and writes better and more
concise than me, and he’s unbiased and the below is my (understandably) biased view as a
candidate who lived through this problematic election.
An Update Regarding the 2025 Open Source Initiative Elections
I’ve
explained in
other posts that I ran for the 2025 Open Source Initative Board of
Directors in the “Affiliate” district.
Voting closed on MON 2025-03-17 at 10:00 US/Pacific. One hour later,
candidates were surprised to receive an email from OSI demanding
that all candidates sign a Board agreement before results were
posted. This was surprising because during mandatory orientation,
candidates were told the opposite: that a Board agreement need not be
signed until the Board formally appointed you as a Director (as the
elections are only advisory &mdash: OSI’s Board need not follow election
results in any event. It was also surprising because the deadline was a
mere 47 hours later (WED 2025-03-19 at 10:00 US/Pacific).
Many of us candidates attempted to get clarification over the last 46
hours, but OSI has not
communicated clear answers in response to those requests. Based on
these unclear responses, the best we can surmise is that OSI intends to
modify the ballots cast by Affiliates and Members to remove any candidate
who misses this new deadline. We are loathe to assume the worst, but
there’s little choice given the confusing responses and surprising change
in requirements and deadlines.
In addition to
the twokeynotes
mentioned above, I propose these analogies that really are apt to
this situation:
Imagine if the Board of The Nature Conservancy told Directors they
would be required, if elected, to use a car service to attend Board
meetings. It’s easier, they argue, if everyone uses the same service and
that way, we know you’re on your way, and we pay a group rate anyway. Some
candidates for open Board seats retort that’s not environmentally sound,
and insist — not even that other Board members must stop using the
car service &mdash: but just that Directors who chose should be allowed to
simply take public transit to the Board meeting — even though it
might make them about five minutes late to the meeting. Are these Director
candidates engaged in “passive-aggressive politicking”?
Imagine if the Board of Friends of Trees made a decision that all
paperwork for the organization be printed on non-recycled paper made from
freshly cut tree wood pulp. That paper is easier to move around, they say
— and it’s easier to read what’s printed because of its quality.
Some candidates for open Board seats run on a platform that says Board
members should be allowed to get their print-outs on 100% post-consumer
recycled paper for Board meetings. These candidates don’t insist that
other Board members use the same paper, so, if these new Directors are
seated, this will create extra work for staff because now they have to do
two sets of print-outs to prep for Board meetings, and refill the machine
with different paper in-between. Are these new Director candidates, when
they speak up about why this position is important to them as a moral
issue, a “a distracting waste of time”?
Imagine if the Board of the APSCA made the decision that Directors must
work through lunch, and the majority of the Directors vote that they’ll get
delivery from a restaurant that serves no vegan food whatsoever. Is it
reasonable for this to be a non-negotiable requirement — such that
the other Directors must work through lunch and just stay hungry? Or
should they add a second restaurant option for the minority? After all,
the ASPCA condemns animal cruelty but doesn’t go so far as to
demand that everyone also be a vegan. Would the meat-eating directors then
say something like “opposing cruelty to animals could be so much more
than merely being vegan” to these other Directors?
Update 2025-03-21: During the 2025 Open Source Initiative
I used my blog as a campaigning tool (for reasons discussed below) before I
knew how much interest there would ultimately be in the
FOSS community
about the 2025 OSI Board of Directors election. Since this was used as a
source for the LWN article, keeping the original record easy to find is
obviously important and folks shouldn’t have to go to archive.org/web to
find it. Nevertheless, if you’re just digging into this story fresh, I
don’t really recommend reading the below. Instead, I suggest just
reading Brockmeier’s
LWN article because he’s a journalist and writes better and more
concise than me, and he’s unbiased and the below is my (understandably) biased view as a
candidate who lived through this problematic election.
An Update Regarding the 2025 Open Source Initiative Elections
I’ve
explained in
other posts that I ran for the 2025 Open Source Initative Board of
Directors in the “Affiliate” district.
Voting closed on MON 2025-03-17 at 10:00 US/Pacific. One hour later,
candidates were surprised to receive an email from OSI demanding
that all candidates sign a Board agreement before results were
posted. This was surprising because during mandatory orientation,
candidates were told the opposite: that a Board agreement need not be
signed until the Board formally appointed you as a Director (as the
elections are only advisory &mdash: OSI’s Board need not follow election
results in any event. It was also surprising because the deadline was a
mere 47 hours later (WED 2025-03-19 at 10:00 US/Pacific).
Many of us candidates attempted to get clarification over the last 46
hours, but OSI has not
communicated clear answers in response to those requests. Based on
these unclear responses, the best we can surmise is that OSI intends to
modify the ballots cast by Affiliates and Members to remove any candidate
who misses this new deadline. We are loathe to assume the worst, but
there’s little choice given the confusing responses and surprising change
in requirements and deadlines.
In addition to
the twokeynotes
mentioned above, I propose these analogies that really are apt to
this situation:
Imagine if the Board of The Nature Conservancy told Directors they
would be required, if elected, to use a car service to attend Board
meetings. It’s easier, they argue, if everyone uses the same service and
that way, we know you’re on your way, and we pay a group rate anyway. Some
candidates for open Board seats retort that’s not environmentally sound,
and insist — not even that other Board members must stop using the
car service &mdash: but just that Directors who chose should be allowed to
simply take public transit to the Board meeting — even though it
might make them about five minutes late to the meeting. Are these Director
candidates engaged in “passive-aggressive politicking”?
Imagine if the Board of Friends of Trees made a decision that all
paperwork for the organization be printed on non-recycled paper made from
freshly cut tree wood pulp. That paper is easier to move around, they say
— and it’s easier to read what’s printed because of its quality.
Some candidates for open Board seats run on a platform that says Board
members should be allowed to get their print-outs on 100% post-consumer
recycled paper for Board meetings. These candidates don’t insist that
other Board members use the same paper, so, if these new Directors are
seated, this will create extra work for staff because now they have to do
two sets of print-outs to prep for Board meetings, and refill the machine
with different paper in-between. Are these new Director candidates, when
they speak up about why this position is important to them as a moral
issue, a “a distracting waste of time”?
Imagine if the Board of the APSCA made the decision that Directors must
work through lunch, and the majority of the Directors vote that they’ll get
delivery from a restaurant that serves no vegan food whatsoever. Is it
reasonable for this to be a non-negotiable requirement — such that
the other Directors must work through lunch and just stay hungry? Or
should they add a second restaurant option for the minority? After all,
the ASPCA condemns animal cruelty but doesn’t go so far as to
demand that everyone also be a vegan. Would the meat-eating directors then
say something like “opposing cruelty to animals could be so much more
than merely being vegan” to these other Directors?
Update 2025-03-21: During the 2025 Open Source Initiative
I used my blog as a campaigning tool (for reasons discussed below) before I
knew how much interest there would ultimately be in the
FOSS community
about the 2025 OSI Board of Directors election. Since this was used as a
source for the LWN article, keeping the original record easy to find is
obviously important and folks shouldn’t have to go to archive.org/web to
find it. Nevertheless, if you’re just digging into this story fresh, I
don’t really recommend reading the below. Instead, I suggest just
reading Brockmeier’s
LWN article because he’s a journalist and writes better and more
concise than me, and he’s unbiased and the below is my (understandably) biased view as a
candidate who lived through this problematic election.
