This will be the second annual International Copyleft Conference. Participants from throughout the copyleft world — developers, strategists, enforcement organizations, scholars and critics — will be welcomed for an in-depth, high bandwidth, and expert-level discussion about the day-to-day details of using copyleft licensing, obstacles facing copyleft and the future of copyleft as a strategy to advance and defend software freedom for users and developers around the world.

This event will provide a friendly and safe place for discussion of all aspects of copyleft, including as a key strategy for defending software freedom!

Official conference website

This was my first time attending CopyleftConf. I attended on behalf of RIT LibreCorps to represent the sustainability efforts at the RIT FOSS@MAGIC initiative. However, I also represented myself as an individual in the Free Software movement. For CopyleftConf 2020, I arrived hoping to learn more about where we, as the Free Software community, are going. I also hoped to gain a deeper ethical perspective about our digital society.

Event reports take many forms. Since CopyleftConf 2020 is structured in a unique format, my event report is structured as follows:

• At a glance: structure and key takeaways: High-level overview of what CopyleftConf 2020 was like. What the biggest ideas on my mind were at the end of the day.
• Copyleft adopt curves: what drove copyright adoption then (or now?): Musings on the history of copyleft and movement building.
• Free Software, but for kids: Children and teenagers are already building open source communities. How do we include the next generation?
• Where are we going?: Software ethics and copyleft licensing.

At a glance: structure and key takeaways 🔗

If you’re here for the quick overview, this is it.

CopyleftConf 2020 is one of the best conferences I have attended. I bought my ticket the morning of the conference. Karen Sandler and Bradley Kuhn fired me up the day before in their FOSDEM 2020 talk. My initial reluctance to go was because I assumed it was a conference for FOSS lawyers. While it definitely includes that group, it isn’t exclusive to that group. CopyleftConf 2020 collected people from a diverse range of experiences and backgrounds in the open source world.

However, I also realized the “movers and shakers” in the Free Software world have been around a while. Many people there are embedded in this ecosystem for the last 10, 20, or even 30 years. I think I was the youngest person there. I realized Free Software has not done an excellent job of including my generation. This left me with interesting reflections on the future of copyleft and its ability to transfer lessons and values on to the next generation.

Structure: Dialogue and discussion 🔗

The best way to describe the format of CopyleftConf 2020 is “dialogue and discussion”. The first half of the conference started with traditional sessions, with speakers and slide decks. The end of the conference moved towards open panels with stronger audience participation. Most panels centered around topics or ideas addressed in the morning sessions.

I attended these sessions:

• Keynote (Tony Sebro)
• Copyleft adoption curves: what drove adoption then (or now?) (Luis Villa)
• Copyleft Expansion: What should – and shouldn’t – be on the table? (Deb Nicholson, Bradley M. Kuhn, Allison Randal, Heather J. Meeker, John Sullivan)
• The Rising Ethical Storm in Open Source (Coraline Ada Ehmke)
• Software Ethics and Copyleft Licensing (Karen Sandler)

I came up with three key takeaways from CopyleftConf 2020 as a whole (not including the detailed sections further below):

1. Open source is in an identity crisis. 🔗

Many people are confused. The confusion is simultaneously indecisive and divisive. I believe the identity crisis stems from that early decision in 1997 about what we call this particularly different way of developing and collaborating on software and technology. Free Software or open source? One is politically charged and historically exclusive, while the other is more neutral and business-friendly, and more inclusive to people who believe in compromise. Today, we are seeing a similar divide emerge between Free/Open Source and Ethical Source.

There are several emotions. It is deeply personal. For some, the promises of free/open source failed our collective humanity. For others, open source is a vastly successful turn of events to make the closed world more open. Yet for others still, it is both. CopyleftConf 2020 took a highlighter to this tension between what we consider right and wrong. It also questioned what the role of Free Software is in all of this.

I don’t think anyone has the answer yet. Surely some people left CopyleftConf 2020 with a more clear view if they think licensing is a viable approach or not. But CopyleftConf 2020 did not have this answer. It just made it clear that most of us are still wrestling with this.

2. Millennials are underrepresented. 🔗

Most of the time I was at CopyleftConf 2020, I had massive imposter syndrome. This is no fault of the conference or the great steps the organizers took to make it inclusive, but wow. There were so many people there who I have seen all across Twitter. People who are moving and shaking in different realms of the open source world.

