On joining the FSF board

[mjg59]

I joined the board of directors of the Free Software Foundation a couple of weeks ago. I've been travelling a bunch since then, so haven't really had time to write about it. But since I'm currently waiting for a test job to finish, why not?

It's impossible to overstate how important free software is. A movement that began with a quest to work around a faulty printer is now our greatest defence against a world full of hostile actors. Without the ability to examine software, we can have no real faith that we haven't been put at risk by backdoors introduced through incompetence or malice. Without the freedom to modify software, we have no chance of updating it to deal with the new challenges that we face on a daily basis. Without the freedom to pass that modified software on to others, we are unable to help people who don't have the technical skills to protect themselves.

Free software isn't sufficient for building a trustworthy computing environment, one that not merely protects the user but respects the user. But it is necessary for that, and that's why I continue to evangelise on its behalf at every opportunity.

However.

Free software has a problem. It's natural to write software to satisfy our own needs, but in doing so we write software that doesn't provide as much benefit to people who have different needs. We need to listen to others, improve our knowledge of their requirements and ensure that they are in a position to benefit from the freedoms we espouse. And that means building diverse communities, communities that are inclusive regardless of people's race, gender, sexuality or economic background. Free software that ends up designed primarily to meet the needs of well-off white men is a failure. We do not improve the world by ignoring the majority of people in it. To do that, we need to listen to others. And to do that, we need to ensure that our community is accessible to everybody.

That's not the case right now. We are a community that is disproportionately male, disproportionately white, disproportionately rich. This is made strikingly obvious by looking at the composition of the FSF board, a body made up entirely of white men. In joining the board, I have perpetuated this. I do not bring new experiences. I do not bring an understanding of an entirely different set of problems. I do not serve as an inspiration to groups currently under-represented in our communities. I am, in short, a hypocrite.

So why did I do it? Why have I joined an organisation whose founder I publicly criticised for making sexist jokes in a conference presentation? I'm afraid that my answer may not seem convincing, but in the end it boils down to feeling that I can make more of a difference from within than from outside. I am now in a position to ensure that the board never forgets to consider diversity when making decisions. I am in a position to advocate for programs that build us stronger, more representative communities. I am in a position to take responsibility for our failings and try to do better in future.

People can justifiably conclude that I'm making excuses, and I can make no argument against that other than to be asked to be judged by my actions. I hope to be able to look back at my time with the FSF and believe that I helped make a positive difference. But maybe this is hubris. Maybe I am just perpetuating the status quo. If so, I absolutely deserve criticism for my choices. We'll find out in a few years.

Comments

Bravo

[glyf]

Personally, I had completely written off the FSF as a dinosaur that needed to die for the cause of free software to be advanced in any substantial way.

However, if you believe that you can use its resources and organization to good effect, then perhaps there is hope for the future.

Good luck. Even if this doesn't pan out well, thank you for trying.

Re: Bravo

[reddragdiva]

Considering OSI was a corpse that had to actually be revived ... um, what.

(We need both.)

authenticate

[(Anonymous)]

If you're truly in a position to take responsibility for the FSF's failings in this regard, and to do better in the future, then get something published at www.fsf.org as an official statement saying as much. That's a minimally ethical action going forward for an organization that has the flaws you describe.

If you can get that done within a "time-out" period of, say, a month or two, then you can at least assess your potential to affect change as an insider, and make sure it jibes with what you've expressed in this blog as an outsider. If not... well, your preemptive unease tells me I probably don't need to finish this line of thought. :)

Americlap

[(Anonymous)]

Congrats on single handedly killing the FSF.
I'm moving to BSD and will encourage all of my friends to move back to whatever proprietary OS they used before.
Enjoy your autism, faggot with two first names.

Re: Americlap

[(Anonymous)]

How has he single-handedly killed the FSF?

Re: Americlap

[(Anonymous)]

fart fart fart!

Well written

[(Anonymous)]

You know, what a non-hypocrite's mission could be:

1. Help and define a policy that helps to expand the FSF board to become diverse in the future.

2. Find or educate a successor for yourself that meets the new policy and is capable of replacing you.

That said, I think being rich is a big part of being able to spend time on things that benefit others. It takes a huge upfront investment to be qualified to do Free Software in a way that pays you.

