Re: FSF leadership

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 14:48:28 CEST John Tapsell wrote:
> Now using the term "race" is "copying racists"? Wtf?

Language barrier problem. Unlike in English, in German, the literal 
translation of the term "race", i.e. "Rasse", has a different meaning than the 
English term "race". In particular, the German term "Rasse" cannot and must 
not be applied to humans, but only to animals.

Regards,
Ingo


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: FSF leadership

[Valorie Zimmerman]

Thanks for all the input so far, especially from Lydia on behalf of the
Board.

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:17 PM Nate Graham  wrote:

> I find it amusing that there is such diversity in interpretations of
> what "ensure diversity" means. :)
>
> Some people seem to interpret it to mean "remove institutional barriers
> and bias faced by non-straight-white-male candidates" and other people
> interpret it to mean "prefer and promote non-straight-white-male
> candidates over others".
>
> These are different things, and if we don't agree on what is being
> proposed, it's easy to accidentally argue against something you may
> actually approve of because it was expressed using terms that did not
> mean what you thought they mean.
>

+1

So instead of using ambiguous turns of phrase likely to provoke an
> argument over definition of terms, how about we just be clear and say
> what we mean?
>
> By "ensure diversity", are we talking about "remove institutional
> barriers and bias faced by non-straight-white-male candidates"? Or
> something else?
>
> Nate
>

When I say diversity, I mean removing barriers and bias. I would hope that
*all* of our actions, including our code, accomplish that. This is why one
of our values is accessiblility, why we stress internationalization, have
active translation teams and welcome all people to the community. As Harald
said, we " ought to encourage and light the way."

Valorie


> On 9/19/19 5:54 AM, Nadeem Hasan wrote:
> > It is amazing to see as we reach the year 2020, the amount of ignorance
> > (willful or otherwise) regarding what ensuring diversity means among the
> > educated adults in this group.
> >
> > The call to ensure diversity does not mean choosing someone less
> > qualified who is not "white straight male" for the "sake" of diversity.
> > It means removing any hurdles that have been institutionally put in
> > place to prevent such a person from being selected for a leadership role
> > even if they are well qualified.
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 6:48 AM Harald Sitter  > > wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:29 AM Jens  > > wrote:
> >  >
> >  > TBH I worry less about past transgressions or the communicative
> > fallout
> >  > than I do a lack of response from us. (this is me not having a
> > blessed
> >  > clue what exactly went down 2009)
> >  >
> >  > I do agree with you on many points and I think you raise a lot of
> > good
> >  > concerns at the same time, we missed the boat then to comment -
> what
> >  > we're seeing now is not a boat ten years travelled, but a new one
> >  > launched from shore so to speak.
> >  >
> >  > I think with a bit of finesse we can use it as a voice of support
> for
> >  > FSF, a hope to ensure a leadership that can better serve the FSF
> as
> >  > well as weave it into a comment on our commitment for the same -
> > AND do
> >  > so in a way that can include the ideological diversity of KDE.
> >  >
> >  > In practice (FOR EXAMPLE):
> >  > "We support the FSF in its work to find a new President and would
> > urge
> >  > them to find one that represent the Free Software movement as a
> whole
> >  > and can grow the entirety of the community.
> >  > We all (the KDE community included) have to ensure that past
> > biases do
> >  > not limit our choices of leadership and that access to Free
> Software,
> >  > the technologies and the communities isn't blocked by those same
> > biases
> >  > and cultures."
> >
> > +1 to what Jens said in the entire thread.
> >
> > I will add that I don't think we need to publicly talk to or about
> the
> > FSF specifically though, but maybe I am just not grasping the scope
> of
> > the incident there. Perhaps we should; after all, while the FSF is a
> > separate organization it is still the figure head of the free
> software
> > movement as a whole. We are part of the movement and so our opinion
> > matters and we should make it heard. At the same time I am not sure
> > what wagging a finger in the particular direction of the FSF
> > accomplishes.
> >
> > With that in mind I would propose that we make a statement, but not
> to
> > the FSF... our statement should be one in support of a healthy,
> > diverse and inclusive free software community to that very community
> > at large. This applies to the FSF, to GNOME, to us, we all need to be
> > aware of our own biases so we can prevent bias-driven decision making
> > and foster diversity.
> >
> > KDE's statement ought to encourage and light the way.
> >
> > HS
>

-- 
http://about.me/valoriez - pronouns: she/her

Re: FSF leadership

[Agustín Benito]

Hello,


On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, 18:58 Thomas Pfeiffer,  wrote:

> On 19.09.19 11:48, Agustin Benito (toscalix) wrote:
> > Hello again,
> >
> > a clarification from my side...
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 8:16 AM Agustín Benito 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I am against this. I find disrespectful to tell a fellow organization
> what they should do. I would feel the same way if anybody does it to us.
> >>
> >
> > KDE eV is not an affiliate of the FSF but the FSFE. We are not
> > "fellows" in strict sense of the FSF then. It does not change the
> > meaning though, but accuracy is good.
>
> What Valorie was referring to is that the FSF is on our advisory board,
> which is true.
> Both FSFE and FSF are on our advisory board.
>

I see. Thanks for the correction.