Yet as I looked around the room, I started to wonder what the average age demographic of the room was. Being in my early 20s, I felt like I was in a room of Free Software giants. Many people there have been pushing the conversation forward and definitively fighting for Software Freedom for a decade or more.

And then there was me. I don’t know what my role or higher calling is yet in this great big movement we call Free Software. While I was glad to be in the room, I felt sorely underrepresented in age.

Born digital 🔗

I couldn’t help but find it unusual though. My generation and those after me are the first generations who were born into the digital society, built by those who came before us. When I was four years old, I was privileged to have my own computer. By six, I was connected to the Internet (even if it was dial-up). By fourteen, I was in a Linux command line running my own Minecraft server with thousands of players.

While my perspective is rooted in some privilege, there is something interesting in my experience. I was born into a world where I didn’t make the choices of what hardware or software I used. In the beginning, everything was handed to me or provided for me.

For kids and teenagers today, this couldn’t be more of a reality. Before COVID-19, when you went out to a restaurant or public place, how often would you see a small kid clutching a tablet, provided by an exhausted parent? Adolescents today grew up in the always-online worlds of Google and Snapchat.

Today’s teenagers and young adults I know are often keenly aware that they are the prey in a complex digital world they are already so deeply embedded in. So, why resist at all? To them, there is little point in resisting because all the technology decisions made for them early in life locked them deeper into this “predator-prey” ecosystem.

Is Free Software ready for the millennials? 🔗

So, I felt like an imposter at this conference of people who are wise to the role of Software Freedom in our new digital society, but never grew up in the kind of world I did. A lot of the people in the room at CopyleftConf 2020 developed their worldview, ethical perspectives, and software preferences as the world changed around them. Me and other people of my generation were born into this world.

It makes the conversation around Software Freedom very different, and also challenging, because the next ten and twenty years of Software Freedom will have to include today’s youth to be truly sustainable.

3. The world is changing. Will Free Software? 🔗

Related to the identity crisis and under-representation of youth, the theme of change begins to emerge. Stallman and other Free Software leaders in the 1980s and 1990s were ahead of their time to realize the importance of Software Freedom in respecting and protecting user freedom. Some of those same people were also in the room at CopyleftConf 2020.

But today’s world is changing. Software became the commodity in the 1970s and 1980s. Free Software was the resistance. Today, data is the new digital commodity. Software is just one piece of a bigger puzzle. Software Freedom may protect one aspect of our digital lives, but it would be nonsensical to assume the digital world would stay the same. Why should Free Software?

The 2020s will be definitive 🔗

So, CopyleftConf 2020 made me realize that the next ten years will be definitive. The 2020s will determine whether open source becomes yet another cog in strengthening our capitalist society and enthroning corporations as a great benefactor to technology, or if Software Freedom undergoes some sort of transformation to meet the new demands of freedom in our digital world.

No matter your political leanings, read any news site that isn’t a tech journal and tell me honestly that there are not some scary trends in our technology world. COVID-19 is just the latest example, with our data privacy and digital rights being on the sacrificial alter for our “safety” and “protection”. This line is all too common. I have heard it as a justification of many things across my life since September 2001.

So, what will Free Software do?

Copyleft adoption curves: what drove copyright adoption then (or now?) 🔗

Copyleft adoption has changed significantly over time, for better and for worse. This talk will survey the many factors that drive adoption, with particular focus on GPL v2 and Affero GPL v3. While some factors are obvious and reasonably well-understood (particularly the shift towards SaaS economics) many other nuanced factors play in as well.

Luis Villa

What I highlighted in my notes from Luis’s talk was his history lesson on adoption. While the history of Free Software wasn’t new to me, nor most people in the room, Luis took it in a different way. His history lesson was a reflection on “why?” and not just “what?”

Whether you think Free Software “won” or not, open source is here to stay. So, how did we get to where we are today? How did a famous software company go from calling open source an “intellectual property cancer” in 2001 to investing billions of dollars into open source and open source companies by 2020?

Add more chairs to the table 🔗

I loved this quote that Luis dropped: “Movement building is the only way to influence political change.” Luis gave examples from the 1990s of how evangelism and education were part of the building blocks of open source. There were “leading apps” that brought new people to the Free Software (or open source) table. Mozilla was the first browser that brought common lawyers in. A focus on education for lawyers, such as the F.S.F.’s 22,000 word F.A.Q., converted a motivation to learn into practical knowledge used for compliance work.