An Update Regarding the 2025 Open Source Initiative Elections
I’ve
explained in
other posts that I ran for the 2025 Open Source Initative Board of
Directors in the “Affiliate” district.
Voting closed on MON 2025-03-17 at 10:00 US/Pacific. One hour later,
candidates were surprised to receive an email from OSI demanding
that all candidates sign a Board agreement before results were
posted. This was surprising because during mandatory orientation,
candidates were told the opposite: that a Board agreement need not be
signed until the Board formally appointed you as a Director (as the
elections are only advisory &mdash: OSI’s Board need not follow election
results in any event. It was also surprising because the deadline was a
mere 47 hours later (WED 2025-03-19 at 10:00 US/Pacific).
Many of us candidates attempted to get clarification over the last 46
hours, but OSI has not
communicated clear answers in response to those requests. Based on
these unclear responses, the best we can surmise is that OSI intends to
modify the ballots cast by Affiliates and Members to remove any candidate
who misses this new deadline. We are loathe to assume the worst, but
there’s little choice given the confusing responses and surprising change
in requirements and deadlines.
In addition to
the twokeynotes
mentioned above, I propose these analogies that really are apt to
this situation:
Imagine if the Board of The Nature Conservancy told Directors they
would be required, if elected, to use a car service to attend Board
meetings. It’s easier, they argue, if everyone uses the same service and
that way, we know you’re on your way, and we pay a group rate anyway. Some
candidates for open Board seats retort that’s not environmentally sound,
and insist — not even that other Board members must stop using the
car service &mdash: but just that Directors who chose should be allowed to
simply take public transit to the Board meeting — even though it
might make them about five minutes late to the meeting. Are these Director
candidates engaged in “passive-aggressive politicking”?
Imagine if the Board of Friends of Trees made a decision that all
paperwork for the organization be printed on non-recycled paper made from
freshly cut tree wood pulp. That paper is easier to move around, they say
— and it’s easier to read what’s printed because of its quality.
Some candidates for open Board seats run on a platform that says Board
members should be allowed to get their print-outs on 100% post-consumer
recycled paper for Board meetings. These candidates don’t insist that
other Board members use the same paper, so, if these new Directors are
seated, this will create extra work for staff because now they have to do
two sets of print-outs to prep for Board meetings, and refill the machine
with different paper in-between. Are these new Director candidates, when
they speak up about why this position is important to them as a moral
issue, a “a distracting waste of time”?
Imagine if the Board of the APSCA made the decision that Directors must
work through lunch, and the majority of the Directors vote that they’ll get
delivery from a restaurant that serves no vegan food whatsoever. Is it
reasonable for this to be a non-negotiable requirement — such that
the other Directors must work through lunch and just stay hungry? Or
should they add a second restaurant option for the minority? After all,
the ASPCA condemns animal cruelty but doesn’t go so far as to
demand that everyone also be a vegan. Would the meat-eating directors then
say something like “opposing cruelty to animals could be so much more
than merely being vegan” to these other Directors?
An Update Regarding the 2025 Open Source Initiative Elections
I’ve
explained in
other posts that I ran for the 2025 Open Source Initative Board of
Directors in the “Affiliate” district.
Voting closed on MON 2025-03-17 at 10:00 US/Pacific. One hour later,
candidates were surprised to receive an email from OSI demanding
that all candidates sign a Board agreement before results were
posted. This was surprising because during mandatory orientation,
candidates were told the opposite: that a Board agreement need not be
signed until the Board formally appointed you as a Director (as the
elections are only advisory &mdash: OSI’s Board need not follow election
results in any event. It was also surprising because the deadline was a
mere 47 hours later (WED 2025-03-19 at 10:00 US/Pacific).
Many of us candidates attempted to get clarification over the last 46
hours, but OSI has not
communicated clear answers in response to those requests. Based on
these unclear responses, the best we can surmise is that OSI intends to
modify the ballots cast by Affiliates and Members to remove any candidate
who misses this new deadline. We are loathe to assume the worst, but
there’s little choice given the confusing responses and surprising change
in requirements and deadlines.
In addition to
the twokeynotes
mentioned above, I propose these analogies that really are apt to
this situation:
Imagine if the Board of The Nature Conservancy told Directors they
would be required, if elected, to use a car service to attend Board
meetings. It’s easier, they argue, if everyone uses the same service and
that way, we know you’re on your way, and we pay a group rate anyway. Some
candidates for open Board seats retort that’s not environmentally sound,
and insist — not even that other Board members must stop using the
car service &mdash: but just that Directors who chose should be allowed to
simply take public transit to the Board meeting — even though it
might make them about five minutes late to the meeting. Are these Director
candidates engaged in “passive-aggressive politicking”?
Imagine if the Board of Friends of Trees made a decision that all
paperwork for the organization be printed on non-recycled paper made from
freshly cut tree wood pulp. That paper is easier to move around, they say
— and it’s easier to read what’s printed because of its quality.
Some candidates for open Board seats run on a platform that says Board
members should be allowed to get their print-outs on 100% post-consumer
recycled paper for Board meetings. These candidates don’t insist that
other Board members use the same paper, so, if these new Directors are
seated, this will create extra work for staff because now they have to do
two sets of print-outs to prep for Board meetings, and refill the machine
with different paper in-between. Are these new Director candidates, when
they speak up about why this position is important to them as a moral
issue, a “a distracting waste of time”?
Imagine if the Board of the APSCA made the decision that Directors must
work through lunch, and the majority of the Directors vote that they’ll get
delivery from a restaurant that serves no vegan food whatsoever. Is it
reasonable for this to be a non-negotiable requirement — such that
the other Directors must work through lunch and just stay hungry? Or
should they add a second restaurant option for the minority? After all,
the ASPCA condemns animal cruelty but doesn’t go so far as to
demand that everyone also be a vegan. Would the meat-eating directors then
say something like “opposing cruelty to animals could be so much more
than merely being vegan” to these other Directors?
An Update Regarding the 2025 Open Source Initiative Elections
I’ve
explained in
other posts that I ran for the 2025 Open Source Initative Board of
Directors in the “Affiliate” district.
Voting closed on MON 2025-03-17 at 10:00 US/Pacific. One hour later,
candidates were surprised to receive an email from OSI demanding
that all candidates sign a Board agreement before results were
posted. This was surprising because during mandatory orientation,
candidates were told the opposite: that a Board agreement need not be
signed until the Board formally appointed you as a Director (as the
elections are only advisory &mdash: OSI’s Board need not follow election
results in any event. It was also surprising because the deadline was a
mere 47 hours later (WED 2025-03-19 at 10:00 US/Pacific).