>

Re: FSF leadership

[Nate Graham]

I find it amusing that there is such diversity in interpretations of 
what "ensure diversity" means. :)


Some people seem to interpret it to mean "remove institutional barriers 
and bias faced by non-straight-white-male candidates" and other people 
interpret it to mean "prefer and promote non-straight-white-male 
candidates over others".


These are different things, and if we don't agree on what is being 
proposed, it's easy to accidentally argue against something you may 
actually approve of because it was expressed using terms that did not 
mean what you thought they mean.


So instead of using ambiguous turns of phrase likely to provoke an 
argument over definition of terms, how about we just be clear and say 
what we mean?


By "ensure diversity", are we talking about "remove institutional 
barriers and bias faced by non-straight-white-male candidates"? Or 
something else?



Nate



On 9/19/19 5:54 AM, Nadeem Hasan wrote:
It is amazing to see as we reach the year 2020, the amount of ignorance 
(willful or otherwise) regarding what ensuring diversity means among the 
educated adults in this group.


The call to ensure diversity does not mean choosing someone less 
qualified who is not "white straight male" for the "sake" of diversity. 
It means removing any hurdles that have been institutionally put in 
place to prevent such a person from being selected for a leadership role 
even if they are well qualified.


Regards.

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 6:48 AM Harald Sitter > wrote:


On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:29 AM Jens mailto:j...@ohyran.se>> wrote:
 >
 > TBH I worry less about past transgressions or the communicative
fallout
 > than I do a lack of response from us. (this is me not having a
blessed
 > clue what exactly went down 2009)
 >
 > I do agree with you on many points and I think you raise a lot of
good
 > concerns at the same time, we missed the boat then to comment - what
 > we're seeing now is not a boat ten years travelled, but a new one
 > launched from shore so to speak.
 >
 > I think with a bit of finesse we can use it as a voice of support for
 > FSF, a hope to ensure a leadership that can better serve the FSF as
 > well as weave it into a comment on our commitment for the same -
AND do
 > so in a way that can include the ideological diversity of KDE.
 >
 > In practice (FOR EXAMPLE):
 > "We support the FSF in its work to find a new President and would
urge
 > them to find one that represent the Free Software movement as a whole
 > and can grow the entirety of the community.
 > We all (the KDE community included) have to ensure that past
biases do
 > not limit our choices of leadership and that access to Free Software,
 > the technologies and the communities isn't blocked by those same
biases
 > and cultures."

+1 to what Jens said in the entire thread.

I will add that I don't think we need to publicly talk to or about the
FSF specifically though, but maybe I am just not grasping the scope of
the incident there. Perhaps we should; after all, while the FSF is a
separate organization it is still the figure head of the free software
movement as a whole. We are part of the movement and so our opinion
matters and we should make it heard. At the same time I am not sure
what wagging a finger in the particular direction of the FSF
accomplishes.

With that in mind I would propose that we make a statement, but not to
the FSF... our statement should be one in support of a healthy,
diverse and inclusive free software community to that very community
at large. This applies to the FSF, to GNOME, to us, we all need to be
aware of our own biases so we can prevent bias-driven decision making
and foster diversity.

KDE's statement ought to encourage and light the way.

HS

Re: FSF leadership

[John Tapsell]

Now using the term "race" is "copying racists"? Wtf?



On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, 21:37 Friedrich W. H. Kossebau, 
wrote:

> Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019, 10:31:38 CEST schrieb Christian Loosli:
> > I think that people should be elected into positions based on their
> > suitability for that position, which means that things like sex, gender,
> > race, cultural background, sexual orientation etc. pp.
>
> Race? Sounds like people are proposing there are human races?
>
> You might be reusing phrases here by people you think are out there for a
> more
> humanist world, but please reflect a bit on this very term, and if it
> makes
> sense to copycat that phrase and if it really represent what you are
> thinking.
> And if you are not actually copying terms and ideas of racists, when you
> might
> not be one.
>
> Cheers
> Friedrich
>
>
>

Re: FSF leadership

[Nadeem Hasan]

It is amazing to see as we reach the year 2020, the amount of ignorance
(willful or otherwise) regarding what ensuring diversity means among the
educated adults in this group.

The call to ensure diversity does not mean choosing someone less qualified
who is not "white straight male" for the "sake" of diversity. It means
removing any hurdles that have been institutionally put in place to prevent
such a person from being selected for a leadership role even if they are
well qualified.