However, I think Luis’s goal was to define, not to prescribe. He implied that building a movement doesn’t start with writing a license, based on his personal experiences (he did lead drafting of the Mozilla Public License). My takeaway from Luis is that we need to think about how we build a movement that includes people who aren’t at the table today to build a strong foundation for what comes next.

Free Software, but for kids 🔗

There was a panel on copyleft expansion and what should and shouldn’t be at the table. At some point, the role of “the next generation” came up in heralding the values of copyleft licensing forward in light of the popularity of permissive licenses.

This was personal. My first experience in the open source world was as a community member and later a volunteer staff member of the largest open source Minecraft server software project. In my time in that community, I learned a lot. I saw a major breakdown of the GPL for a community of hundreds of thousands of young adults, teenagers, and children. So, indeed, how is “the next generation” going to herald these values of copyleft licensing?

Talk with us, not at us 🔗

It is interesting to be present in these conversations about “the next generation” because it usually feels like people are talking at me instead of with me. It took some reflection time to realize this after CopyleftConf 2020, but I feel like some older folks like to imagine that younger folks will come on board and just start steering the ship in the same course it has always traveled. Some younger folks may be fine with that.

But I also think a lot of younger people will ask more of Free Software because of our collective experiences with Free Software licenses. From my hey-days in the Minecraft community, there is bad blood towards the GPL and copyleft licensing because of the scars it left on the community, even if it was really because the GPL should never have been used in that context.

But the demands for more also stem from the collective treatment by those senior to us in traditional “FOSS circles.” Even at my university, I also see how students become bitter and frustrated in instances where senior faculty and older community members insist on a Free Software-first, no-compromises approach. As if it were so simple for my generation.

I already explained the perspective of younger folks earlier in this blog post. But the way some senior folks treat us in the proper Free Software world is sometimes exclusionary and off-putting, even if that isn’t the intention. It discards great opportunity for guidance and mentorship. There is an innumerable amount of times an older person completely dismissed my decision to use a proprietary or mixed-source platform for a community, yet they lament about not having the patience to troubleshoot the Free Software tools they rely on when they fail (mailing lists and email spam filters, I’m looking at you).

Teach early and teach often 🔗

But that point aside, let’s bring it back to the panel. I think it was Allison Randall and John Sullivan who emphasized the importance of early education around the concepts of Software Freedom. The average middle school student interested in STEM will not comprehend the GPL. However, the Four Freedoms (by design) are easy to comprehend. The freedoms to Read, Run, Remix, and Redistribute are not that difficult to understand. Perhaps part of the answer lies in how we think about messaging to younger folks and keeping foundational concepts like the Four Freedoms at the forefront.

I still lament over the way that Free Software built itself in a technology-centered way instead of a people-centered way, but I digress.

Where are we going? 🔗

The hottest discussions I participated in were from The Rising Ethical Storm in Open Source (Coraline Ada Ehmke) and Software Ethics and Copyleft Licensing, emceed by Karen Sandler. Coraline dropped absolute fire in her talk, even knowing that the essence of her talk would alienate some people. But it was a call-out to us folks in tech who consciously or unconsciously live these values that our Free Software movement is built upon: the freedoms of personal liberty, as it lends itself both for justice and harm.

I won’t spend a lot of time summarizing these talks and sessions, but one interesting thing to look up that Coraline mentioned was the Parable of the Locksmith.

During Karen’s session, I penned what ended up being a short speech in my notebook. When I was eventually passed the mic, I tried to fit too much into too little time, and I was not fully respectful of other folks who also had something to contribute to the discussion. So, instead, I will recap the full essence of what I wanted to say in my blog post.

Our software freedoms are not enough 🔗

The Four Freedoms, the foundation of all copyleft licenses, is not enough.

On the Saturday before CopyleftConf 2020, I presented at FOSDEM 2020 with my colleague and dear friend Mike Nolan on three new freedoms for AI that go beyond software. In our talk, we analyzed the history of how Free Software began as a social movement. It roughly flowed as follows:

1. GNU Project, 1983: Establishment of values
2. Free Software Foundation, 1985: Establishment of organization to champion the values
3. GNU Public License, 1989: Establishment of license to enforce and protect the values

In today’s complex and changing world, we need more than Free Software’s Four Freedoms. This libertarian base was susceptible to the co-opting of its values as “open source.” It was always inevitable, because Free Software was built from the strengths and biases of those who founded the movement (i.e. Richard Stallman).