Many of us candidates attempted to get clarification over the last 46
hours, but OSI has not
communicated clear answers in response to those requests. Based on
these unclear responses, the best we can surmise is that OSI intends to
modify the ballots cast by Affiliates and Members to remove any candidate
who misses this new deadline. We are loathe to assume the worst, but
there’s little choice given the confusing responses and surprising change
in requirements and deadlines.
In addition to
the twokeynotes
mentioned above, I propose these analogies that really are apt to
this situation:
Imagine if the Board of The Nature Conservancy told Directors they
would be required, if elected, to use a car service to attend Board
meetings. It’s easier, they argue, if everyone uses the same service and
that way, we know you’re on your way, and we pay a group rate anyway. Some
candidates for open Board seats retort that’s not environmentally sound,
and insist — not even that other Board members must stop using the
car service &mdash: but just that Directors who chose should be allowed to
simply take public transit to the Board meeting — even though it
might make them about five minutes late to the meeting. Are these Director
candidates engaged in “passive-aggressive politicking”?
Imagine if the Board of Friends of Trees made a decision that all
paperwork for the organization be printed on non-recycled paper made from
freshly cut tree wood pulp. That paper is easier to move around, they say
— and it’s easier to read what’s printed because of its quality.
Some candidates for open Board seats run on a platform that says Board
members should be allowed to get their print-outs on 100% post-consumer
recycled paper for Board meetings. These candidates don’t insist that
other Board members use the same paper, so, if these new Directors are
seated, this will create extra work for staff because now they have to do
two sets of print-outs to prep for Board meetings, and refill the machine
with different paper in-between. Are these new Director candidates, when
they speak up about why this position is important to them as a moral
issue, a “a distracting waste of time”?
Imagine if the Board of the APSCA made the decision that Directors must
work through lunch, and the majority of the Directors vote that they’ll get
delivery from a restaurant that serves no vegan food whatsoever. Is it
reasonable for this to be a non-negotiable requirement — such that
the other Directors must work through lunch and just stay hungry? Or
should they add a second restaurant option for the minority? After all,
the ASPCA condemns animal cruelty but doesn’t go so far as to
demand that everyone also be a vegan. Would the meat-eating directors then
say something like “opposing cruelty to animals could be so much more
than merely being vegan” to these other Directors?
An Update Regarding the 2025 Open Source Initiative Elections
I’ve
explained in
other posts that I ran for the 2025 Open Source Initative Board of
Directors in the “Affiliate” district.
Voting closed on MON 2025-03-17 at 10:00 US/Pacific. One hour later,
candidates were surprised to receive an email from OSI demanding
that all candidates sign a Board agreement before results were
posted. This was surprising because during mandatory orientation,
candidates were told the opposite: that a Board agreement need not be
signed until the Board formally appointed you as a Director (as the
elections are only advisory &mdash: OSI’s Board need not follow election
results in any event. It was also surprising because the deadline was a
mere 47 hours later (WED 2025-03-19 at 10:00 US/Pacific).
Many of us candidates attempted to get clarification over the last 46
hours, but OSI has not
communicated clear answers in response to those requests. Based on
these unclear responses, the best we can surmise is that OSI intends to
modify the ballots cast by Affiliates and Members to remove any candidate
who misses this new deadline. We are loathe to assume the worst, but
there’s little choice given the confusing responses and surprising change
in requirements and deadlines.
In addition to
the twokeynotes
mentioned above, I propose these analogies that really are apt to
this situation:
Imagine if the Board of The Nature Conservancy told Directors they
would be required, if elected, to use a car service to attend Board
meetings. It’s easier, they argue, if everyone uses the same service and
that way, we know you’re on your way, and we pay a group rate anyway. Some
candidates for open Board seats retort that’s not environmentally sound,
and insist — not even that other Board members must stop using the
car service &mdash: but just that Directors who chose should be allowed to
simply take public transit to the Board meeting — even though it
might make them about five minutes late to the meeting. Are these Director
candidates engaged in “passive-aggressive politicking”?
Imagine if the Board of Friends of Trees made a decision that all
paperwork for the organization be printed on non-recycled paper made from
freshly cut tree wood pulp. That paper is easier to move around, they say
— and it’s easier to read what’s printed because of its quality.
Some candidates for open Board seats run on a platform that says Board
members should be allowed to get their print-outs on 100% post-consumer
recycled paper for Board meetings. These candidates don’t insist that
other Board members use the same paper, so, if these new Directors are
seated, this will create extra work for staff because now they have to do
two sets of print-outs to prep for Board meetings, and refill the machine
with different paper in-between. Are these new Director candidates, when
they speak up about why this position is important to them as a moral
issue, a “a distracting waste of time”?
Imagine if the Board of the APSCA made the decision that Directors must
work through lunch, and the majority of the Directors vote that they’ll get
delivery from a restaurant that serves no vegan food whatsoever. Is it
reasonable for this to be a non-negotiable requirement — such that
the other Directors must work through lunch and just stay hungry? Or
should they add a second restaurant option for the minority? After all,
the ASPCA condemns animal cruelty but doesn’t go so far as to
demand that everyone also be a vegan. Would the meat-eating directors then
say something like “opposing cruelty to animals could be so much more
than merely being vegan” to these other Directors?
An Update Regarding the 2025 Open Source Initiative Elections
I’ve
explained in
other posts that I ran for the 2025 Open Source Initative Board of
Directors in the “Affiliate” district.
Voting closed on MON 2025-03-17 at 10:00 US/Pacific. One hour later,
candidates were surprised to receive an email from OSI demanding
that all candidates sign a Board agreement before results were
posted. This was surprising because during mandatory orientation,
candidates were told the opposite: that a Board agreement need not be
signed until the Board formally appointed you as a Director (as the
elections are only advisory &mdash: OSI’s Board need not follow election
results in any event. It was also surprising because the deadline was a
mere 47 hours later (WED 2025-03-19 at 10:00 US/Pacific).
Many of us candidates attempted to get clarification over the last 46
hours, but OSI has not
communicated clear answers in response to those requests. Based on
these unclear responses, the best we can surmise is that OSI intends to
modify the ballots cast by Affiliates and Members to remove any candidate
who misses this new deadline. We are loathe to assume the worst, but
there’s little choice given the confusing responses and surprising change
in requirements and deadlines.
In addition to
the twokeynotes
mentioned above, I propose these analogies that really are apt to
this situation:
Imagine if the Board of The Nature Conservancy told Directors they
would be required, if elected, to use a car service to attend Board
meetings. It’s easier, they argue, if everyone uses the same service and
that way, we know you’re on your way, and we pay a group rate anyway. Some
candidates for open Board seats retort that’s not environmentally sound,
and insist — not even that other Board members must stop using the
car service &mdash: but just that Directors who chose should be allowed to
simply take public transit to the Board meeting — even though it
might make them about five minutes late to the meeting. Are these Director
candidates engaged in “passive-aggressive politicking”?
Imagine if the Board of Friends of Trees made a decision that all
paperwork for the organization be printed on non-recycled paper made from
freshly cut tree wood pulp. That paper is easier to move around, they say
— and it’s easier to read what’s printed because of its quality.
