Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

[mjg59]

The Linux Foundation is an industry organisation dedicated to promoting, protecting and standardising Linux and open source software[1]. The majority of its board is chosen by the member companies - 10 by platinum members (platinum membership costs $500,000 a year), 3 by gold members (gold membership costs $100,000 a year) and 1 by silver members (silver membership costs between $5,000 and $20,000 a year, depending on company size). Up until recently individual members ($99 a year) could also elect two board members, allowing for community perspectives to be represented at the board level.

As of last Friday, this is no longer true. The by-laws were amended to drop the clause that permitted individual members to elect any directors. Section 3.3(a) now says that no affiliate members may be involved in the election of directors, and section 5.3(d) still permits at-large directors but does not require them[2]. The old version of the bylaws are here - the only non-whitespace differences are in sections 3.3(a) and 5.3(d).

These changes all happened shortly after Karen Sandler announced that she planned to stand for the Linux Foundation board during a presentation last September. A short time later, the "Individual membership" program was quietly renamed to the "Individual supporter" program and the promised benefit of being allowed to stand for and participate in board elections was dropped (compare the old page to the new one). Karen is the executive director of the Software Freedom Conservancy, an organisation involved in the vitally important work of GPL enforcement. The Linux Foundation has historically been less than enthusiastic about GPL enforcement, and the SFC is funding a lawsuit against one of the Foundation's members for violating the terms of the GPL. The timing may be coincidental, but it certainly looks like the Linux Foundation was willing to throw out any semblance of community representation just to ensure that there was no risk of someone in favour of GPL enforcement ending up on their board.

Much of the code in Linux is written by employees paid to do this work, but significant parts of both Linux and the huge range of software that it depends on are written by community members who now have no representation in the Linux Foundation. Ignoring them makes it look like the Linux Foundation is interested only in promoting, protecting and standardising Linux and open source software if doing so benefits their corporate membership rather than the community as a whole. This isn't a positive step.

[1] Article II of the bylaws
[2] Other than in the case of the TAB representative, an individual chosen by a board elected via in-person voting at a conference

Comments

Re: Org Type Matters

[(Anonymous)]

Nope... not a charity, not in the sense of being tax deductible.

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/participate/linux-donate

Re: Org Type Matters

[(Anonymous)]

And not in the sense of having the public interest as their primary goal but rather, their own corporate interests. So their doing something that "benefits their corporate membership rather than the community as a whole" shouldn't be unexpected from a 501(c)(6), since this that is the primary purpose of such an organization.

(Despite the Linux Foundation working very hard to put press out there of the simple but wrong message: "There's no real difference between c(3)'s and c(6)'s".)

Re: Org Type Matters

[(Anonymous)]

Truth. As long as the public interest and their common business interests are aligned, but as soon as they're not you see who is really #1 in a 501(c)(6).

Re: Org Type Matters

[(Anonymous)]

Benefiting their ("corporate") membership rather than the community as a whole isn't really the issue (as I see it), it's changing the definition of "member" so that individuals not attached to large companies can no longer have a say. It's not as if, previously, anyone with a Linux box at home could cast votes for board members; you had to pay your dues and as such you were entitled to have the Linux Foundation support, or at least consider, your interests as a member. But with the stroke of a pen your membership has been downgraded and your right to have the LF represent your interests has been taken away. Whatever you might think of the LF or of membership associations in general, it's still a dubious practice from a governance perspective. If you add the fact that it's pretty clearly been done to shunt a specific person or viewpoint from having a voice on the board, it's a really bad look for the Foundation.

Re: Org Type Matters

[(Anonymous)]

The response to this should be simple.

If you are an individual member, drop your membership immediately, since it gets you no benefits that are measurable.