In response to ticket #299, the Fedora Council is considering the following policy addition:
### The Fedora Council may choose to withdraw Fedora's support from events or other activities that involve fiscal sponsorship or use of Fedora trademarks when it determines that participation is not in the interests of the Fedora Project. Decisions to withdraw support will be published in venues normally used for Council decisions. Deliberation and reasoning for the decision should be public to the extent possible. The Council will engage with the committee/group/team that is involved with the event in question to ensure their input is considered. ###
Reasoning behind the wording can be found on the Community Blog: https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/council-policy-proposal-withdrawing-...
This is open for community comment for two weeks, after which the Council will vote on the proposal.
This approach smacks of preparation for political activism not related to the distribution. I would expect people to leave in large numbers if this is approved. Most of your contributors and userbase do not support radicalization and polarization by smaller groups in influential positions. Abort, abort, abort.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:29 PM Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com wrote:
In response to ticket #299, the Fedora Council is considering the following policy addition:
### The Fedora Council may choose to withdraw Fedora's support from events or other activities that involve fiscal sponsorship or use of Fedora trademarks when it determines that participation is not in the interests of the Fedora Project. Decisions to withdraw support will be published in venues normally used for Council decisions. Deliberation and reasoning for the decision should be public to the extent possible. The Council will engage with the committee/group/team that is involved with the event in question to ensure their input is considered. ###
Reasoning behind the wording can be found on the Community Blog:
https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/council-policy-proposal-withdrawing-...
This is open for community comment for two weeks, after which the Council will vote on the proposal.
-- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@lists.fedorapr...
Le 12 juin 2020 01:56:53 GMT+02:00, Chris Punches punches.chris@gmail.com a écrit :
This approach smacks of preparation for political activism not related to the distribution. I would expect people to leave in large numbers if this is approved. Most of your contributors and userbase do not support radicalization and polarization by smaller groups in influential positions. Abort, abort, abort.
This proposal may looks like a good idea, but as it is written it is not.
What troubles me is: what defines Fedora interest?
First scenario: Let's say the government of the country where our main sponsors has its headquarters decide to stop relationship with one or many other countries.
Council may say it is not in Fedora's interest to go there, while the event itself have nothing wrong about it.
Second scenario: a contributor helps a movement that fights against its own government, and decide to hold a boot/workshop/etc.
How do you define Fedora interest here?
Fedora should be own by its community with as much support as possible for local initiatives. Adding a rules like this without open evaluation criterias gives a bad signal.
Even if council is based on elected and nominated member to represents us, it doesn't council member wont always be good and without any external influences. -- Jean-Baptiste
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 08:04:25AM +0200, jean-baptiste@holcroft.fr wrote:
First scenario: Let's say the government of the country where our main sponsors has its headquarters decide to stop relationship with one or many other countries.
Note that in this particular situation we make actually be legally bound.
On 6/12/20 2:04 AM, jean-baptiste@holcroft.fr wrote:
This proposal may looks like a good idea, but as it is written it is not.
What troubles me is: what defines Fedora interest?
First scenario: Let's say the government of the country where our main sponsors has its headquarters decide to stop relationship with one or many other countries.
Council may say it is not in Fedora's interest to go there, while the event itself have nothing wrong about it.
Second scenario: a contributor helps a movement that fights against its own government, and decide to hold a boot/workshop/etc.
How do you define Fedora interest here?
Fedora should be own by its community with as much support as possible for local initiatives. Adding a rules like this without open evaluation criterias gives a bad signal.
Even if council is based on elected and nominated member to represents us, it doesn't council member wont always be good and without any external influences.
Hey Jean-Baptiste, I agree evaluation criteria could be better scoped. But I think there is a balance between too-defined and too-broad. We cannot predict every possible scenario that will happen.
These types of problems are not like code; they involve real-life people and communities. We cannot "compile" a policy into a clean package like a binary :) So, on one hand, defining the criteria can be helpful for transparency. But on the other hand, I think over-defining the criteria is not helpful. If a controversial situation comes up and the documented criteria does not capture it, we will probably end up with a similar situation to SELF anyways.