Regards.

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 6:48 AM Harald Sitter  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:29 AM Jens  wrote:
> >
> > TBH I worry less about past transgressions or the communicative fallout
> > than I do a lack of response from us. (this is me not having a blessed
> > clue what exactly went down 2009)
> >
> > I do agree with you on many points and I think you raise a lot of good
> > concerns at the same time, we missed the boat then to comment - what
> > we're seeing now is not a boat ten years travelled, but a new one
> > launched from shore so to speak.
> >
> > I think with a bit of finesse we can use it as a voice of support for
> > FSF, a hope to ensure a leadership that can better serve the FSF as
> > well as weave it into a comment on our commitment for the same - AND do
> > so in a way that can include the ideological diversity of KDE.
> >
> > In practice (FOR EXAMPLE):
> > "We support the FSF in its work to find a new President and would urge
> > them to find one that represent the Free Software movement as a whole
> > and can grow the entirety of the community.
> > We all (the KDE community included) have to ensure that past biases do
> > not limit our choices of leadership and that access to Free Software,
> > the technologies and the communities isn't blocked by those same biases
> > and cultures."
>
> +1 to what Jens said in the entire thread.
>
> I will add that I don't think we need to publicly talk to or about the
> FSF specifically though, but maybe I am just not grasping the scope of
> the incident there. Perhaps we should; after all, while the FSF is a
> separate organization it is still the figure head of the free software
> movement as a whole. We are part of the movement and so our opinion
> matters and we should make it heard. At the same time I am not sure
> what wagging a finger in the particular direction of the FSF
> accomplishes.
>
> With that in mind I would propose that we make a statement, but not to
> the FSF... our statement should be one in support of a healthy,
> diverse and inclusive free software community to that very community
> at large. This applies to the FSF, to GNOME, to us, we all need to be
> aware of our own biases so we can prevent bias-driven decision making
> and foster diversity.
>
> KDE's statement ought to encourage and light the way.
>
> HS
>

Re: FSF leadership

[John Tapsell]

I also agree with us insisting on only preapproved skin color and
genitals.


On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, 11:59 Valorie Zimmerman, 
wrote:

> As many of you know, Richard Stallman has stepped down from the FSF.
> However, his supporters on the FSF Board remain. The FSF is on our Advisory
> Board, according to https://ev.kde.org/advisoryboard.php
>
> Accordingly, I would like us (the KDE Community) to advise them to
> diversify their Board, as RedHat has done here:
> https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/open-letter-free-software-foundation-board-directors.
> If we cannot do this as a community, I would like to ask the Board to do
> this on our behalf.
>
> All the best,
>
> Valorie
>
> --
> http://about.me/valoriez - pronouns: she/her
>
>
>

Re: FSF leadership

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

On 19.09.19 11:48, Agustin Benito (toscalix) wrote:
> Hello again,
> 
> a clarification from my side...
> 
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 8:16 AM Agustín Benito  wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am against this. I find disrespectful to tell a fellow organization what 
>> they should do. I would feel the same way if anybody does it to us.
>>
> 
> KDE eV is not an affiliate of the FSF but the FSFE. We are not
> "fellows" in strict sense of the FSF then. It does not change the
> meaning though, but accuracy is good.

What Valorie was referring to is that the FSF is on our advisory board,
which is true.
Both FSFE and FSF are on our advisory board.

Re: FSF leadership

[Paul Brown]

On jueves, 19 de septiembre de 2019 12:48:33 (CEST) Harald Sitter wrote:
> With that in mind I would propose that we make a statement, but not to
> the FSF... our statement should be one in support of a healthy,
> diverse and inclusive free software community to that very community
> at large. This applies to the FSF, to GNOME, to us, we all need to be
> aware of our own biases so we can prevent bias-driven decision making
> and foster diversity.
> 
> KDE's statement ought to encourage and light the way.

This is the sanest and most positive course of action, I think. It a avoids 
focusing on the sordid details and moves the perspective towards working in 
pro of something, rather than just against someone (or something, namely the 
FSF).

Paul
-- 
Promotion & Communication

www: http://kde.org
Mastodon: https://mastodon.technology/@kde
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kde/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/kdecommunity
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/kde

Re: FSF leadership

[Friedrich W. H. Kossebau]

Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019, 10:31:38 CEST schrieb Christian Loosli:
> I think that people should be elected into positions based on their
> suitability for that position, which means that things like sex, gender,
> race, cultural background, sexual orientation etc. pp.

Race? Sounds like people are proposing there are human races?

You might be reusing phrases here by people you think are out there for a more 
humanist world, but please reflect a bit on this very term, and if it makes 
sense to copycat that phrase and if it really represent what you are thinking. 
And if you are not actually copying terms and ideas of racists, when you might 
not be one.