As for women, it would also help, if there was a code of conduct that went along with using free software. Being respectful and avoiding potential harm to the developers, should be an element.

I write Free Software, and I am getting demands, even hate mail, if I don't comply with wishes. If should be more obvious that people who use Free Software, cannot even inconvenience developers.

Call is "Code of User Conduct" maybe and make it an FSF campaign. The lack of respect is the issue that inhibits diversity the most. Or so I think.

Congrats

[(Anonymous)]

Dear Matthew

I'm really happy to see you in this position. Although male, white, rich I think you are a very good choice and have the potential for enabling change. Go for it!

Great!

[(Anonymous)]

Great news. I really appreciate your position and your enthusiasm. I totally admire your work as a hacker and as emancipatory political activist, a combination seldom found in this community. Not reducing Free Software to "code and push to github and forget about it", but fully realizing that Free Software has technical _and_ political implications. Thank you!

Interesting

[(Anonymous)]

Sounds interesting. I know that the "movement" is unbalanced and disproportionate in the ways you describe but perhaps the groups that are missing don't care that much? Perhaps the non-rich, non-white non-males don't care that much about Free Software? Why should we force them to?

Perhaps they are happy as they are?

I mean, I only picked up software when I had the need to use something. People will come if they're interested but do we need to necessarily pander to them? They're not necessarily missing out by not using it; they're probably quite happy!

Re: Interesting

[(Anonymous)]

Perhaps not.

You need to think bigger.

[(Anonymous)]

The reason racism and sexism are poisonous is because they encourage you to judge based on meaningless superficial categories, and ignore the real person and all the diversity that lies underneath. Yet you fall into the trap of caricaturing non-whites and non-males as being innately more diverse in experience and understanding.

You're thinking in a superficial way. Meaningful diversity in free software is about so much more than race and sex. Wealth is a valid issue, but so is disability, age-group, political ideology, industry background, licensing preference, programming philosophy, and even architectural vision. Have you considered that a hard-line stance on licensing turns away many moderate users and divides the community? Or that a lack of voice-enabled software turns away disabled users? Or that a greater emphasis is needed on the next generation of free software advocates?

The FSF is a philosophical and technical organization. These are issues that give you diversity that is meaningful and relevant to your cause. Diversity is not as crude as an even blend of colors and genitals. If you think that, you're only looking at people skin-deep. The Intel/GamaSutra incident worries me in particular, because censoring the people you disagree with suggests you're not as open to diversity of opinion and experience than you think. If you truly want to diversify the FSF, you need to diversify your thinking.

Re: You need to think bigger.

[(Anonymous)]

“Diversity is not as crude as an even blend of colors and genitals.”

Perhaps. Working on the basics and leave the finer points for later seems like a very good idea, though, considering that the status quo is “no diversity at all”.

(Tangentially, does dreamwith work with openid uris using https at all?)

Hmm

[(Anonymous)]

With words like these you'll soon be (or already have been?) banned from contributing to Fedora and GNOME.

Phaaart

[(Anonymous)]

Instead of changing software to meet the needs of plebs, why don't you make the plebs into patricians? Regardless of who they are, plebs are plebs.

A waste of a mission

[(Anonymous)]

For someone who undoubtedly has great technical skills, you seem to have a significantly warped sense of the purpose of both software, and free software especially. Software is either written to solve problems that we, as software writers face, or that someones is paying us to write so we can feed ourselves. Since the FSF is not paying it's contributors, it is self evident that those contributions come from people who are fixing issues that they personally face, and then distributing the solution so that others who have this problem may fix them too. I could never honestly fathom why you think that software written primarily to fix a problem that I, as a white male, have is a failure. This claim is not worse or better than saying software primarily to help Native American women is a failure. Software can fail based on its correctness of implementation, but certainly not on it's intended demographic.