Some candidates for open Board seats run on a platform that says Board
members should be allowed to get their print-outs on 100% post-consumer
recycled paper for Board meetings. These candidates don’t insist that
other Board members use the same paper, so, if these new Directors are
seated, this will create extra work for staff because now they have to do
two sets of print-outs to prep for Board meetings, and refill the machine
with different paper in-between. Are these new Director candidates, when
they speak up about why this position is important to them as a moral
issue, a “a distracting waste of time”?
Imagine if the Board of the APSCA made the decision that Directors must
work through lunch, and the majority of the Directors vote that they’ll get
delivery from a restaurant that serves no vegan food whatsoever. Is it
reasonable for this to be a non-negotiable requirement — such that
the other Directors must work through lunch and just stay hungry? Or
should they add a second restaurant option for the minority? After all,
the ASPCA condemns animal cruelty but doesn’t go so far as to
demand that everyone also be a vegan. Would the meat-eating directors then
say something like “opposing cruelty to animals could be so much more
than merely being vegan” to these other Directors?
An Update Regarding the 2025 Open Source Initiative Elections
I’ve
explained in
other posts that I ran for the 2025 Open Source Initative Board of
Directors in the “Affiliate” district.
Voting closed on MON 2025-03-17 at 10:00 US/Pacific. One hour later,
candidates were surprised to receive an email from OSI demanding
that all candidates sign a Board agreement before results were
posted. This was surprising because during mandatory orientation,
candidates were told the opposite: that a Board agreement need not be
signed until the Board formally appointed you as a Director (as the
elections are only advisory &mdash: OSI’s Board need not follow election
results in any event. It was also surprising because the deadline was a
mere 47 hours later (WED 2025-03-19 at 10:00 US/Pacific).
Many of us candidates attempted to get clarification over the last 46
hours, but OSI has not
communicated clear answers in response to those requests. Based on
these unclear responses, the best we can surmise is that OSI intends to
modify the ballots cast by Affiliates and Members to remove any candidate
who misses this new deadline. We are loathe to assume the worst, but
there’s little choice given the confusing responses and surprising change
in requirements and deadlines.
In addition to
the twokeynotes
mentioned above, I propose these analogies that really are apt to
this situation:
Imagine if the Board of The Nature Conservancy told Directors they
would be required, if elected, to use a car service to attend Board
meetings. It’s easier, they argue, if everyone uses the same service and
that way, we know you’re on your way, and we pay a group rate anyway. Some
candidates for open Board seats retort that’s not environmentally sound,
and insist — not even that other Board members must stop using the
car service &mdash: but just that Directors who chose should be allowed to
simply take public transit to the Board meeting — even though it
might make them about five minutes late to the meeting. Are these Director
candidates engaged in “passive-aggressive politicking”?
Imagine if the Board of Friends of Trees made a decision that all
paperwork for the organization be printed on non-recycled paper made from
freshly cut tree wood pulp. That paper is easier to move around, they say
— and it’s easier to read what’s printed because of its quality.
Some candidates for open Board seats run on a platform that says Board
members should be allowed to get their print-outs on 100% post-consumer
recycled paper for Board meetings. These candidates don’t insist that
other Board members use the same paper, so, if these new Directors are
seated, this will create extra work for staff because now they have to do
two sets of print-outs to prep for Board meetings, and refill the machine
with different paper in-between. Are these new Director candidates, when
they speak up about why this position is important to them as a moral
issue, a “a distracting waste of time”?
Imagine if the Board of the APSCA made the decision that Directors must
work through lunch, and the majority of the Directors vote that they’ll get
delivery from a restaurant that serves no vegan food whatsoever. Is it
reasonable for this to be a non-negotiable requirement — such that
the other Directors must work through lunch and just stay hungry? Or
should they add a second restaurant option for the minority? After all,
the ASPCA condemns animal cruelty but doesn’t go so far as to
demand that everyone also be a vegan. Would the meat-eating directors then
say something like “opposing cruelty to animals could be so much more
than merely being vegan” to these other Directors?
An Update Regarding the 2025 Open Source Initiative Elections
I’ve
explained in
other posts that I ran for the 2025 Open Source Initative Board of
Directors in the “Affiliate” district.
Voting closed on MON 2025-03-17 at 10:00 US/Pacific. One hour later,
candidates were surprised to receive an email from OSI demanding
that all candidates sign a Board agreement before results were
posted. This was surprising because during mandatory orientation,
candidates were told the opposite: that a Board agreement need not be
signed until the Board formally appointed you as a Director (as the
elections are only advisory &mdash: OSI’s Board need not follow election
results in any event. It was also surprising because the deadline was a
mere 47 hours later (WED 2025-03-19 at 10:00 US/Pacific).
Many of us candidates attempted to get clarification over the last 46
hours, but OSI has not
communicated clear answers in response to those requests. Based on
these unclear responses, the best we can surmise is that OSI intends to
modify the ballots cast by Affiliates and Members to remove any candidate
who misses this new deadline. We are loathe to assume the worst, but
there’s little choice given the confusing responses and surprising change
in requirements and deadlines.
In addition to
the twokeynotes
mentioned above, I propose these analogies that really are apt to
this situation:
Imagine if the Board of The Nature Conservancy told Directors they
would be required, if elected, to use a car service to attend Board
meetings. It’s easier, they argue, if everyone uses the same service and
that way, we know you’re on your way, and we pay a group rate anyway. Some
candidates for open Board seats retort that’s not environmentally sound,
and insist — not even that other Board members must stop using the
car service &mdash: but just that Directors who chose should be allowed to
simply take public transit to the Board meeting — even though it
might make them about five minutes late to the meeting. Are these Director
candidates engaged in “passive-aggressive politicking”?
Imagine if the Board of Friends of Trees made a decision that all
paperwork for the organization be printed on non-recycled paper made from
freshly cut tree wood pulp. That paper is easier to move around, they say
— and it’s easier to read what’s printed because of its quality.
Some candidates for open Board seats run on a platform that says Board
members should be allowed to get their print-outs on 100% post-consumer
recycled paper for Board meetings. These candidates don’t insist that
other Board members use the same paper, so, if these new Directors are
seated, this will create extra work for staff because now they have to do
two sets of print-outs to prep for Board meetings, and refill the machine
with different paper in-between. Are these new Director candidates, when
they speak up about why this position is important to them as a moral
issue, a “a distracting waste of time”?
Imagine if the Board of the APSCA made the decision that Directors must
work through lunch, and the majority of the Directors vote that they’ll get
delivery from a restaurant that serves no vegan food whatsoever. Is it
reasonable for this to be a non-negotiable requirement — such that
the other Directors must work through lunch and just stay hungry? Or
should they add a second restaurant option for the minority? After all,
the ASPCA condemns animal cruelty but doesn’t go so far as to
demand that everyone also be a vegan. Would the meat-eating directors then
say something like “opposing cruelty to animals could be so much more
than merely being vegan” to these other Directors?
An Update Regarding the 2025 Open Source Initiative Elections
I’ve
explained in
other posts that I ran for the 2025 Open Source Initative Board of
Directors in the “Affiliate” district.