I also want to bring attention to this line:
"Fedora should be own by its community"
I understand the motive behind this. I want to believe it too. :) But I feel like this is a myth we sometimes believe in the Fedora Community. Fedora's trademark, brand, and identity (not code) are owned by Red Hat as far as an Intellectual Property lawyer or a judiciary is concerned. Ask any non-RH Fedora community member that has ever had to interact with Red Hat's legal team about anything Fedora.
I think we must be direct and address the elephant in the room: Red Hat is the ultimate fiscal and legal sponsor of the Fedora Project. This includes funding, providing salaries for people to work on Fedora, and legal representation.
So, I feel like it is a myth that Fedora should be owned by the community, because really it isn't. This isn't bad or something I think we should be ashamed of, and it does *not* mean the Council should not listen or include the Community in decision-making.
But I think it is a reality we need to call out and make clear. Fedora is not owned by the Fedora Community. I say this as someone who has only ever participated in Fedora as a volunteer community member.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 12:17:07 -0400, Justin W. Flory (he/him) wrote:
But I think it is a reality we need to call out and make clear. Fedora is not owned by the Fedora Community. I say this as someone who has only ever participated in Fedora as a volunteer community member.
This is not accurate either, Justin. There are two components:
- the trademark, infra, and a majority of tangible assets that the community relies on owned by Red Hat, - the work, the ideas, and a large proportion of the non tangible bits are owned/shared/contributed collectively by the community----this includes Red Hat employees that we all work together with and are most grateful for.
One cannot exist without the other, and the task of the community, and the Council in particular, is to ensure that while following the regulations that apply to Red Hat, the community is still able to pursue its social goals and ideals.
As I keep screaming, mostly in the Fedora Join channels, Fedora = the people, and then Fedora = the deliverables. If some day in the future, Red Hat is no longer able to back the community, the people of Fedora will still exist and I personally think we will be able to continue the community even if we need to find a new name. (RPMFusion is already an example this.)
I haven't thought about the main subject of this thread yet, so I won't weigh in there now. :)
Hey Ankur :) Thanks for weighing in.
On 6/12/20 1:14 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 12:17:07 -0400, Justin W. Flory (he/him) wrote:
But I think it is a reality we need to call out and make clear. Fedora is not owned by the Fedora Community. I say this as someone who has only ever participated in Fedora as a volunteer community member.
This is not accurate either, Justin. There are two components:
- the trademark, infra, and a majority of tangible assets that the community relies on owned by Red Hat,
- the work, the ideas, and a large proportion of the non tangible bits are owned/shared/contributed collectively by the community----this includes Red Hat employees that we all work together with and are most grateful for.
I see it the same way too. I am curious though. Where do you frame event organizing and fiscal support for events between these two components?
I guess I saw event organization and sponsorship as a trademark issue (and thus, "owned by Red Hat"). If a Red Hat or IBM lawyer (not a Council member, not an active Fedora Community member) sent an angry email to the FPL or FCAIC that Fedora *must* back out of an event for whatever reason or another, Fedora is going to back out of the event. One way or the other. Some probably disagree with me on this, but it is the way I see it. (I do not see that as a negative though.)
The question I am centering with this proposal is, how do we navigate that situation when it happens next? Not if, when. :)
But perhaps I am focusing in on the trademark aspect too much. So, I am curious where/how you frame event support!
One cannot exist without the other, and the task of the community, and the Council in particular, is to ensure that while following the regulations that apply to Red Hat, the community is still able to pursue its social goals and ideals.
As I keep screaming, mostly in the Fedora Join channels, Fedora = the
people, and then Fedora = the deliverables. If some day in the future, Red Hat is no longer able to back the community, the people of Fedora will still exist and I personally think we will be able to continue the community even if we need to find a new name. (RPMFusion is already an example this.)
I agree Fedora is its Community first, in terms of what makes it special and unique. I also think the Community would find a way to continue if Red Hat magically decided to pull out of Fedora tomorrow (*not* that this is something I am remotely worried about right now).
