New FSF Procedures Let Its 5,000 'Associate Members' Nominate New Board Members (fsf.org) 37
This week the Free Software Foundation's board announced that for the first time in the organization's 37-year-history, its 5,000-plus associate members will now be able to nominate and evaluate candidates for its board of directors.
Under new procedures adopted by the FSF board on January 17 and summarized here, the organization will proactively engage associate members with a sufficient history of association with the FSF in the recruiting process by inviting them to suggest board nominees and then research collectively those nominees' suitability for a position on the board, including most importantly their record of commitment to free software ideals.... Following the new procedures, voting members (which include all current directors and are listed here) can start a process to recruit new directors, or a modified process to reconsider existing directors...
The FSF intends to first add several new directors in 2022, utilizing these new procedures, and then begin a review of existing directors. The FSF staff and board have made this expanded engagement process a high priority and are working together to put in place the necessary infrastructure to support it, with a target to activate it within the first quarter of 2022... Voting members will review the community's nominations.
A nominee may be removed from consideration if at least two voting members vote to do so without opposition from other voting members. The voting members will discuss the candidates and decide which should move forward in the process next. The FSF's associate members will then review each nominee's application, then evaluate and comment on those nominees in a private, staff-moderated discussion forum. Voting members will review this input and privately interview the finalists to assess their candidacy, ideals, and commitment to free software, then vote on their appointment....
The process is designed such that new iterations for both recruiting new directors and reviewing existing directors can be run whenever the need arises in the future.
"Opening the director recruitment process to our associate members is a historic and welcome milestone for the FSF," said FSF president Geoffrey Knauth. "We are pleased to engage the free software community in attracting new talent to our leadership who will keep the freedoms.... We have worked hard to strengthen governance standards at the FSF and to create a transparent leadership recruitment process. We look forward to tackling new challenges and opportunities this year."
The FSF's announcement calls the new "community engagement process" a "key result of a six-month consultant-led review designed to help make FSF governance and recruitment practices more transparent and participatory, while more systematically ensuring their commitment to the FSF's values and principles."
The FSF intends to first add several new directors in 2022, utilizing these new procedures, and then begin a review of existing directors. The FSF staff and board have made this expanded engagement process a high priority and are working together to put in place the necessary infrastructure to support it, with a target to activate it within the first quarter of 2022... Voting members will review the community's nominations.
A nominee may be removed from consideration if at least two voting members vote to do so without opposition from other voting members. The voting members will discuss the candidates and decide which should move forward in the process next. The FSF's associate members will then review each nominee's application, then evaluate and comment on those nominees in a private, staff-moderated discussion forum. Voting members will review this input and privately interview the finalists to assess their candidacy, ideals, and commitment to free software, then vote on their appointment....
The process is designed such that new iterations for both recruiting new directors and reviewing existing directors can be run whenever the need arises in the future.
"Opening the director recruitment process to our associate members is a historic and welcome milestone for the FSF," said FSF president Geoffrey Knauth. "We are pleased to engage the free software community in attracting new talent to our leadership who will keep the freedoms.... We have worked hard to strengthen governance standards at the FSF and to create a transparent leadership recruitment process. We look forward to tackling new challenges and opportunities this year."
The FSF's announcement calls the new "community engagement process" a "key result of a six-month consultant-led review designed to help make FSF governance and recruitment practices more transparent and participatory, while more systematically ensuring their commitment to the FSF's values and principles."
but of course... (Score:4, Insightful)
...what happens if this new "democratic" system gives results those in charge don't LIKE?
For example, if these 5000 new associates hypothetically vote back in a former iconic figure who was previously cancelled on the woke altar? We cool with that?
That's how you can tell a system is truly democratic, or just for show.
Re:but of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
First, Stallman got invited back into the FSF a while ago.
Second, those 5000 voting for him? I think the reverse is far more likely.
Stallman certainly has done great things -- no argument about that. But a good amount of his accomplishments lie in the distant past, and I've yet to hear of anybody who actually likes him in person, to the extent that at this point he's probably a detriment to seeing his own goals realized.
IMO, Stallman should be given some sort of honorary position, and kept out of the limelight as much as possible. The FSF needs a better representative, with less weird behaviors and that works better with people.
Re: (Score:2)
Will be interesting to see who is right. Generally speaking, internet polls are not a good basis for anything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First, Stallman got invited back into the FSF a while ago.
Second, those 5000 voting for him? I think the reverse is far more likely.
Stallman certainly has done great things -- no argument about that. But a good amount of his accomplishments lie in the distant past, and I've yet to hear of anybody who actually likes him in person, to the extent that at this point he's probably a detriment to seeing his own goals realized.
IMO, Stallman should be given some sort of honorary position, and kept out of the limelight as much as possible. The FSF needs a better representative, with less weird behaviors and that works better with people.
FSF's achievements (primarily, the success of the GPL) are directly attributable to Stallman's fanaticism and intransigence.
Re: (Score:2)
What has the FSF, and preferably Stallman himself achieved in recent years?
Yeah, the GPL is great. But GPL3 came out in 2007, and the prevalence of GPL-licensed software seems to be decreasing.
Re: (Score:2)
What has the FSF, and preferably Stallman himself achieved in recent years?
Yeah, the GPL is great. But GPL3 came out in 2007, and the prevalence of GPL-licensed software seems to be decreasing.
Since we have the GPL now, the primary job is defending it and teaching people about it.
Whose going to be better at that, people like Stallman, or people who are concerned about his mattress in his office in the 70s?
Re: (Score:2)
Second, those 5000 voting for him? I think the reverse is far more likely.
This is your personal opinion, rather than based on any data. The FSF has data on how many donations he brings in.