Voting closed on MON 2025-03-17 at 10:00 US/Pacific. One hour later,
candidates were surprised to receive an email from OSI demanding
that all candidates sign a Board agreement before results were
posted. This was surprising because during mandatory orientation,
candidates were told the opposite: that a Board agreement need not be
signed until the Board formally appointed you as a Director (as the
elections are only advisory &mdash: OSI’s Board need not follow election
results in any event. It was also surprising because the deadline was a
mere 47 hours later (WED 2025-03-19 at 10:00 US/Pacific).
Many of us candidates attempted to get clarification over the last 46
hours, but OSI has not
communicated clear answers in response to those requests. Based on
these unclear responses, the best we can surmise is that OSI intends to
modify the ballots cast by Affiliates and Members to remove any candidate
who misses this new deadline. We are loathe to assume the worst, but
there’s little choice given the confusing responses and surprising change
in requirements and deadlines.
In addition to
the twokeynotes
mentioned above, I propose these analogies that really are apt to
this situation:
Imagine if the Board of The Nature Conservancy told Directors they
would be required, if elected, to use a car service to attend Board
meetings. It’s easier, they argue, if everyone uses the same service and
that way, we know you’re on your way, and we pay a group rate anyway. Some
candidates for open Board seats retort that’s not environmentally sound,
and insist — not even that other Board members must stop using the
car service &mdash: but just that Directors who chose should be allowed to
simply take public transit to the Board meeting — even though it
might make them about five minutes late to the meeting. Are these Director
candidates engaged in “passive-aggressive politicking”?
Imagine if the Board of Friends of Trees made a decision that all
paperwork for the organization be printed on non-recycled paper made from
freshly cut tree wood pulp. That paper is easier to move around, they say
— and it’s easier to read what’s printed because of its quality.
Some candidates for open Board seats run on a platform that says Board
members should be allowed to get their print-outs on 100% post-consumer
recycled paper for Board meetings. These candidates don’t insist that
other Board members use the same paper, so, if these new Directors are
seated, this will create extra work for staff because now they have to do
two sets of print-outs to prep for Board meetings, and refill the machine
with different paper in-between. Are these new Director candidates, when
they speak up about why this position is important to them as a moral
issue, a “a distracting waste of time”?
Imagine if the Board of the APSCA made the decision that Directors must
work through lunch, and the majority of the Directors vote that they’ll get
delivery from a restaurant that serves no vegan food whatsoever. Is it
reasonable for this to be a non-negotiable requirement — such that
the other Directors must work through lunch and just stay hungry? Or
should they add a second restaurant option for the minority? After all,
the ASPCA condemns animal cruelty but doesn’t go so far as to
demand that everyone also be a vegan. Would the meat-eating directors then
say something like “opposing cruelty to animals could be so much more
than merely being vegan” to these other Directors?
An Update Regarding the 2025 Open Source Initiative Elections
I’ve
explained in
other posts that I ran for the 2025 Open Source Initative Board of
Directors in the “Affiliate” district.
Voting closed on MON 2025-03-17 at 10:00 US/Pacific. One hour later,
candidates were surprised to receive an email from OSI demanding
that all candidates sign a Board agreement before results were
posted. This was surprising because during mandatory orientation,
candidates were told the opposite: that a Board agreement need not be
signed until the Board formally appointed you as a Director (as the
elections are only advisory &mdash: OSI’s Board need not follow election
results in any event. It was also surprising because the deadline was a
mere 47 hours later (WED 2025-03-19 at 10:00 US/Pacific).
Many of us candidates attempted to get clarification over the last 46
hours, but OSI has not
communicated clear answers in response to those requests. Based on
these unclear responses, the best we can surmise is that OSI intends to
modify the ballots cast by Affiliates and Members to remove any candidate
who misses this new deadline. We are loathe to assume the worst, but
there’s little choice given the confusing responses and surprising change
in requirements and deadlines.
So, I decided to sign a Board Agreement with
OSI. Here
is the PDF that I just submitted to the OSI. OSI recommended DocuSign,
but since I refuse to use proprietary software for my FOSS volunteer work,
I emailed it to OSI instead.
Марко Марков се самоуби на 27 февруари 2025 г. Той беше един от основателите на ЛГБТИ организацията „Действие“. Смъртта му шокира мнозина. Не само защото Марко беше едва на 38 години. Нито само защото беше пример и вдъхновение за поколения активисти, дори за такива, които не го познаваха лично. А и защото на пръв поглед нищо в живота му не издаваше, че иска да умре. Беше се установил в Нидерландия, съжителстваше с любящ партньор, снимките, които публикуваше в социалните мрежи, излъчваха щастие.
Тази щастлива черупка обаче прикриваше изключителна крехкост и ранимост. И травми още от юношеските и младежките години. От опитите да бъде „излекуван“ от сексуалната си ориентация чрез екзорсизъм, през хомофобския побой в центъра на София и подигравателното отношение на институциите след това, до заплахите, преследването, нападенията и изобщо цялата омраза…
През годините, в които общувах с Марко, имах усещането, че активизмът го държи жив, осмисля съществуването му, помага му да приема себе си и да понася живота. Може и да съм грешала. Но вече в Нидерландия той споделя, че годините на активизъм в България са го изтощили и повече няма сили за това. Казва и че се чувства бежанец от родната си страна. Три години по-късно става бежанец от самия живот.
Чупливи хора
Марко съвсем не е единственият ЛГБТИ човек, когото познавам, който едва е носел тежестта на собственото си съществуване. Трудно ми е да преброя приятелите и познатите си, които цял живот се борят с депресии с устойчиви суицидни идеи – в резултат на неприемане, преживяно насилие, самоомраза.
Сещам се за жена на 20 и малко години – толкова млада, колкото беше Марко, когато се запознах с него. Тя е блестяща във всичко, с което се заема, и получава заслужени награди. Но не смее да разкрие сексуалната си ориентация пред семейството си и години наред ходи на психотерапия, за да е в състояние да приема себе си. Живее в непрестанни угризения, че не постъпва както трябва.
Друг млад познат печели популярност с име и пол, с които не се идентифицира. Защото родителите му могат някак да преглътнат, че детето им е лесбийка, но не и че е транс мъж.
Мисля си и за транс жена, която вече е на средна възраст, но се е отказала от перспективата да уреди живота си в страна, в която би била приета, защото трябва да се грижи за болните си родители. Бори се с бедността, защото никой не иска да я наеме на работа с женска външност и мъжко име в личната карта. Не излиза навън с месеци от страх да не я пребият, защото е транс.
Приятел пък цял живот не си е позволявал пълноценен личен живот заради майка си, за която се е грижил и от която е крил сексуалната си ориентация. А когато майка му умира, той е твърде болен, за да може да има пълноценен личен живот.
Приятелка, и то пълнолетна и даже висшистка, е била отвлечена от баща си за цял месец, заключена и с отнети лични документи – само защото е обичала друга жена.