Free Software was designed with technology at its center, not people. This is to say, it was poorly designed.

Now, we have an ethical dilemma that was always possible because Freedom means freedom to do as you wish, not the freedom of all people.

Some context for discussing legal issues is key, but we need to push the conversation forward beyond semantics. We need to identify whether unethical uses of our software is something we will tolerate. We can’t continue to ignore or delegate social responsibilities for what we do.

So, now what? 🔗

On one hand, we need to be ready to have these conversations about real effects and the impact of what we do on people. Look at the Facebook news feed and the Myanmar genocide. Legal semantics is where we are stuck since we defined the Four Freedoms. But these freedoms are no longer enough.

There is not one answer of where we are going. There are only multilateral answers. We have to be intersectional and inclusive for where we go from here. Free Software needs to turn to its allies not only in law and licenses, but also in labor organizing and regulation authorities.

One direction on my mind is continuing to support D&I initiatives like Outreachy. Outreachy interns do awesome things during their internships, and many continue to do awesome things even when their internships end. Bringing more diverse perspectives to the table, especially from underprivileged groups, is key to giving those perspectives equitable power and influence.

We do have the power. 🔗

But everyone in that room at CopyleftConf 2020, and you, the reader, have some power. We all have some room to influence change for good. But we cannot avoid the discomfort. We can not keep turning away our eyes.

So, what will you do?

For me, I am wrestling with that question actively as I continue to make my way out into the world.

Thanks folx! 🔗

To wrap up this CopyleftConf 2020 report, a few thank-yous are in order:

• Stephen Jacobs: For always being supportive for yet another trip abroad and helping me push my career forward in a number of ways (and footing the bill!)
• Mike Nolan: My co-conspirator, partner in FOSS, and comrade in arms
• Software Freedom Conservancy: For creating and holding this important space.

CopyleftConf 2020 continues to give me a lot to think about and consider. I’m fortunate to have attended. I hope this event report gives additional visibility to some of the conversations held in Brussels this year.

FOSDEM is a free and non-commercial event organized by the community for the community. The goal is to provide free and open source software developers and communities a place to meet to:

- Get in touch with other developers and projects;

- Be informed about the latest developments in the free software world;

- Be informed about the latest developments in the open source world;

- Attend interesting talks and presentations on various topics by project leaders and committers;

- To promote the development and benefits of free software and open source solutions.

fosdem.org/2020/about/

This is my third time attending FOSDEM. I attended on behalf of RIT LibreCorps to represent our engagement with the UNICEF Office of Innovation and the Innovation Fund. For FOSDEM 2020, I arrived ready to give my talk (coming in pt. 2) and honestly to see where the weekend took me.

Planning out FOSDEM is hard. So, my strategy is to figure it out as I go, since most of what I get out of FOSDEM comes from casual conversations and “hallway track.”

Sessions: Play-by-play 🔗

Event reports take many forms. My form is an expanded version of my session notes along with key takeaways. Said another way, my event report is biased towards what is interesting to me. You can also skim the headings to find what interests you.

Also, I live-tweeted several sessions of FOSDEM 2020, so some sections include tweet excerpts with pictures.

Building ethical software under capitalism 🔗

The software that is the easiest to build – the software that is the easiest to fund the development of – tends to serve those who are already extremely well-served. So, how do we bridge the gap between what society needs and what many people with money want to fund? Free and open source software platforms can get us part of the way there, but without some big changes, it won’t be enough. Let’s talk structure!

Deb Nicholson

Deb is making a regular appearance on my blog.

A foundational piece of Deb’s FOSDEM 2020 talk is something I started calling the “buck factor.” In 20 minutes, she gave context for the challenges of fundraising and achieving financial sustainability for open source projects with ethical missions. She also commented on the divides between “community” and “enterprise,” and how they are frequently on opposing ends of a spectrum.

Deb offered suggestions on how the Free Software movement can stand up and protect our shared values. Some are practical and others are aspirational, but I believe Deb aimed to get the audience thinking in different angles on this challenge:

• Encourage self-reporting within organizations
  • Build an ethical strategy inside an organization
• Labor organizing
• Build alternatives:
  • Community-driven non-profits
  • Worker-controlled options (e.g. worker co-ops)
• Advocate for policy changes (e.g. public utilities)

I also learned new vocabulary from Deb: rainbow/pink capitalism.