The other points you make are really no better founded in a truly egalitarian sense. You seem to think that firstly, a board of white men is a problem in of itself. I do firmly believe that the FSF is a very much a meritocracy. Simply because it WAS the case that white men made up a large portion of people who wrote software, let alone cared about free software is the sole reason that the board is the way it currently is. There is an appropriate time and place to change diversity and acceptance, and the board of an already selective meritocracy is not the place to do it.

I can understand why some people might look at the cult of emacs jokes and find them distasteful (especially as a vim user), but I could never understand why people would care very much about that for more than five minutes, let alone enough time to write a blog post about it. The nature of jokes is that they are jokes, they aren't meant to be taken seriously. I agree that nobody is above criticism for their ideas, and this includes you for your opinion on the denigration of women. If you can't take a joke like this and brush it off as merely a joke, then I suggest growing a thicker skin.

I find that people who take offence to jokes like this are people who think that respect is a right, and that all people must be respectful of each other, and of other cultures by default. This notion itself is highly contradictory to a truly meritocratic society, because in this kind of society, respect is earned through hard work and successes. Many people look at the way individuals are "respected" in the FSF and even computing world, and attempt to apply that to everyone in their gender / race role. For example, if someone were to ask me if I "respect women in computer science", my answer would be "no, most women in computer science are not deserving of my respect". While some people could look at this and make claims that I am sexist, any level headed person would ask if I respect men in computer science, to which I would reply "no, most men in computer science are not deserving of my respect". Respect is not a matter of gender; there are men and women that I respect, white people, black people, asians and indians, but by no means do I respect those groups as a whole.

In short, you need to grow a thicker skin, and stop pushing for emotional and reactive policies into what should be a society of level headed INDIVIDUALS, based on true meritocratic principles.

Re: A waste of a mission

[(Anonymous)]

Based be you, Anon, for posting this~!

The idea, concepts, philosophy and ethic of free software is at the opposite of feminazi or whatever socialist whiteknight's. This guy better not mix gender/race bullshit and software. Software has no race. Software has no gender. Software does not discriminate.

May Stallman save us!

Bad imo

[(Anonymous)]

Wait, so your saying software is written for the white man? Give me an example of software that deliberately ommits someone based on race, gender, sexuality or economic background.

I think this is a real non-issue, and the way to truely make a board diverse is by not deliberately choosing people based on traits but rather on capability.

Re: Bad imo

[mjg59]

Where did I say it was deliberate?

Changing from bottom-up

[bkuhn]

I, like Matthew, am on the FSF Board of Directors. (I'm the second-newest member now that Matthew has been added.)

I agree with Matthew that the best way to change the situation is from within. The only point I'd like to add to Matthew's post is that the fundamental difficulty is at the entry-level points of Free Software. So many underrepresented groups are turned away due to bad behavior toward new contributors (or just bad behavior generally that is more likely to impact a new contributor than an existing one). The most urgent task is to make Free Software culture more welcoming to newbies from underrepresented groups. It's the only long-term solution I can think of to this huge problem.

I've been working with the FSF Board since I joined the board on this issue, and I'm glad to have Matthew along to collaborate on it.

Re: Changing from bottom-up

[franceshocutt.com]

What makes you think that the fundamental difficulty is at the entry level?

I tend to be skeptical of assertions that getting people from underrepresented groups into an organization or movement will fix it, for all the reasons that Kate Losse articulates in The Myth of Magical Futures (http://www.katelosse.tv/latest/2014/9/12/magical-futures).

An environment that is more welcoming to newbies from underrepresented groups would be a huge step forward from what we have now, but it's unlikely to change the existing networks and power structures on its own. What changes can groups like the FSF make to improve the visibility of and tangible respect for people of underrepresented groups who are working on free software now, not just those who will be starting to hit their stride in five and ten years?

[(Anonymous)]

"Why have I joined an organisation whose founder I publicly criticised for making sexist jokes in a conference presentation?"

Because the founder isn't the organization? Because any successful and durable organization will hold tight to principle but move forward independent of it's constituent characters?

The battle for free/libre software is still fresh -- for Stallman's failings in some areas he has also stood up as a model in others.