But I know there are Red Hatters and IBMers who won't get it. Not that they should by default either. It is hard to expect any organization of 352,600+ people[1] to understand what a few thousand folks active in Fedora know from direct experience. :) And ultimately, regardless of who is in the position, the FPL, FCAIC, FPgM, and other salaried Fedora Leadership positions have to report to someone, who reports to someone, who also probably reports to someone (who most-likely does not participate in Fedora).
This is a long way of saying, Fedora needs documented processes on how to facilitate these requests. The proposed policy does that, as I see it. I think it is more of an assertion that Fedora is not a typical business unit that works in a typical management hierarchy. Fedora *is* a Community, Fedora *is* its people, and that is why we need to make sure that the Community (who often organizes these events) needs to be consulted and involved in this process too.
As it stands now, if this policy is not passed, I predict a situation like SELF 2018 will happen again and it will be on the shoulders of some unlucky soul to figure out how best to deliver the news to the Fedora Community.
[1] pg. 64, "Employees and Related Workforce": https://www.ibm.com/annualreport/assets/downloads/IBM_Annual_Report_2019.pdf
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 21:26:24 -0400, Justin W. Flory (he/him) wrote:
Hey Ankur :) Thanks for weighing in.
On 6/12/20 1:14 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 12:17:07 -0400, Justin W. Flory (he/him) wrote:
But I think it is a reality we need to call out and make clear. Fedora is not owned by the Fedora Community. I say this as someone who has only ever participated in Fedora as a volunteer community member.
This is not accurate either, Justin. There are two components:
- the trademark, infra, and a majority of tangible assets that the community relies on owned by Red Hat,
- the work, the ideas, and a large proportion of the non tangible bits are owned/shared/contributed collectively by the community----this includes Red Hat employees that we all work together with and are most grateful for.
I see it the same way too. I am curious though. Where do you frame event organizing and fiscal support for events between these two components?
Well, to me, a Fedora event is merely one where Fedora is discussed amongst some members of the Fedora community, which could just be a group of users that don't even have FAS accounts. People are free to use, and discuss Fedora lawfully. In fact, we encourage such informal gatherings because they're much easier to organise than "official" events. If the CoC is not followed at such an event, it is the responsibility of the individuals there to point it out and take appropriate actions. I think this message also needs to stressed on---upholding the CoC is everyone's responsibility, not just that of the Council/Mindshare/etc.
This discussion in this thread applies to Fedora *endorsed* events, events where people "officially" represent Fedora in some capacity. The officialness generally comes from Fedora financially supporting them in some way.
I guess I saw event organization and sponsorship as a trademark issue (and thus, "owned by Red Hat"). If a Red Hat or IBM lawyer (not a Council member, not an active Fedora Community member) sent an angry email to the FPL or FCAIC that Fedora *must* back out of an event for whatever reason or another, Fedora is going to back out of the event. One way or the other. Some probably disagree with me on this, but it is the way I see it. (I do not see that as a negative though.)
Sure, Fedora can release a statement and pull funding. Doesn't mean someone can't attend an event in a personal capacity and still talk about Fedora as long as they follow the law and the event's CoC, right?
The question I am centering with this proposal is, how do we navigate that situation when it happens next? Not if, when. :)
But perhaps I am focusing in on the trademark aspect too much. So, I am curious where/how you frame event support!
I hope the above explains it.
One cannot exist without the other, and the task of the community, and the Council in particular, is to ensure that while following the regulations that apply to Red Hat, the community is still able to pursue its social goals and ideals.
As I keep screaming, mostly in the Fedora Join channels, Fedora = the
people, and then Fedora = the deliverables. If some day in the future, Red Hat is no longer able to back the community, the people of Fedora will still exist and I personally think we will be able to continue the community even if we need to find a new name. (RPMFusion is already an example this.)
I agree Fedora is its Community first, in terms of what makes it special and unique. I also think the Community would find a way to continue if Red Hat magically decided to pull out of Fedora tomorrow (*not* that this is something I am remotely worried about right now).