Growing sustainable contributions through ambassador programs 🔗

Open Source Program Offices are utilizing ambassador programs more and more. We’ll talk about why we decided to implement ambassador programs, how we implemented them, got buy-in (from a time and budget standpoint), and more.

Additionally, we’ll both talk about how we use this program to scale and reach thousands of developers internally. Also, we’ll throw in a few case studies and lessons learned throughout our (ongoing) journeys.

During this talk we’ll go over what an ambassador program is, how we decided to use them in our organizations, the path to buy-in and budget approval, how they were implemented, results we saw, and lessons learned. We’ll present specific case studies of how our Ambassador Programs helped with specific campaigns and how that fosters open source sustainability.

Shilla Saebi & Alison Yu

Shilla and Alison shared their experiences and advice in building open source ambassador programs at the Indeed and Comcast open source program offices (OSPOs). In the Community devroom at FOSDEM 2020, they introduced their ambassador programs, what goals and responsibilities of ambassadors were, and lessons learned from building their ambassador programs.

What is an ambassador program? 🔗

Ambassador programs were created in response to a growing need for decentralization in the OSPO. An OSPO team is a finite group of people with finite resources and time. To be successful in internally promoting open source, an ambassador program empowers others and builds open source allies across an organization. Similar to how technology must scale in order to grow, consider the “people” factor as something that must scale in order to grow.

When launching ambassador programs, both Indeed and Comcast planned multiple phases. In the beginning, it started with an exploratory pilot program phase. The OSPOs identified success metrics and transparently set a date to reevaluate program efforts. A small number of open source leaders inside each organization were invited to participate.

Then, over time, early success led to a gradual expansion phase. More people were recruited with an internal kick-off and training week. Each quarter, ambassadors received an events stipend to represent projects and the organization at local conferences and community events.

Who and what are ambassadors? 🔗

Ambassadors are like a “working group” of volunteers. They are champions and advocates of open source inside an organization or community. Ambassadors can be both internal and external: internal to a company or organization, but also external members of a community outside of a single organization.

But what kind of person makes a good fit for an ambassador role? There is no one-size-fits-all approach. However, Indeed and Comcast shared strategies they used to identify strong candidates for their ambassador programs:

• Prior experience contributing to an upstream project
• Already an advocate for open source (internally or externally)
• Willingness of managers to support participation
• Ability to pass an online learning assignment on open source

What do ambassadors do? 🔗

Responsibilities are different at different organization. Ambassador programs at Indeed and Comcast share three common ways to participate:

• Evangelize open source
• Participate in internal policy review
• Advise in license reviews

Additionally, a culture goal was to shift the perspective of open source away from “one and done.” Or rather, the OSPOs aspired to promote long-term contributions and partnerships with open source projects and their communities.

How to incentivize ambassadors? 🔗

Some people may fulfill ambassador responsibilities as part of their paid work. However, most people adopt a volunteer ethos. Ambassadors are not just colleagues representing open source inside an organization. They are also people with their own aspirations and goals too.

Personal development opportunities are effective incentives for participating. For example, an in-person training week teaches new skills to ambassadors based on areas of identified growth. Getting mentorship is also key to enable participation. Mentorship opportunities lower the “bus factor” of an OSPO. It also recruits ambassadors to identify colleagues doing unrecognized open source work. Instead of leaving them out on the fringe, bring them in as co-conspirators!

Additionally, organization-supported travel is one way to validate an ambassador’s time and effort. This furthers an ambassador’s careers by connecting them to more opportunities in the industry. They get the chance to build their network across other organizations, projects, and communities to facilitate inter-organizational collaboration.

Finally, ambassadors were incentivized through their ability to influence program direction. Ambassadors are empowered by contributing to the direction and strategy of the ambassador program itself. Inclusion is key, so ideas, suggestions, and criticisms from ambassadors are actually reflected in program policy. After all, they are the ones who are directly impacted by future program policy. As key stakeholders in the program, their voices are important to include.

