Free software and politics. There are two things that they should not mix. However, this week there were two cases of this combination as indigestible as whiskey and oysters or watermelon and wine. First the "Disinvitation" from the Linux Foundation to a developer for no other reason than be a Trump supporter. Then was the statement on Twitter from an entity promoting free software giving his convincing interpretation of the facts what are happening in Chile and Bolivia.
Table of Contents
This article deals with whether it is convenient for entities linked to the creation and promotion of free software to be linked to political issues that have nothing to do with the activities for which they were created.
All comment that sticks to the topic will be welcome. Any comment that deal with issues that have nothing to do in a blog about technology, will be erased by me, by any of the other authors who see it before or by the editors.
Free software and politics. Is it really a good idea to mix them up?
All cats are felines. But not all felines are cats. It is true that creating, using and disseminating free software is a way of doing politics. However not all forms of politics have to do with creating, using and disseminating free software.
Let's clarify this a bit. Thursday night, Twitter saw fit to show me a statement of an association that carries the words GNU and Linux in his name, giving his strong opinion about the events of Bolivia and Chile. Avoiding objections, they were justified in that the GNU / Linux movement is a social movement and that therefore it is an obligation to be on the side of the people.
I take this opportunity to apologize for not including screenshots. I was too busy cleaning up the coffee that I spit on the keyboard while reading such nonsense. (I mean the justification for mixing Linux with your political ideas, not your political ideas themselves, which are respectable). Of course, Murphy's Law of bloggers determined that he could no longer find it again.
The "disinvitation" of the Linux Foundation
Let's explain a little the chronology of the events.
1) Programmer Charles Wood wrote a tweet trying to mediate between a friend of his and other people in a discussion on social networks.
@ KimCrayton1 and friends…. Would you be willing to have an open call and talk? I am happy to record it and publish it without modifications.
You can probably get @simpleprogrammr to come as well. All I ask is that everyone be civilized during the discussion.
2) The quoted @ KimCrayton1 answered:
WE ARE NOT FRIENDS
I HAVE NO NEED TO TALK ABOUT ANY M ...
YOU JUST REALIZED THAT YOUR LITTLE VIDEO HAD THE
THE CONTRARY EFFECT TO THE ONE YOU HAD PLANNED
TO BE CLEAR ... INSULT
The capital letters are in the original tweet.
3) Then write to KubeCon (Conference organized by the Linux Foundation.
@KubeCon I am beyond disappointed to learn that after the last 2 weeks of community engagement with Charles Wood, you have not made the decision to discontinue your partnership with him.
This is what we mean when we say that 1 or 2 degrees of separation can cause harm.
(Attached photo of Wood wearing a Trump campaign support hat.
4) Days later, the Linux Foundation, embracing Crayton and two other users, reply on Twitter.
Hello everyone, we have reviewed the videos and post on social networks and we have determined that the Code of Conduct of the Event was violated and therefore your registration for the event (that of Charles Wood) has been revoked. Our events must and will be a safe space.
Robert Martin, one of the authors of the Agile Manifesto, led an open letter to the president and other authorities of the entity.
First of all, let me say that I find it very problematic that the complaint and the decision were public. In fact, I am surprised that LF accepted a publicly submitted complaint about the code of conduct. I am far beyond surprised that LF is considering responding publicly to such a complaint. In fact, it seems to me that the public complaint, and perhaps even the LF's public response, could be seen as public harassment - which is explicitly prohibited by the FL Code of Conduct.
It seems to me that complaints about the Code of Conduct made in public must be rejected immediately and considered as violations of the Code of Conduct themselves. Complaints about the Code of Conduct should be made private and remain private and confidential to avoid its use as a means of harassment. It also seems to me that, although the process of acceptance, review and resolution of such complaints should be public, the procedures and the decision of each individual case must be private and confidential to protect the parties from any harm. Making them a public showcase is simply horrible.
After reiterating the request for explanations about what Wood's alleged misconduct was and about the procedures by which the conduct violations are determined, it ends with:
In short, it seems to this humble observer that the process of applying the Code of Conduct at the Linux Foundation got out of control regarding Charles Max Wood. What lf le owes Mr. Wood, and the software community in general, a profound apology. That the lf you must keep all future complaints and decisions from the Code of Conduct personal and confidential. That the LF must establish a procedure to accept, review and adjudicate future complaints about the Code of Conduct. And that some form of reparation be provided to Mr. Wood for the public damage that was done to him by the careless and unprofessional behavior from the Linux Foundation
And personally, it seems to me that we have to keep out those who intend to use to free software entities as a means of spreading their political ideas. Whatever these are.