But I know there are Red Hatters and IBMers who won't get it. Not that they should by default either. It is hard to expect any organization of 352,600+ people[1] to understand what a few thousand folks active in Fedora know from direct experience. :) And ultimately, regardless of who is in the position, the FPL, FCAIC, FPgM, and other salaried Fedora Leadership positions have to report to someone, who reports to someone, who also probably reports to someone (who most-likely does not participate in Fedora).
I don't quite understand the point here. Red Hatters and IBMers who are not part of Fedora need not get anything. Irrespective of who the FPL, FCAIC, FPgM etc. report to, a part of their jobs (which is what makes them very very hard IMO) is to balance the community's interests with corporate interests. Luckily, we always have folks who do this very well.
In general, I agree that the governing bodies can pull funding and support if the CoC isn't followed, for example. I was merely replying to your remark related to the "ownership" of Fedora. I just generally disagree with "Fedora is owned by Red Hat" because in my head it dismisses the people of Fedora. I prefer that people say "Fedora's tangible assets are owned by Red Hat" which includes the implicit understanding that "volunteers use these resources to promote FOSS by producing various artefacts".
This is all tangential to this Council policy, though, so let's talk it over in a different channel sometime when we can :)
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 06:29:08PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
In response to ticket #299, the Fedora Council is considering the following policy addition:
### The Fedora Council may choose to withdraw Fedora's support from events or other activities that involve fiscal sponsorship or use of Fedora trademarks when it determines that participation is not in the interests of the Fedora Project. Decisions to withdraw support will be published in venues normally used for Council decisions. Deliberation and reasoning for the decision should be public to the extent possible. The Council will engage with the committee/group/team that is involved with the event in question to ensure their input is considered. ###
Reasoning behind the wording can be found on the Community Blog: https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/council-policy-proposal-withdrawing-...
This is open for community comment for two weeks, after which the Council will vote on the proposal.
I think that's good that the council take active steps to reflect the value of inclusion that make Fedora a place worth of investing time in.
I do think that fictional examples would make clearer the kind of issues this is supposed to cover, since it might help people to dispell some misunderstanding due to unspoken assumptions.
On 6/12/20 3:40 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
I do think that fictional examples would make clearer the kind of issues this is supposed to cover, since it might help people to dispell some misunderstanding due to unspoken assumptions.
+1.
I agree with misc. It will be nice to elaborate on what "not interest" means here.
I know we can not cover all the possible scenarios but one liner to make a policy won't help either. Let's try to quote some possible situations and examples to depict such scenarios.
Thanks, Amita
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:10 AM Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 06:29:08PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
In response to ticket #299, the Fedora Council is considering the following policy addition:
### The Fedora Council may choose to withdraw Fedora's support from events or other activities that involve fiscal sponsorship or use of Fedora trademarks when it determines that participation is not in the interests of the Fedora Project. Decisions to withdraw support will be published in venues normally used for Council decisions. Deliberation and reasoning for the decision should be public to the extent possible. The Council will engage with the committee/group/team that is involved with the event in question to ensure their input is considered. ###
Reasoning behind the wording can be found on the Community Blog:
https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/council-policy-proposal-withdrawing-...
This is open for community comment for two weeks, after which the Council will vote on the proposal.
I think that's good that the council take active steps to reflect the value of inclusion that make Fedora a place worth of investing time in.
I do think that fictional examples would make clearer the kind of issues this is supposed to cover, since it might help people to dispell some misunderstanding due to unspoken assumptions.
-- Michael Scherer _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@lists.fedorapr...
I agree with Jean-Baptiste and Michael. The proposal sounds good in my first read, but can be a really bad decision as it do not have clear definition.
To be clear, I *agree* it's good to have a policy of withdrawing support as long as it has clear guideline. Without clear guideline and definition about 'interest' and how the policy works, this can be a negative fact when contributors deciding if they want to represent Fedora in community events.
Think like such a situation: Let's say there is one open source event held by an open source organization. This year they has a tech company as the biggest sponsor. People are planning to represent Fedora there. But all of a sudden the relationship between IBM and the biggest sponsor goes bad. Nothing is illegal here. But how will it affects the withdrawing process?
Just my cents.