Cheers
Friedrich

Re: FSF leadership

[Harald Sitter]

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:29 AM Jens  wrote:
>
> TBH I worry less about past transgressions or the communicative fallout
> than I do a lack of response from us. (this is me not having a blessed
> clue what exactly went down 2009)
>
> I do agree with you on many points and I think you raise a lot of good
> concerns at the same time, we missed the boat then to comment - what
> we're seeing now is not a boat ten years travelled, but a new one
> launched from shore so to speak.
>
> I think with a bit of finesse we can use it as a voice of support for
> FSF, a hope to ensure a leadership that can better serve the FSF as
> well as weave it into a comment on our commitment for the same - AND do
> so in a way that can include the ideological diversity of KDE.
>
> In practice (FOR EXAMPLE):
> "We support the FSF in its work to find a new President and would urge
> them to find one that represent the Free Software movement as a whole
> and can grow the entirety of the community.
> We all (the KDE community included) have to ensure that past biases do
> not limit our choices of leadership and that access to Free Software,
> the technologies and the communities isn't blocked by those same biases
> and cultures."

+1 to what Jens said in the entire thread.

I will add that I don't think we need to publicly talk to or about the
FSF specifically though, but maybe I am just not grasping the scope of
the incident there. Perhaps we should; after all, while the FSF is a
separate organization it is still the figure head of the free software
movement as a whole. We are part of the movement and so our opinion
matters and we should make it heard. At the same time I am not sure
what wagging a finger in the particular direction of the FSF
accomplishes.

With that in mind I would propose that we make a statement, but not to
the FSF... our statement should be one in support of a healthy,
diverse and inclusive free software community to that very community
at large. This applies to the FSF, to GNOME, to us, we all need to be
aware of our own biases so we can prevent bias-driven decision making
and foster diversity.

KDE's statement ought to encourage and light the way.

HS

Re: FSF leadership

[Lydia Pintscher]

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 4:59 AM Valorie Zimmerman
 wrote:
> As many of you know, Richard Stallman has stepped down from the FSF. However, 
> his supporters on the FSF Board remain. The FSF is on our Advisory Board, 
> according to https://ev.kde.org/advisoryboard.php
>
> Accordingly, I would like us (the KDE Community) to advise them to diversify 
> their Board, as RedHat has done here: 
> https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/open-letter-free-software-foundation-board-directors.
>  If we cannot do this as a community, I would like to ask the Board to do 
> this on our behalf.

Hi Valorie,

Thanks for bringing this up. The board will reach out to them through
our channels and express our wish for a board that represents the
whole Free Software community and our willingness to help the FSF get
there.


Cheers
Lydia

-- 
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
KDE e.V. Board of Directors
http://kde.org - http://open-advice.org

Re: FSF leadership

[Laszlo Papp]

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 9:31 AM Christian Loosli  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I mostly agree with Agustin and Jens:
>
> I think that people should be elected into positions based on their
> suitability for that position, which means that things like sex, gender,
> race,
> cultural background, sexual orientation etc. pp. should neither be an
> advantage nor a disadvantage. Otherwise people with backward mindsets
> thinking
> that "$xy can't do $z" will go  "Oh, you only got into position $z due to
> being $xy", which doesn't help. Also worst case, but exaggerated, if
> indeed
> people are picked not based on suitability, you could e.g. pick someone
> for a
> communicative job that is rather introvert or someone for a finance job
> that
> doesn't like numbers, then people with the above mentioned mindset would
> feel
> that their odd views are even more confirmed, that $xy can't do $z.
>
> From a personal point of view, I e.g. do not think that someone from the
> LGBTQ+ spectrum would represent me any better on a board. What is
> important to
> me is that I feel welcome and an not harassed  / discriminated due to
> that.
>
> And that is what we need to achieve: our community needs to be inclusive
> and
> welcoming, so we shall not tolerate discrimination based on sex, gender,
> cultural heritage etc. pp.
> When we have a diverse base, chances are obviously high that people
> elected
> into positions have all kind of different backgrounds.
>
> And that is what I think we need to recommend to other communities, so
> that
> FOSS as a whole is a place where everybody feels welcome and nobody
> suffers
> from discrimination based on who they are.  On the other hand, I do not
> feel
> that we are in the position to make strong pushs or even build up public
> pressure when it comes to elections and choices of other organizations.
> I don't know how FSF elections internally work, but if we map it to KDE,
> I'd
> see it as very awkward if an external organization would interfere with
> our
> board elections and say  "You should pick candidate $x or you must add
> candidates $y and $z".
>
> tl;dr: I think we need to ensure that both we and FOSS has a diverse,
> broad
> base and work on issues preventing that, not interfering with other
> organizations elections and processes.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Christian
>

+1

Re: FSF leadership

[Agustin Benito (toscalix)]

Hello again,

a clarification from my side...