Друга приятелка, прехвърлила 50-те, се опитва да е хем добра дъщеря на родител, който не приема сексуалната ѝ ориентация, хем добра партньорка на дългогодишната си приятелка. И непрекъснато се разкъсва от чувство на вина, че не е там, където трябва да бъде.
Познавам ЛГБТИ хора, чиито родители са се отказали от тях. И такива, които, макар да имат партньори, прекарват т.нар. семейни празници сами, защото връзките им не се вписват в стереотипа за „традиционно семейство“.
Сещам се за десетки хора, които емигрираха, за да се спасят от тукашната среда и да могат да бъдат себе си.
„Приносът“ на Закона за предучилищното и училищното образование
Повечето хора, за които разказах, са осъзнали сексуалната си ориентация или половата си идентичност, когато в България вече не е незаконно да си хомосексуален, бисексуален или трансджендър. Въпреки това те са били обект на хомофобия или трансфобия било в училище, било вкъщи, било на обществени места, било навсякъде.
С промените в Закона за предучилищното и училищното образование (ЗПУО) от 7 август 2024 г. на днешните ЛГБТИ деца и тийнейджъри официално им се казва, че те са втора категория хора. Законът на практика забранява всякакво изразяване на каквото и да е, свързано с „нетрадиционна сексуална ориентация и/или определяне на полова идентичност, различна от биологичната“. А „нетрадиционната сексуална ориентация“ се определя като „различни от общоприетите и заложените в българската правна традиция схващания за емоционално, романтично, сексуално или чувствено привличане между лица от противоположни полове“.
По този начин хиляди деца и тийнейджъри биват заклеймени като различни от общоприетото, а самото им съществуване е сведено до заплаха, „пропаганда“ и „подстрекаване“. Това няма как да не причини дълбоки травми у много от тях. Освен това законовите промени дават зелена светлина за легитимиране на тормоза над ЛГБТИ учениците, което от своя страна води до още травми.
Опасността от задължителното обучение по религия
Един от приоритетите на настоящия министър на образованието Красимир Вълчев (ГЕРБ) е обучението по религия в училище да стане задължително, а не избираемо, както е в момента. Инициативата има сериозни шансове да мине в парламента. Става дума не за религия по принцип, а конкретно за православно християнство.
В ЗПУО се забранява „налагането на идеологически и/или религиозни доктрини“ в системата на образованието. Обучението по религия обаче се води неконфесионално, тоест не е насочено непременно към вярващи православни християни. В същото време обаче, ако хвърлим поглед върху програмата на предмета религия – въпреки общите приказки в началото за толерантност между отделните религии и към невярващите, става дума за
индоктриниране в православие.
От един първокласник например се очаква да „осъзнава, че Бог е всемогъщ и може да върши чудеса“, да „разбира, че всички хора са деца на Бога и Той се грижи за нас“, и „да разбира за любовта на Бога чрез примера на Иисус Христос“. Тук не става дума просто за познаване на религиозно учение – напротив, става дума за вяра.
В програмата много се говори за любов – на Бога към човека, на човека към Бога, към ближния. От второкласниците дори се очаква да разбират, „че любовта на Бога не се спечелва с омраза към неговите създания“.
В девети клас обаче идва темата за половото разделение в контекста на Стария завет. От един деветокласник се изисква да:
знае, че според Свещеното Писание човекът се дели на два пола (половинки): мъж и жена – единството на човека в брака;
знае, че еднополовите сексуални отношения според Закона се наказват със смърт (Лев. 20:13).
Това впрочем е единственият пример за грях, който се дава в цялата учебна програма, като изключим първородния – той обаче не е индивидуален. Въпреки че според Стария завет какво ли не е грях – от предбрачния и извънбрачния секс, през нечестивите помисли, та до лихварството, без което съвременната икономика би била невъзможна. И именно защото грехът е неизбежен, идва Христос, за да плати със смъртта си за греховете на всички.
От деветокласниците също се очаква да разбират, че „грехът води до страдание и смърт“.
Как посланието на това учебно съдържание ще отекне у един 15-ина годишен ЛГБТИ тийнейджър, който го приема сериозно? „Ти си грешен, ти заслужаваш страдание и смърт.“ Освен ако по някакъв начин не се „поправи“, което няма как да стане, защото човек не си избира сексуалната ориентация и половата идентичност. Нито може да ги променя с пост, молитва и разкаяние.
Каква по-сигурна рецепта за депресия с устойчиви мисли за самоубийство?
Марковчета в масово производство
Заради популизъм и пропаганда българската образователна система все повече се превръща в машина за производство на марковчета – на ЛГБТИ младежи, пречупени още в крехка възраст. Те ще пораснат (ако доживеят порастването) като хора, които цял живот ще се борят не само с агресията и неприемането от страна на другите, а със самоомразата и неприемането на себе си. С непоносимостта към живота, с усилието да се събуждат сутрин отново и отново и да виждат някакъв смисъл да продължават, въпреки че усещат само болка. С невъзможността да бъдат щастливи, дори да са намерили споделена любов и приемаща среда.
Не, това не е начин да се създава здраво общество, нито да се възпитава любов към родината. Упражненията на политическия популизъм върху хора в крехка възраст ще доведат най-много до още омраза и разделение, травми, емиграция и самоубийства.
Миглена Николчина: Много игри започват с амнезия на главния персонаж, аватара на играча. Това е тема сама по себе си. По отношение на „Индика“ обаче тази тема ще въведа аз. Сякаш убиецът Разколников и проститутката светица Соня Мармеладова от „Престъпление и наказание“ са забравили обещанието тя да го последва по пътя му към Сибир и към духовното му обновление, но ето че случайност, фатум или божият промисъл ги събира: влакът със затворниците катастрофира, той се оказва на свобода, траекториите на двамата се засичат и те безпаметно продължават онова, което са си обещали.
Едва ли е случайно, че Индика и Иля визуално са толкова подобни на актьорите от екранизацията от 1969 г. Само че не престъпникът, а грешницата се оказва на фокус. И докато бунтът на Разколников у Достоевски се осъществява като разразяване на свободната му воля под формата на едно „убийство с теория“ (за престъплението на Иля не забелязах да ни е казано нещо конкретно, освен че се движи в среда на крадци и убийци – той е по-скоро в ролята на сляпо вярващата Соня), бунтът на монахинята Индика е срещу свободната воля. Тя не желае свободна воля, тя протестира защо не е била създадена такава, че бог директно да я обикне, без усилие от нейна страна… а вместо това е обладана от демона на отрицанието, чийто (великолепно озвучен и на руски, и на английски) глас непрестанно дудне в нея и който от време на време се показва и действа от нейно име…
Кадри от „Индика“
Тази педагогическа притча попада и в други матрици – на търсенето на чудо, което изпълнява желанията, както е в „Сталкер“ или в преобръщащия „Сталкер“ филм от 2011 г. – „Мишената“. Ако Индика разговаря с дявола, от когото иска да се отърве, Иля разговаря с бога и парадоксално вярва едновременно в свободата си и в предначертаността на всичко: двамата ще се съберат в надеждата си за чудо. Засега обаче ще оставя тези теми, за да те попитам какво мислиш за собствено игровите, лудическите особености на тази игра. Индика за мое изумление се оказа име на практически непозната византийска светица, но преди да намеря тази връзка, се чудех дали асоциацията не трябва да е с „инди“, което би превърнало играта в притча за самия жанр… Защо въобще е трябвало да е игра, а не филм например? Игровото в нея е поразително и според мен абсолютно преобръщащо много от нагласите ни, но как всъщност работи то?