I've yet to hear of anybody who actually likes him in person,
OK, this is just you not being willing to do any internet research.
IMO, Stallman should be given some sort of honorary position, and kept out of the limelight as much as possible.
In other words, your entire post could have been shortened to "I don't like Stallman."
Re: (Score:2)
I like Stallman's work on the GPL, and his dedication.
But the man is a dinosaur that causes more embarrassment than benefit in public. I think he'd do more good working as some sort of consultant guru, where he'd provide guidance, and somebody else would be actually talking to people.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to judge people on appearance, then you are part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Presenting the right appearance is part of your job in that position.
It's not so much about what I personally want, as what will move the world in the right direction.
Re: (Score:2)
What is your point? Sounds like you are trying to justify your judgemental behavior. Stop judging people on their appearance, you are the problem, hater.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that I'm not the one Stallman has to convince. He has to convince people that aren't on board with his ideals, and for many of those he's just some weird guy they don't particularly care about. Making a good impression goes a long way there.
But yes, I'm judgemental. I'll judge all I please.
Re: (Score:2)
But yes, I'm judgemental.
At least you admit it.
Now you need to realize that your logic is the same as those who would say, "I'm not racist, but we can't have an african american CEO, he's the face of the company." That's a judgemental attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't "admit it". That would imply it's something I'd prefer not to be known. No, we're all judgmental about something, it's part of human nature.
Stallman's faults are all about his personality, and that's a thing he could change if he wanted to. That's what makes the difference with regards to your example. But even regardless of that, I consider his mission to be more important than the man himself, so yes, if he could be replaced with somebody who'd do the job better, he should be.
Re: (Score:2)
At least you admit it.
Now you need to realize that your logic is the same as those who would say, "I'm not racist, but we can't have an african american CEO, he's the face of the company." That's a judgemental attitude.
While that position might not be morally acceptable, nor sensible in today's situation, it can be reasonable when living in a more racist society.
Compare for example the German model railway company Trix: One of the three founders was a jew. When Nazism rose in Germany, the three decided that he would be put in charge of the British branch, both as owner and CEO; that way he'd still have a one-third share of the total value of Trix, but be out of the spotlight and dangers of heading a company in Nazi German
Re: (Score:2)
Godwin's law exists for a reason: if you can't think of an example that doesn't involve Hitler or Nazis, then you don't know anything about history.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop judging people on their appearance, you are the problem, hater.
Shave your fucking neckbeard before you try to be the public spokesperson for something.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you're a hater, too.
Don't be a hater.
Re: but of course... (Score:2)
it depends on what you're representing.
There are plenty of slick TED talk giving CEO types in the software industry. It is awash in marketing spin and gloss as everyone is trying to monetize every angle and get bluff their way to a unicorn exit. Hey I don't mind... it's what pays my rent too.
However if rather have some principled neckbeards in charge at the FSF over sliksters any day.
Re:but of course... (Score:4, Interesting)
Stallman certainly has done great things -- no argument about that. But a good amount of his accomplishments lie in the distant past, and I've yet to hear of anybody who actually likes him in person, to the extent that at this point he's probably a detriment to seeing his own goals realized.
IMO, Stallman should be given some sort of honorary position, and kept out of the limelight as much as possible. The FSF needs a better representative, with less weird behaviors and that works better with people.
Stallman's thoughts on the situation of free software, on the fight for software freedom are still current. And his essays on the topis, including the most recent ones provide much-needed insight and guidance.
An example would be his analysis of the effects of Covid-19 in his chapter in "System Override" by Hannah Wolfman-Jones: Covid-19 throughout the world made it much, much harder to live without using non-free software.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why I'm saying he should be kept as some sort of consultant guru, just not as a public figure everyone else interacts with. Stallman has some very good ideas. The problem is that his people skills are very lacking, so his ability to spread those ideas to people who don't already buy in is very limited, possibly even negative in some cases.
Re: but of course... (Score:2)
Forcing everyone to conform to a standard of predefined social norms is something I thought we fought Conservatives about?
How ironic that liberals are the new fascists "to protect people's feelings"?
Re: (Score:2)
Crowdsourcing at its best (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, this is just a hack so they can get the result they want. When it doesn't work as desired, they will change it to something they think will give the right result. This is basically fascism.
Great idea (Score:1)
To me it makes a lot of sense that the direction of the FSF to soem extent be influenced by the people contributing to its existence.
It's probably a good way to ensure the organization will keep going, rather than dying off if the board significantly diverges from what the donors want to support.
Hmm.... (Score:3)
Also, did I mention that lots of FOSS software out there has a clause like "GPLv3 or later", that the FSF holds copyright over the GPL, and there is no legal obligation for the FSF to make a hypothetical GPLv4 be a copyleft license?
This is why some of us were worried about Stallman's removal, despite not being the best person to be with.
I understand there was always the problem that Stallman isn't immortal and ever-living (contrary to popular belief: https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org] ) but his hasted ousting removed whatever headroom there was for the FSF to find a suitable replacement for him.
Re: (Score:1)
Imagine if Microsoft hires 6000 sock-puppets and makes them members of the FSF.
That would not change the vote. From the summary:
the organization will proactively engage associate members with a sufficient history of association with the FSF in the recruiting process by inviting them to suggest board nominees
The FSF chooses which associate members may suggest a nomination, they do not give away any real power.
Re: (Score:3)
corporate members ? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this it is probably fine.
But I cannot help to believe this is a method of allowing Corporations to remove RMS and other people they deem as 'blockers' to their agenda. A How ? By padding associate membership with their shills.
I would prefer people like RMS to have a lifetime appointment to the board.
Most likely result (Score:3)