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 8:16 AM Agustín Benito  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am against this. I find disrespectful to tell a fellow organization what 
> they should do. I would feel the same way if anybody does it to us.
>

KDE eV is not an affiliate of the FSF but the FSFE. We are not
"fellows" in strict sense of the FSF then. It does not change the
meaning though, but accuracy is good.

> There are things that should be dealt in private. This is one of them.

When I said private I meant org-to-org instead of through open letters.

So I think we should say nothing (first sentence) and if we do (I hope
we do not), it should be Membership to Membership, that is
representative to representative, given the kind of topic (diversity
in representation/decision making forums) this is about.

>
> The most important thing is that they make the right choice, not the most 
> popular choice. Nobody like their Membership to know what is the right choice.
>
> We should support them, not tell them what to do.
>
> Sent from mobile
>
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, 04:59 Valorie Zimmerman,  
> wrote:
>>
>> As many of you know, Richard Stallman has stepped down from the FSF. 
>> However, his supporters on the FSF Board remain. The FSF is on our Advisory 
>> Board, according to https://ev.kde.org/advisoryboard.php
>>
>> Accordingly, I would like us (the KDE Community) to advise them to diversify 
>> their Board, as RedHat has done here: 
>> https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/open-letter-free-software-foundation-board-directors.
>>  If we cannot do this as a community, I would like to ask the Board to do 
>> this on our behalf.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Valorie
>>
>> --
>> http://about.me/valoriez - pronouns: she/her
>>
>>

Re: FSF leadership

[Sven Brauch]

Hi,

yes, what Christian says is a maybe more elaborate phrasing of what I also 
wanted to say.


Greetings!

On 9/19/19 10:31 AM, Christian Loosli wrote:

Hi all,

I mostly agree with Agustin and Jens:

I think that people should be elected into positions based on their
suitability for that position, which means that things like sex, gender, race,
cultural background, sexual orientation etc. pp. should neither be an
advantage nor a disadvantage. Otherwise people with backward mindsets thinking
that "$xy can't do $z" will go  "Oh, you only got into position $z due to
being $xy", which doesn't help. Also worst case, but exaggerated, if indeed
people are picked not based on suitability, you could e.g. pick someone for a
communicative job that is rather introvert or someone for a finance job that
doesn't like numbers, then people with the above mentioned mindset would feel
that their odd views are even more confirmed, that $xy can't do $z.

 From a personal point of view, I e.g. do not think that someone from the
LGBTQ+ spectrum would represent me any better on a board. What is important to
me is that I feel welcome and an not harassed  / discriminated due to that.

And that is what we need to achieve: our community needs to be inclusive and
welcoming, so we shall not tolerate discrimination based on sex, gender,
cultural heritage etc. pp.
When we have a diverse base, chances are obviously high that people elected
into positions have all kind of different backgrounds.

And that is what I think we need to recommend to other communities, so that
FOSS as a whole is a place where everybody feels welcome and nobody suffers
from discrimination based on who they are.  On the other hand, I do not feel
that we are in the position to make strong pushs or even build up public
pressure when it comes to elections and choices of other organizations.
I don't know how FSF elections internally work, but if we map it to KDE, I'd
see it as very awkward if an external organization would interfere with our
board elections and say  "You should pick candidate $x or you must add
candidates $y and $z".

tl;dr: I think we need to ensure that both we and FOSS has a diverse, broad
base and work on issues preventing that, not interfering with other
organizations elections and processes.

Kind regards,

Christian

Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019, 04:59:09 CEST schrieb Valorie Zimmerman:

As many of you know, Richard Stallman has stepped down from the FSF.
However, his supporters on the FSF Board remain. The FSF is on our Advisory
Board, according to https://ev.kde.org/advisoryboard.php

Accordingly, I would like us (the KDE Community) to advise them to
diversify their Board, as RedHat has done here:
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/open-letter-free-software-foundation-board-di
rectors. If we cannot do this as a community, I would like to ask the Board
to do this on our behalf.

All the best,

Valorie

Re: FSF leadership

[Luca Beltrame]

Il giorno Wed, 18 Sep 2019 19:59:09 -0700
Valorie Zimmerman
 ha scritto:

> Accordingly, I would like us (the KDE Community) to advise them to
> diversify their Board, as RedHat has done here:

At this point, it is too late, IMO. Additionally, KDE is in
no position to tell the FSF what to do. Still IMO, it would be seen as
beating the dead horse.


pgpO7KxWI8e9A.pgp
Description: Firma digitale OpenPGP

Re: FSF leadership

[Christian Loosli]

Hi all, 

I mostly agree with Agustin and Jens: 

I think that people should be elected into positions based on their 
suitability for that position, which means that things like sex, gender, race, 
cultural background, sexual orientation etc. pp. should neither be an 
advantage nor a disadvantage. Otherwise people with backward mindsets thinking 
that "$xy can't do $z" will go  "Oh, you only got into position $z due to 
being $xy", which doesn't help. Also worst case, but exaggerated, if indeed 
people are picked not based on suitability, you could e.g. pick someone for a 
communicative job that is rather introvert or someone for a finance job that 
doesn't like numbers, then people with the above mentioned mindset would feel 
that their odd views are even more confirmed, that $xy can't do $z. 