On 6/13/20 3:40 AM, Michael Scherer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 06:29:08PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
In response to ticket #299, the Fedora Council is considering the following policy addition:
### The Fedora Council may choose to withdraw Fedora's support from events or other activities that involve fiscal sponsorship or use of Fedora trademarks when it determines that participation is not in the interests of the Fedora Project. Decisions to withdraw support will be published in venues normally used for Council decisions. Deliberation and reasoning for the decision should be public to the extent possible. The Council will engage with the committee/group/team that is involved with the event in question to ensure their input is considered. ###
Reasoning behind the wording can be found on the Community Blog: https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/council-policy-proposal-withdrawing-...
This is open for community comment for two weeks, after which the Council will vote on the proposal.
I think that's good that the council take active steps to reflect the value of inclusion that make Fedora a place worth of investing time in.
I do think that fictional examples would make clearer the kind of issues this is supposed to cover, since it might help people to dispell some misunderstanding due to unspoken assumptions.
* Ben Cotton:
In response to ticket #299, the Fedora Council is considering the following policy addition:
### The Fedora Council may choose to withdraw Fedora's support from events or other activities that involve fiscal sponsorship or use of Fedora trademarks when it determines that participation is not in the interests of the Fedora Project. Decisions to withdraw support will be published in venues normally used for Council decisions. Deliberation and reasoning for the decision should be public to the extent possible. The Council will engage with the committee/group/team that is involved with the event in question to ensure their input is considered. ###
What does withdrawing support mean, exactly? Request for a return of funding, and removal of all Fedora trademarks from an upcoming event? Or does this apply to future events only?
If this ambiguity is deliberate, how can event organizers achieve some planning certainty if they choose to accept Fedora support?
Thanks, Florian
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 06:29:08PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
In response to ticket #299, the Fedora Council is considering the following policy addition:
### The Fedora Council may choose to withdraw Fedora's support from events or other activities that involve fiscal sponsorship or use of Fedora trademarks when it determines that participation is not in the interests of the Fedora Project. Decisions to withdraw support will be
I would not limit this to "fiscal sponsorship" or "Fedora trademarks". There might also be non-fiscal sponsorship and the Council should still have veto power. I am not sure but this might for example affect content on pagure.io, if there would be something inappropriate but it would not involve the Fedora trademark. New proposal:
The Fedora Council may choose to withdraw Fedora's support from anything when it determines that participation is not in the interests of the Fedora Project. For example, this might result in revoking fiscal sponsorship or using Fedora trademarks from events or other activities.
Thanks Till
Some feedback comments inline. I didn't reply explicitly to every message, but used the messages below to provide some context for my comments.
Two more broad comments first.
1. To be clear, as the stewards of the budget and trademarks, the Council implicitly has the authority to withdraw funding and the use of Fedora trademarks. This proposal does not add or remove from that implicit authority, it just makes it explicit. What it does add is specific requirements for how any decisions made under that authority are communicated.
2. I admit the "in the interests of the Fedora Project" part is frustratingly vague. I wanted to make it clear that we wouldn't choose to withdraw support on a whim, which is why that phrasing is in there instead of just "The Fedora Council may choose to withdraw Fedora's support from events or other activities that involve fiscal sponsorship or use of Fedora trademark." This should be a pretty high bar to clear and happen rarely. On the other hand, trying to make it less vague rapidly becomes a long document in itself. If there are suggestions of 1-2 sentences that could be used instead of this phrasing, I'd love to hear them.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 3:40 PM Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org wrote:
I do think that fictional examples would make clearer the kind of issues this is supposed to cover, since it might help people to dispell some misunderstanding due to unspoken assumptions.
Example of what the policy is intended to cover: The Mindshare Committee approves a booth at Totally Normal Open Source Conference (TNOSC). Subsequent to Mindshare's approval, TNSOC announces that the keynote speaker will be someone who has openly advocated kicking puppies. The Fedora Council decides that puppy kicking is so egregiously beyond the realm of acceptable behavior that we cannot associate with this. (After all it, is very un-Friends-ly to the good dogs.) Result: The Fedora Council withdraws support from the event under the proposed policy.