Играта ни държи в железни клещи, към нашата свободна воля като играчи тя се отнася крайно иронично. Не ни е подадено да избираме отговори към нито една реплика от пестеливите, но изключително наситени диалози. Никакви сюжетни разклонения. Никакви удоволствени излишъци. Много малко възможности за мърдане насам-натам по картата. Пестелива формална строгост на всички нива. Автоматично запазване. Игровите отрязъци – ребуси, препятствия – или не са особено трудни, или ако са трудни, са вбесяващо монотонни. И все пак те са вписани в дългите филмови отрязъци по толкова органичен начин, че ме карат да ги мисля като рефункционализиране на игровата интерактивност. Можем ли да кажем, че работят като метафори, като реторически фигури, като параболично удвояване на случващото се в играта? Да започнем с рязко различаващите се по механиката и стилистиката си линии на странстването на Индика и Иля и на ретроспекциите на Индика. Как да тълкуваме тази разлика?
Сeверина Станкева: Аз мисля, че „Индика“ е притча не само за самия жанр, а за игровата структура изобщо, дори отвъд видеоигрите. Тя работи на поне три нива и представлява точно обратното на това, което изследователите на видеоигри малко подвеждащо наричат лудонаративен дисонанс – несъвпадение на повествованието и игровата механика. Типичен пример за дисонантна игра е „Последните от нас“, където разказът се концентрира върху моралните дилеми на главния герой в постапокалиптичен свят на зомби зараза, а в същото време играчът прекарва времето си, поемайки контрол над този герой, да убива всичко живо и неживо, без въобще да е поставен в позиция да се двоуми. При „Индика“,обратно, имаме лудонаративен консонанс, който свидетелства за това, че елементите, смятани обикновено за чисто лудически – менюта, дизайн на нива, постижения и прочее, – всъщност могат да функционират именно като инструменти на разказа.
Ще започна оттам, откъдето предлагаш – стилистичният контраст на хиперреализма на „настоящето“ на играта, която се развива в православния бит и зима на нещо като Русия през XIX век, и миналото на главната героиня, монахинята Индика, представено в 32-битова рудиментарна многоцветност. От една страна, разбира се, този контраст може да се разгледа като любовно писмо до историята на видеоигрите и историята на свръхбързия им технологичен напредък. От друга обаче, пикселизираният стил е избран именно за спомените на Индика, защото най-добре приляга на изобразяването им – те са емоционално, тоест цветово наситени и носят носталгичен привкус, но детайлите им са се изтрили. В този смисъл те не могат да бъдат реалистични. Настоящето, напротив, е рязко и изпълнено с монотонни, досадни задачи, които, както съобщава невидимият в началото демон разказвач, са устоите на духовния живот.
„Пикселизираните“ спомени. Кадри от „Индика“
Религията е представена като геймификация. Вършейки правоверни дела, които са изключително бавни – палейки свещи, кръстейки се, носейки вода във ведра, които после биват изливани на земята, събирайки религиозни артефакти, – Индика трупа точки, с които вдига нива, които ѝ носят още повече точки, и така нататък. Играчът може да избира в каква посока да употребява тези точки, но те в крайна сметка нямат никакво значение. Това е не просто циничен коментар върху религиозния живот, но и върху игрите въобще, или поне тази практика, която ги превръща в безсмислен труд и/или вехтошарство.
Той е отразен дори в трофеите, които могат да бъдат спечелени и които изискват също толкова целенасочено безумни действия – Индика трябва да се удави пет пъти в езерото, пет пъти да падне от сушилнята за риба, пет пъти да удари пиано в стената, за да спечели купата „Рахманинов“, и пр. Тази ирония е директно насочена към ловците на трофеи, които наброяват значителна част от играчите. Движенията на героинята също са именно нейни движения, тя е бавна, не може да тича, освен ако никой не я наблюдава (защото не подобава на една монахиня да тича), не се бие, трудно се катери. Въобще, играчът едва ли не чувства в процеса на игра рестрикциите на расото, което тя носи.
Но коментарът относно религията не е просто метакоментар, отразяващ мнението на разработчиците, и тук, струва ми се, повечето интерпретатори на играта не отиват достатъчно далеч. Той идва именно от дявола, който монахините от манастира са убедени, че се е вселил в Индика, и който всъщност е играчът. Бунтът на Индика срещу свободната воля парадоксално идва от място на несвобода. Да, на пръв поглед аватарът на играча е Индика и той наистина я управлява, но той е нея само в една кратка част към края, когато камерата преминава в първо лице и Индика едновременно приема присъствието му и успява да се отърве от него. През цялото останало време играта използва третото лице, монахинята се вижда отзад и леко отгоре.
Повечето игри не поставят под въпрос дистанцията, която този подход създава между аватара и играча, но не такъв е случаят тук. В този аспект играта е достоен наследник на „Хелблейд“ и психотичната ѝ главна героиня Сенуа, която е обладана от множество гласове, разпознаващи играчa като един от тях, макар и постепенно да се оказва, че това не е толкова просто.
Връщайки се към Индика, ако камерата се обърне към нея, се вижда как тя се озърта, все едно знае, че я наблюдават, или си дъвче ноктите от притеснение. Това е още по-ярко изобразено в някои от киноотрязъците, където „обективът“ е тип рибешко око, гледащо в гротескна и разкривена перспектива изпод брадичката на монахинята обратно към нея. В няколко ключови брилянтни пъзела, в огледалото Индика вижда не себе си, а дявола, тоест играча. Дяволът играч е този, който определя действията ѝ като тягостни и безсмислени, но и който я кара да ги върши, като в същото време се подиграва и на себе си, и на нея. Кудецът – празният мистичен предмет на чудото, в последна сметка си свършва работата, защото намирането му рано или късно кара играча да спре да играе и по този начин освобождава героинята. В последния кадър на играта, завършваща пред огледало, се вижда как в момента, в който играчът престава да го разтръсква (жест, който е умишлено многозначителен) и се отказва от контрола, дяволът изчезва и Индика (о)става самата себе си. Такъв тип авторефлексия е рядкост и според мен е черта, която споделят най-добрите игри.
Миглена Николчина: Не ми беше хрумвало да се отъждествявам с дявола. Той и невидимият, нечуван от нас бог са част от „карето“ с Индика и Иля. Опасявам се, че ако сведем всичко до авторефлексивността на играта, ще я лишим от други нейни измерения. Игровите действия, които описваш като безсмислени, имат метафорични нива. Например за да стигне до Мирко, първия си детски любим, който е обещал да ѝ направи флейта „специално за нея“, Индика скача от жаба на жаба. Ще се превърне ли от целувката жабата в принц? Всъщност това е въпросът и на основния сюжет – жабите вече са изскочили във вид на кукли от детското съкровище на Иля, което той споделя с Индика. Това е моментът на най-голямата им близост, в следващата сцена тя ще го целуне, докато отрязва гангренясалата му ръка – ще се върна към това.