>From a personal point of view, I e.g. do not think that someone from the 
LGBTQ+ spectrum would represent me any better on a board. What is important to 
me is that I feel welcome and an not harassed  / discriminated due to that. 

And that is what we need to achieve: our community needs to be inclusive and 
welcoming, so we shall not tolerate discrimination based on sex, gender, 
cultural heritage etc. pp. 
When we have a diverse base, chances are obviously high that people elected 
into positions have all kind of different backgrounds. 

And that is what I think we need to recommend to other communities, so that 
FOSS as a whole is a place where everybody feels welcome and nobody suffers 
from discrimination based on who they are.  On the other hand, I do not feel 
that we are in the position to make strong pushs or even build up public 
pressure when it comes to elections and choices of other organizations. 
I don't know how FSF elections internally work, but if we map it to KDE, I'd 
see it as very awkward if an external organization would interfere with our 
board elections and say  "You should pick candidate $x or you must add 
candidates $y and $z". 

tl;dr: I think we need to ensure that both we and FOSS has a diverse, broad 
base and work on issues preventing that, not interfering with other 
organizations elections and processes. 

Kind regards, 

Christian

Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019, 04:59:09 CEST schrieb Valorie Zimmerman:
> As many of you know, Richard Stallman has stepped down from the FSF.
> However, his supporters on the FSF Board remain. The FSF is on our Advisory
> Board, according to https://ev.kde.org/advisoryboard.php
> 
> Accordingly, I would like us (the KDE Community) to advise them to
> diversify their Board, as RedHat has done here:
> https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/open-letter-free-software-foundation-board-di
> rectors. If we cannot do this as a community, I would like to ask the Board
> to do this on our behalf.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Valorie

Re: FSF leadership

[Jens]

TBH I worry less about past transgressions or the communicative fallout
than I do a lack of response from us. (this is me not having a blessed
clue what exactly went down 2009)

I do agree with you on many points and I think you raise a lot of good
concerns at the same time, we missed the boat then to comment - what
we're seeing now is not a boat ten years travelled, but a new one
launched from shore so to speak.

I think with a bit of finesse we can use it as a voice of support for
FSF, a hope to ensure a leadership that can better serve the FSF as
well as weave it into a comment on our commitment for the same - AND do
so in a way that can include the ideological diversity of KDE.

In practice (FOR EXAMPLE):
"We support the FSF in its work to find a new President and would urge
them to find one that represent the Free Software movement as a whole
and can grow the entirety of the community. 
We all (the KDE community included) have to ensure that past biases do
not limit our choices of leadership and that access to Free Software,
the technologies and the communities isn't blocked by those same biases
and cultures."

a bit milquetoast for some, a bit radical for others - but something
middle of the roadish that we can all AT LEAST go "yeah ok..." to.