Example of what the policy is not intended to cover: The Mindshare Committee approves a booth at Some Other Tech Conference (SOTC). SOTC is run by Computron Ltd. Computron Ltd. competes with IBM in certain key markets and one day the CEOs fight over the arm rest on the airplane. After that both IBM and Computron Ltd. devote their entire marketing budget to calling each other names. Result: The Fedora Council says "wow, this is ridiculous". Fedora's participation in the event goes on as planned.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 3:33 AM Florian Weimer fweimer@redhat.com wrote:
What does withdrawing support mean, exactly? Request for a return of funding, and removal of all Fedora trademarks from an upcoming event? Or does this apply to future events only?
That's going to depend to some degree on the timing, the sponsorship agreement (if any), etc. So for example, if it's six months out, we may request a return of funding and removal of all trademarks. If the sponsorship/exhibition agreement does not permit that, we may just request the removal of trademarks (e.g. from the sponsor listings). Obviously, if there are printed materials, it may be too late for that.
If this ambiguity is deliberate, how can event organizers achieve some planning certainty if they choose to accept Fedora support?
The same way they do now: with reputations and legal agreements. Sponsors and exhibitors pull out of events for a variety of reasons. This proposal is more about defining how the Council communicates the decision.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 8:27 AM Till Maas opensource@till.name wrote:
I would not limit this to "fiscal sponsorship" or "Fedora trademarks". There might also be non-fiscal sponsorship and the Council should still have veto power. I am not sure but this might for example affect content on pagure.io, if there would be something inappropriate but it would not involve the Fedora trademark.
I see your point, but I don't think that's necessary. This example and other cases like it are covered by the Code of Conduct and legal policies on permissible content.
Thanks for the elaboration, Ben, it's much appreciated.
I think the clarification that the Fedora Council already has the ability to withdraw funding and forbid the use of Fedora trademarks does help put this into some perspective, but, despite the good intent I am still genuinely dubious of how this one will be used; I'll try to expand on why that is.
First, I think we may be in some agreement that the vagueness of the wording on this is frustrating. Whether the relationship is severed for kupper picking or cat juggling, I think while well intended, without explicit guidelines on how these determinations are made, at the peak of the cancel culture era, this can only harm.
Who will determine whether said keynote speaker actually picked kuppies or juggled cats? What if they didn't and you announce why you severed and it was a rumour from a jealous competitor or career rival? How would that impact that person's career? What about their mental health? I can't tell you how many times I've had to read emails about people I work with, or people I collaborate with who are being targeted in this way. People are vicious to each other in the tech scene sometimes.
I'll say it again. We're at the peak of the cancel culture era. Cancel culture is misguided (we're sorry, RMS). This type gathering is especially targeted by social engineering campaigns, often with activist intent, and it often destroys peoples' careers and personal lives unnecessarily. Why open yourselves up to having this mechanism be used as a lever to pull like that? People targeted by these kinds of campaigns are assessed for vulnerable connections. This would be one of them. There's a resource assessment. This is a resource.
In that instance, I think we can confidently agree this needs more design around it to ensure it is executed with empathy, compassion, and even a minimal assurance of truth to avoid the kinds of problems the PSF has to deal with.
I think we can visit how this is intended to be used quite a bit, but when defining organizational policy, it has to be designed to avoid abuse as well -- or it will be abused and it will be an external party that is abused.
Ethics aside, how do we ensure that we don't violate the usc's commerce clause, contractual obligations, or even libel law? Posting the reason for the severance could be the difference between grounds for recourse or not by injured parties. From that angle this could actually open up the Fedora Project to liability. What if Bob wasn't really juggling cats but a contributor who didn't like what Bob said on IRC finally found an opening worth taking and decided to rally up the council and spoke convincingly?
If we're determining whether to announce why we sever, I only see either it being abused, it accidentally damaging people due to a misunderstanding, or other general harm that outweighs any good it could cause.
But let me go back to the compassion angle. What if Bob *did* juggle cats. What if he got caught red handed and just hadn't realized, and grew to be a better person in a few years. Well, he can't, he's homeless because that publication destroyed his life.
Cancel culture is sick. It destroys. It does not help. It doesn't feel that way to people who participate in it. This is an angle needed to foster a community.