If you go looking to humans for perfection, be they RMS or MJG, you will always inevitably become dissappointed. It turns out there is no ideologically pure human, and anyone who lays claim to it is surely a charlatan and a reprehensibly immoral one at that.

The inevitability of human failure does not mean one needs to accept and ignore another's flaws -- but whether RMS' flaws are also the FSF's flaws -- well I think that's a shaky case to make. Yes, RMS schematizes some relations by his mere presence, but in our absence we enable the potency of the flawed parts of his message when we could be reinforcing the positive and challenging the foolish.

In our lack of participation, we fail to dillute and reform any extent to which misogyny is part and parcel of free software.

White, male, otherwise -- no guilt for intrinsics is warranted. Guilt is only deserved for conduct based in choice -- did we choose to refuse to work toward an important goal for spite? Did we fall down and split groups when we could have lead change? Did we remain silent and resort to depressed reclusion while another was harassed, excluded, berated or belittled?

Strongly agreed

[(Anonymous)]

RMS has flaws, but has also been fantastic at leading by words and example in other areas, and from what I've heard he's quite willing to collaborate and be convinced of other viewpoints, especially when it's outside of his areas of expertise. There are things he's fairly stubborn about, but those are mostly things that we all (or at least, those of us here who are as 'socialist' as I, RMS, and MJG are) agree on, and furthermore he's been a lot more practical than people give him credit for. Matthew makes good arguments for how and why Free Software needs a 'bigger tent' (to use an American political term) to meaningfully accomplish the stated goals of software freedom, and once arguing and advocating from within the FSF I wouldn't be surprised if RMS comes to overt agreement.

And one shouldn't feel preemptively guilty about one's mere existence---if that guilt is going to be there, use that to constantly police oneself to make sure one is always doing the utmost to change the overall situation that one is feeling guilty for. And often times, it's those that have the most privilege that are in the best position to do something about it; one shouldn't drop out and hope someone else steps up, one should leverage that privilege towards the goal of change.

You can't opt-out of privilege, really, but you can use it to try and raise everyone else up to the same level, and (mixing metaphors here) to tear down the barriers preventing others from reaching the same place you already are---and there's no one in a better position to unlock a door than someone already on the inside.

-- keithzg

Wait a minute

[(Anonymous)]

And what are the needs of minorities, and how and why do they differ from those of straight white, well off men?

I can't imagine this even being possible. Being black doesn't mean I use a computer differently. If anything, the open and self documenting nature of free software makes it as all-inclusive as possible.

Do diversify, it's been shown to increase productivity in countless companies, but please explain this.

Re: Wait a minute

[(Anonymous)]

Whether you like it or not, you and other non-white, non-male people will use a computer differently. Even if I can't tell you the ways, and you say there are no ways, diversity means that we have to cater for theese obviouse differences in computer usage. Just look at controlled studies, they clearly show that non-white, non-male computer users have a whole different "operation method".

[sarcasm, and pointing out the flaws in trying to be diverse in situations where it doesn't apply]

[(Anonymous)]

Dear Matthew,
I wish you the best luck in joining the FSF board. I think that despite the spreading out of free software in the technical and consumer world, too many people still ignore what Free Software is and why it matters. They seem just to consider all the software - proprietary and free - as one picking from it only what's cheaper (or easier to crack), easier to use and more pushed by marketing. So please keep defend the free software and educate on its values, we need it more then ever now!
As an example, last week I participate at an Italian meeting called linuxday. It's kind of a party with talk, presentation and install party on linux and friend. I was really upset that most of people - mainly IT students and linux expert - completely lack or seem to ignore the value of having a Free Software, and totally forget that it is thanks to GPL that they can today enjoy such a great kernel free in the price, in the code and in the ownership.

About the inequality in the gender rappresentation and social origin I wouldn't bother too much. If you think about the great minds, scientists and artists of the the past, almost all of them came from a rich and wealth social background and I believe that a similar condition is happening know with the free software: the less wealthy class of people, because the origin or the social pressure, have least occasions to get in touch with the free software community. Maybe the best way to support the diversity could be just to try to push them with scholarship into the Free Software and to organize really basic events for let them know.

Thanks,

risca.

Nice!!!