/Jens

tor 2019-09-19 klockan 10:14 +0200 skrev David Cahalane:
> KDE would be the first organization not directly linked to FSF to
> issue a public statement on this. It would also come over a week
> after RMS' statements gained media attention, and several days after
> his resignation.
> 
> If we wanted to voice our desire for a more open FOSS community, we
> should have done it before RMS resigned. OpenSUSE did exactly that,
> issuing a statement on Sept.14 simply arguing that free software must
> be free of abuse. No mention of Stallman, the FSF, or MIT.
> 
> Making a statement similar to Red Hat's would be seen by the FSF as
> an unwelcome intrusion into an internal discussion. A statement
> simply supporting the FSF could be misconstrued as mourning the loss
> of RMS.
> 
> The worst thing we could do is draw attention to what was said at
> Akademy 2009. If we didn't take enough action then, that is our
> failure. Ten years later, associating ourselves with those remarks
> can only cause undue harm to KDE.
> 
> I'm glad to see RMS go, and I sincerely hope FSF can change into a
> more inclusive and more effective organization. I know many in KDE
> feel the same. But it's not our place to put additional pressure on
> the FSF at this time. They already took a big step forward by getting
> rid of RMS, even though it may have been personally difficult for
> many of them.
> 
> From a communications standpoint, the time for our comment has long
> since passed.
> 
> 
> Sep 19, 2019, 04:08 by j...@ohyran.se:
> 
> > I disagree with a lot of the ideological/sociological statements in
> > your comment, but will focus on the core point:
> > 
> > What we're suggesting is chosing someone that is objectively BETTER
> > for
> > the FSF. The post isn't only technical in nature, but instead one
> > of
> > community leadership, communication and philosophical guidance. 
> > 
> > With that in mind looking for the leader to better represent the
> > FSF,
> > grow the Free Software movement, and improve its standing - makes
> > the
> > choice for diversification a clear and simple one
> > (and that is ignoring the other arguments for those of us who do
> > not
> > share your specific ideological/sociological beliefs)
> > 
> > /Jens
> > 
> > 
> > tor 2019-09-19 klockan 09:54 +0200 skrev Sven Brauch:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On Thursday, 19 September 2019 04:59:09 CEST Valorie Zimmerman
> > > wrote:
> > > > Accordingly, I would like us (the KDE Community) to advise them
> > > > to
> > > > diversify their Board, as RedHat has done here:
> > > 
> > > I am against diversifying for diversifying's sake. It's something
> > > that is 
> > > already way too prevalent in today's society.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Let's please pick the best 
> > > person for the job, regardless of race, gender, or whatever, and
> > > let's 
> > > especially *not* write letters to others recommending them to do
> > > otherwise.
> > > 
> > > Picking people with the argument of diversity achieves the exact
> > > opposite of 
> > > what you want: it leads to people which are *worse* at their job
> > > than
> > > the 
> > > competitors being selected for it. Thus doing this systematically
> > > gives an 
> > > actual, real reason for prejudice against "people with $property
> > > in 
> > > $position".
> > > 
> > > Greetings,
> > > Sven
> > > 

Re: FSF leadership

[David Cahalane]

KDE would be the first organization not directly linked to FSF to issue a 
public statement on this. It would also come over a week after RMS' statements 
gained media attention, and several days after his resignation.

If we wanted to voice our desire for a more open FOSS community, we should have 
done it before RMS resigned. OpenSUSE did exactly that, issuing a statement on 
Sept.14 simply arguing that free software must be free of abuse. No mention of 
Stallman, the FSF, or MIT.

Making a statement similar to Red Hat's would be seen by the FSF as an 
unwelcome intrusion into an internal discussion. A statement simply supporting 
the FSF could be misconstrued as mourning the loss of RMS.

The worst thing we could do is draw attention to what was said at Akademy 2009. 
If we didn't take enough action then, that is our failure. Ten years later, 
associating ourselves with those remarks can only cause undue harm to KDE.

I'm glad to see RMS go, and I sincerely hope FSF can change into a more 
inclusive and more effective organization. I know many in KDE feel the same. 
But it's not our place to put additional pressure on the FSF at this time. They 
already took a big step forward by getting rid of RMS, even though it may have 
been personally difficult for many of them.

>From a communications standpoint, the time for our comment has long since 
>passed.


Sep 19, 2019, 04:08 by j...@ohyran.se:

> I disagree with a lot of the ideological/sociological statements in
> your comment, but will focus on the core point:
>
> What we're suggesting is chosing someone that is objectively BETTER for
> the FSF. The post isn't only technical in nature, but instead one of
> community leadership, communication and philosophical guidance. 
>
> With that in mind looking for the leader to better represent the FSF,
> grow the Free Software movement, and improve its standing - makes the
> choice for diversification a clear and simple one
> (and that is ignoring the other arguments for those of us who do not
> share your specific ideological/sociological beliefs)
>
> /Jens
>
>
> tor 2019-09-19 klockan 09:54 +0200 skrev Sven Brauch:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thursday, 19 September 2019 04:59:09 CEST Valorie Zimmerman wrote:
>> > Accordingly, I would like us (the KDE Community) to advise them to
>> > diversify their Board, as RedHat has done here:
>>
>> I am against diversifying for diversifying's sake. It's something
>> that is 
>> already way too prevalent in today's society.
>>
>
>
>
>> Let's please pick the best 
>> person for the job, regardless of race, gender, or whatever, and
>> let's 
>> especially *not* write letters to others recommending them to do
>> otherwise.
>>
>> Picking people with the argument of diversity achieves the exact
>> opposite of 
>> what you want: it leads to people which are *worse* at their job than
>> the 
>> competitors being selected for it. Thus doing this systematically
>> gives an 
>> actual, real reason for prejudice against "people with $property in 
>> $position".
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Sven
>>

Re: FSF leadership

[Kai Bojens]

On 19/09/2019 –– 09:54:00AM +0200, Sven Brauch wrote:
 
> I am against diversifying for diversifying's sake. It's something that is 
> already way too prevalent in today's society. Let's please pick the best 
> person for the job, regardless of race, gender, or whatever, and let's 
> especially *not* write letters to others recommending them to do otherwise.

This obviously didn't work in the past and lead to the white male dominated
boards and working environments we have today. There was always a bias to 
choose among specific groups. A call for diversity means nothing more than
to overcome this bias. 