Контрастът между мрачния хиперреализъм, както го нарече, на линията на настоящето и инфантилната пикселизация на ретроспекциите – разлика във визията, звука, игродействието, поднасянето на диалога – има измерение, което по Блейк можем да определим като „песни на невинността“ и „песни на опита“. Ретроспекциите отразяват детската невинност, песента на агнеца. Тя ще бъде загубена. Черно-бялата естетизация на студ, мъртвина и разруха, „песента на тигъра“, превежда Индика и Иля през страховития опит – отново пестеливо, притчообразно поднесен – на срещи с непоносима материална и духовна деградация… Двете линии се събират в края, когато научаваме какъв е грехът на Индика: тя се е отрекла, предала е детския си любим – три пъти повтаря, като апостол Петър, „не го познавам“ – и баща ѝ го застрелва.
И тук е един от забележителните моменти, в които обичаен лудически компонент – събирането на точки и нива – се оказва не просто елемент на разказа, но и оня елемент в разказа, който бележи метаморфоза, преображение. Всичките точки, които сме събрали от безсмислените предмети и ритуали – при това в игровите указания сме предупреждавани, че няма смисъл да ги събираме, – Индика ги губи, когато предлага на тъмничаря секс срещу свободата си. (Оказва се, че иска да бъде свободна все пак!) Когато по-късно започва да разтръсква празния кудец като кутия със зарове, тя започва да си връща точките по показатели като вина, тъга, срам, съжаление, разкаяние, смирение… Трябва да минем сякаш повторно през „добиването на нива“, но не като предписани от ритуала „геймифицирани“ жестове, а лице в лице с празнотата, с мълчанието на бога, с липсата на гаранции и чудеса, с алеаторността, но и с вътрешните бездни, за да може да види Индика в огледалото себе си, а не външна демонична сила. И това, както посочваш, е процесът, в който тя става аз… третото лице е станало първо, тоест става нас, става Всекичовек от средновековните мистерии, но и намира своята автономност и уникалност. За да разберем този финал, струва ми се важно да отчетем разликата между религията като институция и християнското боготърсачество. Но този финал си остава отворен и за атеистичен, еретичен или въобще пренебрегващ тези въпроси прочит.
Стига ли този финал и до любовта? Във форумите виждам изказани съжаления, че не. Аз обаче не мисля, че можем да сме сигурни.
Кадър от „Индика“
Северина Станкева: Разбира се, интерпретацията по-горе не е единствената и не е несъвместима с тази, предложена от теб, която е по-скоро екзистенциална (християнско- или атеистично-). Моята по-скоро беше насочена към въпроса ти защо това не е филм – ами няма как да бъде, просто това няма как да е същата история, ако го нямаше играча. Не става въпрос за счупване на четвъртата стена и уличаването на зрителя в съучастие – жест, който може да видим в „Забавни игри“ на Ханеке например, където, за да изкупи вината си и да спаси жертвите, зрителят трябва да се откаже да гледа. В случая с „Индика“ героинята не знае, че оръдието на съдбата, което я ръководи, образно казано, седи пред екран и натиска копчета. Съответно не е съвсем ясно какво става, ако той спре да играе – освобождава ли я, или я обрича.
Не съм сигурна къде е любовта и има ли я. И двамата възлюбени на Индика ми бяха крайно антипатични и изпитвах съжаление към нея, задето е принудена да си носи последствията от опитите им да я използват, не че тези опити остават успешни задълго. В случaя с Мирко я измъчва вина заради смъртта му. Но той, струва ми се, от самото начало се интересува от нея само за да окраде баща ѝ. Заради Иля, който ми се видя по-сложен, но също толкова неприятен, пък я затварят във въпросната килия, без тя да има каквото и да било участие в извършеното престъпление – смъртта на свещеника. Самият Иля си е на свобода през цялото време. Как според теб стига финалът до любовта?
(Следва продължение.)
В рубриката „Игромислие“ публикуваме разговори, в които се срещат, съпоставят и противопоставят различни гледни точки към многоизмерния, многожанров феномен на видеоигрите – не толкова като електронен спорт, колкото като нов синтез на изкуствата и като ново поле на общуване и социалност.
Almost two years ago, Twitter launched encrypted direct messages. I wrote about their technical implementation at the time, and to the best of my knowledge nothing has changed. The short story is that the actual encryption primitives used are entirely normal and fine – messages are encrypted using AES, and the AES keys are exchanged via NIST P-256 elliptic curve asymmetric keys. The asymmetric keys are each associated with a specific device or browser owned by a user, so when you send a message to someone you encrypt the AES key with all of their asymmetric keys and then each device or browser can decrypt the message again. As long as the keys are managed appropriately, this is infeasible to break.
But how do you know what a user’s keys are? I also wrote about this last year – key distribution is a hard problem. In the Twitter DM case, you ask Twitter’s server, and if Twitter wants to intercept your messages they replace your key. The documentation for the feature basically admits this – if people with guns showed up there, they could very much compromise the protection in such a way that all future messages you sent were readable. It’s also impossible to prove that they’re not already doing this without every user verifying that the public keys Twitter hands out to other users correspond to the private keys they hold, something that Twitter provides no mechanism to do.
This isn’t the only weakness in the implementation. Twitter may not be able read the messages, but every encrypted DM is sent through exactly the same infrastructure as the unencrypted ones, so Twitter can see the time a message was sent, who it was sent to, and roughly how big it was. And because pictures and other attachments in Twitter DMs aren’t sent in-line but are instead replaced with links, the implementation would encrypt the links but not the attachments – this is “solved” by simply blocking attachments in encrypted DMs. There’s no forward secrecy – if a key is compromised it allows access to not only all new messages created with that key, but also all previous messages. If you log out of Twitter the keys are still stored by the browser, so if you can potentially be extracted and used to decrypt your communications. And there’s no group chat support at all, which is more a functional restriction than a conceptual one.
To be fair, these are hard problems to solve! Signal solves all of them, but Signal is the product of a large number of highly skilled experts in cryptography, and even so it’s taken years to achieve all of this. When Elon announced the launch of encrypted DMs he indicated that new features would be developed quickly – he’s since publicly mentioned the feature a grand total of once, in which he mentioned further feature development that just didn’t happen. None of the limitations mentioned in the documentation have been addressed in the 22 months since the feature was launched.
Why? Well, it turns out that the feature was developed by a total of two engineers, neither of whom is still employed at Twitter. The tech lead for the feature was Christopher Stanley, who was actually a SpaceX employee at the time. Since then he’s ended up at DOGE, where he apparently set off alarms when attempting to install Starlink, and who today is apparently being appointed to the board of Fannie Mae, a government-backed mortgage company.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
comments