On joining the FSF board
Oct. 29th, 2014 05:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mjg59I 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.
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.
Bravo
Date: 2014-10-30 01:04 am (UTC)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.
authenticate
Date: 2014-10-30 06:01 am (UTC)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
Date: 2014-10-30 06:43 am (UTC)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.
Well written
Date: 2014-10-30 06:46 am (UTC)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
Date: 2014-10-30 07:51 am (UTC)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!
Date: 2014-10-30 09:12 am (UTC)Re: Americlap
Date: 2014-10-30 11:01 am (UTC)Interesting
Date: 2014-10-30 11:04 am (UTC)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!
You need to think bigger.
Date: 2014-10-30 11:48 am (UTC)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.
Date: 2014-10-30 12:39 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2014-10-30 12:48 pm (UTC)Re: Americlap
Date: 2014-10-30 12:56 pm (UTC)Re: Americlap
Date: 2014-10-30 02:12 pm (UTC)Re: Americlap
Date: 2014-10-30 02:15 pm (UTC)what then? do they want us to make every OS looks like Mac/Windows8 or Ubuntu Unity to avoid being accused of ableism or any kind of *ism?
Phaaart
Date: 2014-10-30 02:42 pm (UTC)Re: Americlap
Date: 2014-10-30 02:51 pm (UTC)A waste of a mission
Date: 2014-10-30 03:55 pm (UTC)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.
Bad imo
Date: 2014-10-30 04:13 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2014-10-30 04:24 pm (UTC)Re: Bad imo
Date: 2014-10-30 04:35 pm (UTC)Re: Bad imo
Date: 2014-10-30 05:08 pm (UTC)>free software that ends up designed for rich white men is a failure
which is an incredibly stupid thing of you to say, honestly.
Re: A waste of a mission
Date: 2014-10-30 05:44 pm (UTC)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!
Changing from bottom-up
Date: 2014-10-30 05:44 pm (UTC)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: Americlap
Date: 2014-10-30 05:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-30 06:33 pm (UTC)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?