Re: FSF leadership

[Jens]

I would like to voice my support for Valorie's and Paul's statements
here. Ie: that we do comment and suggest that they diversify their
board, do it publicly, but be very VERY careful to ensure that our
support of them comes across.

We need to do this publicly too - not to excuse our past possible
transgressions on the subject - but to show a unified front with other
organisations in FLOSS/os trying to make such transgressions a thing of
the past. 

Of course the wording needs to be supportive of the FSF first and
foremost. As for WHOM they'll chose in the end, all we can do is voice
our clear hopes and intentions that FLOSS/os is more open for all, and
not just a few. 

/Jens


tor 2019-09-19 klockan 09:09 +0200 skrev Helio Chissini de Castro:
> I understand RH. The gamemis political now, is a chance to make FSF a
> real
> org to match Linux Foundation power domination recently. They just
> can't
> speak directly about this, but use the nice inclusion topic, helping
> then
> to say the message without been heavy political sided.
> 
> And i want raise a concern here as well.
> 
> The current FSF VP, Alexandre Oliva, i know personally from long
> time. He
> is as extremist as RMS, but only in software territory, and seen like
> a
> current twitter post, it shows that is going down to the hill like
> RMS.
> https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1174410267972780033?s=21
> 
> So, we need carefully choose the words if we want to say a message.
> 
> If we do want to support the new times, but avoid fall in the risk of
> having aoliva as a president and FSF will not change at all, can even
> been
> more dangerous.
> 
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 08:34, Paul Adams  wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, 08:17 Agustín Benito, 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > we should support them, not tell them what to do.
> > > 
> > 
> > One of RMSs best-known transgressions took place on _our_ stage at
> > Gran
> > Canaria. We did not exactly take much action at the time.
> > 
> > If this community really cares about Free Software and building an
> > inclusive community we absolutely _must_ speak up in public.
> > 
> > Augustin is right though. That message must be one of support for
> > the FSF
> > and helping them build a better future for FS, not pressurising
> > them over
> > things in the past.
> > 

Re: FSF leadership

[Helio Chissini de Castro]

I understand RH. The gamemis political now, is a chance to make FSF a real
org to match Linux Foundation power domination recently. They just can't
speak directly about this, but use the nice inclusion topic, helping then
to say the message without been heavy political sided.

And i want raise a concern here as well.

The current FSF VP, Alexandre Oliva, i know personally from long time. He
is as extremist as RMS, but only in software territory, and seen like a
current twitter post, it shows that is going down to the hill like RMS.
https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1174410267972780033?s=21

So, we need carefully choose the words if we want to say a message.

If we do want to support the new times, but avoid fall in the risk of
having aoliva as a president and FSF will not change at all, can even been
more dangerous.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 08:34, Paul Adams  wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, 08:17 Agustín Benito,  wrote:
>
>> we should support them, not tell them what to do.
>>
>
> One of RMSs best-known transgressions took place on _our_ stage at Gran
> Canaria. We did not exactly take much action at the time.
>
> If this community really cares about Free Software and building an
> inclusive community we absolutely _must_ speak up in public.
>
> Augustin is right though. That message must be one of support for the FSF
> and helping them build a better future for FS, not pressurising them over
> things in the past.
>
>>

Re: FSF leadership

[Paul Adams]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, 08:17 Agustín Benito,  wrote:

> we should support them, not tell them what to do.
>

One of RMSs best-known transgressions took place on _our_ stage at Gran
Canaria. We did not exactly take much action at the time.

If this community really cares about Free Software and building an
inclusive community we absolutely _must_ speak up in public.

Augustin is right though. That message must be one of support for the FSF
and helping them build a better future for FS, not pressurising them over
things in the past.

>

Re: FSF leadership

[Agustín Benito]

Hello,

I am against this. I find disrespectful to tell a fellow organization what
they should do. I would feel the same way if anybody does it to us.

There are things that should be dealt in private. This is one of them.

The most important thing is that they make the right choice, not the most
popular choice. Nobody like their Membership to know what is the right
choice.

We should support them, not tell them what to do.

Sent from mobile

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, 04:59 Valorie Zimmerman, 
wrote:

> As many of you know, Richard Stallman has stepped down from the FSF.
> However, his supporters on the FSF Board remain. The FSF is on our Advisory
> Board, according to https://ev.kde.org/advisoryboard.php
>
> Accordingly, I would like us (the KDE Community) to advise them to
> diversify their Board, as RedHat has done here:
> https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/open-letter-free-software-foundation-board-directors.
> If we cannot do this as a community, I would like to ask the Board to do
> this on our behalf.
>
> All the best,
>
> Valorie
>
> --
> http://about.me/valoriez - pronouns: she/her
>
>
>