[(Anonymous)]

Good luck on the board!

[pnathan]

Hey, thanks for doing this. The FSF is an extremely important organization in the software world, and I only wish I was in a place to make a bigger difference in a way that was personally sustainable and broadly useful (I'm just another Linux hacker at a proprietary shop).

Feel free to reach out to me if I can help.

[(Anonymous)]

Would you consider trading your position on the Board of Directors with a notable woman from the Free Software community? For example I think Sarah Sharp would be a very good choice given the linux kernel mailing list fiasco last year.

Re: Changing from bottom-up

[bkuhn]

I don't really agree that any collaborator is as good as the next one. People who say sexist things (as you have, in your response) are harmful to our community. If you want to go to RMS, even RMS said that himself on the occasion of giving the FSF award to OPW.

It wasn't my intention to mistreat you, but if you are going to look at my and Matthew's volunteer work that we decide to focus on and declare it as the litmus test that leads you to cease your support of the FSF, I'm sure the FSF will survive. Most FSF supporters are unlikely to chose such a narrow litmus test regarding their support, and won't judge FSF because they dislike the part of the Free Software work that some if its volunteers chose to do.

Re: Changing from bottom-up

[(Anonymous)]

I'm assuming you're replying to my comment in
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/33455.html?thread=1350063#cmt1350063

So let me ask you a couple of things.

First question: What sexist thing have I said in either one of my comments? Please, do quote the exact point where I was sexist in either cmt1348015 or cmt1350063.

Of course people who say sexist things are harmful to any community. Any kind of discrimination that isn't related to issues inherent to the core of a community is detrimental to it. And I haven't said anything sexist, nor am I in favor of any sexist comments - and the "virgin" section of the church of emacs thing is not sexist. Even Matthew has agreed to that, in the very doublespeak way of "I'm not saying RMS is sexist for saying it, but anyone sexist would".

And I hope you realise that Matthew's representation of rich, white male dominance in the main article IS a sexist thing. And a false thing, unless you consider dominance in free software as startups. It's not. What it is, is saying that rich, white men should be discriminated against, because they "have a disproportionate representation". But when it comes to volunteers, things as gender, racial or economic representation doesn't matter. The best volunteers are the ones that work on something they love without having to be convinced to do so, no matter their background. That IS equality. When you consciously act in order to attract a certain demographic while ignoring another one - that is discrimination. And I'm saying this when I'm not even white or rich.

Second question: In what way have I said that "[your] and Matthew's volunteer work that we decide to focus on and declare it as the litmus test that leads you to cease your support of the FSF"? I have nothing against you or Matthew as people. But the actions that Matthew has taken previously have definitely harmed the world of free software development, and in this very article he says he intends to do the same kind of stuff now as a voice of the FSF.

So while I'm not against anybody's (not yours, not Matthew's, not anybody's) activism in favor of freedom of speech (which is the only thing that should matter when it comes to the Free Software Foundation, as its name and mission declare), I'm very much against misappropriation of the FSF name in order to promote ideas that go against - or not even that, that simply aren't the same as the FSF's goals. You might be curing cancer, and that would be ridiculous and detrimental too, because the FSF isn't a foundation dedicated to fighting cancer, just as it isn't a foundation dedicated to fighting sexism (or the thing you clearly state as your goal: forcing gender and racial quotas). It's a foundation dedicated to promoting free software.

:/

[(Anonymous)]

>disproportionately male, disproportionately white, disproportionately rich
as someone who have grown and lived in a developing country full or non-white people, i'm calling this bullshit. free softwere movement there is nothing like that and i never felt any discrimination. i don't know how it works in USA but i didn't experience any bad from "rich white males".
i do agree of course it is not good to outright behave badly.

tl;dr: dont be a dick and its meh.

Re: :/

[(Anonymous)]

Signed.

As a latin american living in a third world country who is deeply involved in FOSS development and activism, the free software world is full of people like me.

I'm tempted to say there's more latin americans than caucasians as a whole in the FOSS community. Asians too. And there's certainly a good number of women.

We didn't need to be catered to get into it, and whoever needs to, isn't worth the time.