Not the IBM community. The Fedora Community. You've built a wonderful thing, here. It is different, and it needs to stay different. If IBM's culture were what Fedora needed, it wouldn't have needed to be purchased by it. I think we all know that. Preserve the Fedora culture. And don't damage people for a cause. Believe me, it's hard sometimes.
I understand this desire more than you might be aware of.
-C
Who is going to decide whether this person kicked a puppy
On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 14:16 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
Some feedback comments inline. I didn't reply explicitly to every message, but used the messages below to provide some context for my comments.
Two more broad comments first.
- To be clear, as the stewards of the budget and trademarks, the
Council implicitly has the authority to withdraw funding and the use of Fedora trademarks. This proposal does not add or remove from that implicit authority, it just makes it explicit. What it does add is specific requirements for how any decisions made under that authority are communicated.
- I admit the "in the interests of the Fedora Project" part is
frustratingly vague. I wanted to make it clear that we wouldn't choose to withdraw support on a whim, which is why that phrasing is in there instead of just "The Fedora Council may choose to withdraw Fedora's support from events or other activities that involve fiscal sponsorship or use of Fedora trademark." This should be a pretty high bar to clear and happen rarely. On the other hand, trying to make it less vague rapidly becomes a long document in itself. If there are suggestions of 1-2 sentences that could be used instead of this phrasing, I'd love to hear them.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 3:40 PM Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org wrote:
I do think that fictional examples would make clearer the kind of issues this is supposed to cover, since it might help people to dispell some misunderstanding due to unspoken assumptions.
Example of what the policy is intended to cover: The Mindshare Committee approves a booth at Totally Normal Open Source Conference (TNOSC). Subsequent to Mindshare's approval, TNSOC announces that the keynote speaker will be someone who has openly advocated kicking puppies. The Fedora Council decides that puppy kicking is so egregiously beyond the realm of acceptable behavior that we cannot associate with this. (After all it, is very un-Friends-ly to the good dogs.) Result: The Fedora Council withdraws support from the event under the proposed policy.
Example of what the policy is not intended to cover: The Mindshare Committee approves a booth at Some Other Tech Conference (SOTC). SOTC is run by Computron Ltd. Computron Ltd. competes with IBM in certain key markets and one day the CEOs fight over the arm rest on the airplane. After that both IBM and Computron Ltd. devote their entire marketing budget to calling each other names. Result: The Fedora Council says "wow, this is ridiculous". Fedora's participation in the event goes on as planned.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 3:33 AM Florian Weimer fweimer@redhat.com wrote:
What does withdrawing support mean, exactly? Request for a return of funding, and removal of all Fedora trademarks from an upcoming event? Or does this apply to future events only?
That's going to depend to some degree on the timing, the sponsorship agreement (if any), etc. So for example, if it's six months out, we may request a return of funding and removal of all trademarks. If the sponsorship/exhibition agreement does not permit that, we may just request the removal of trademarks (e.g. from the sponsor listings). Obviously, if there are printed materials, it may be too late for that.
If this ambiguity is deliberate, how can event organizers achieve some planning certainty if they choose to accept Fedora support?
The same way they do now: with reputations and legal agreements. Sponsors and exhibitors pull out of events for a variety of reasons. This proposal is more about defining how the Council communicates the decision.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 8:27 AM Till Maas opensource@till.name wrote:
I would not limit this to "fiscal sponsorship" or "Fedora trademarks". There might also be non-fiscal sponsorship and the Council should still have veto power. I am not sure but this might for example affect content on pagure.io, if there would be something inappropriate but it would not involve the Fedora trademark.
I see your point, but I don't think that's necessary. This example and other cases like it are covered by the Code of Conduct and legal policies on permissible content.
-- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@lists.fedorapr...
council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Amita Sharma -
Ankur Sinha -
Ben Cotton -
Chris Punches -
Chris Punches -
Florian Weimer -
jean-baptiste＠holcroft.fr -
Justin W. Flory (he/him) -
Matthew Miller -
Michael Scherer -
Till Maas -
Zamir SUN