Lessons learned 🔗

Shilla and Alison listed off some “lessons learned” and ideas on where to take their ambassador programs next:

• Ambassadors appreciated structure and knowing transparently how they are measured
• Needed more support from OSPO than originally expected
• More opportunities for feedback
  • Specifically, more 1x1 conversations
• Check for manager support at the beginning
  • Example: Employee gets manager approval to spend 10% of their paid time as an ambassador
• Schedule more ambassador community calls for access to OSPO and mentors
• Share more swag with ambassadors!
• Set clear expectations (or as clear as possible) in advance
• Provide more training opportunities for ambassadors
  • Open source is broad; many people have experience in some areas but could use mentorship/guidance in other areas
• Create stretch goals for ambitious folks to reach for

Future goals 🔗

• Provide internal resources to build allies in organization
• Create digital badges to identify organization/project ambassadors across the web and also internally
• Highlight/recognize ambassadors in visible ways
• Schedule mandatory 1x1 check-ins between ambassadors and OSPO mentors

Open source won, but Software Freedom hasn’t yet 🔗

Karen and Bradley, building on the substantial feedback from last year’s keynote, follow up their 2019 FOSDEM keynote with real-world suggestions, ideas, and discussion about how we, as software freedom activists, can live in a world with so much proprietary software. Software freedom is hard to find, but we can find it together, and we can support each other when we must face the proprietary software world and make hard decisions. Let’s figure it out together and support each other!

Bradley M. Kuhn & Karen Sandler

This was the most powerful talk I attended at FOSDEM 2020.

Kuhn and Sandler asked how we decide what is right for Software Freedom and how to increase the impact of our advocacy. Being a Free Software “purist” is increasingly difficult in our world. The Free Software movement must recognize the privilege of access. If the most underprivileged people are not included in our movement, we collectively lose the metaphorical “battle” of Free vs. Proprietary.

Resisting in 2020 is not the same as in 2000 🔗

Kuhn and Sandler state in no uncertain terms that resisting proprietary software is increasingly difficult. Sandler’s pacemaker is one of the most compelling examples. But from another perspective, the advent of “digital-only deals” is also common. Digital deals for a smartphone may not be essential, but what about grocery coupons on food? It is easy to avoid these deals if you’re well off. But it is less of an option if you live paycheck to paycheck. The savings have a bigger impact relative to you. Choosing data privacy means choosing a financial disadvantage. Choosing data privacy means losing out on saving money on essential goods. To protect personal privacy means to lose access to savings not available on any platform except proprietary software.

A follow-up question might ask why we cave to proprietary software where we do have some power as consumers. But not having access is embarrassing. There is social pressure designed into parts of our society that makes saying “no thank you” difficult. Sandler gave an example of Disney’s theme parks, where “Fast Pass” access is made available as a proprietary phone app that requires access to personal data in order to work. “Fast Pass” allows you to skip lines for rides and attractions. Explaining the principles of Software Freedom to children while waiting in longer queues is not a powerful appeal. While the Disney example is from a place of higher privilege, it is one perspective of many that shows power of social pressures that stigmatize choices that better protect us an individuals and consumers.

Stop shaming 🔗

Kuhn and Sandler made a powerful appeal. Stop shaming for using proprietary software. Start educating respectfully about software ethics. Free Software conferences sometimes trend towards being a proprietary dumping ground. However the Free Software community sometimes exists in a small bubble. In broader, societal terms, we are losing the freedom to choose Free Software. We need to put pressure on our companies and organizations to create the right kind of Free Software; that is, sustainable software that respects our freedoms by design. Our software is not sustainable unless it respects our Freedoms.

Design contributions to OSS: Learnings from the Open Design project at Ushahidi 🔗

Ushahidi builds OSS humanitarian tools, remotely for some of the most marginalized people across the globe. To tackle these systemic problems with how to ‘open source’ a design effort and bring the community along with the ‘on-staff’ Ushahidi designers, we’ve been piloting a series of design events on our OSS crisis communication tool TenFour with our partners Designit and Adobe. Together, we’re looking to solve the problems with how open source design can work by engaging through meaningful technology that makes a difference in the world.

In this session, we’ll briefly cover the history of the project and the main problems we attempted to solve and we’ll present the learning and adaptions to our workshop framework and methodology that aims to engage design teams and individuals that are not yet ‘on-board’ with OSS as an ethos or movement.

Eriol Fox

I had two useful takeaways from Eriol’s FOSDEM 2020 talk in the Design devroom:

1. Perception of “open source” in design world is largely undefined and unknown (because of systemic challenges)
2. Open source folks can learn more about what design work looks like when encouraging designers to participate

Open source perception 🔗

Eriol noted that most designers are in the dark about what open source is or what it can be. Open source is not included in design education. Also it is not incentivized in hiring for designers. If open source is poorly understood as a strength in the design community, how can designers use open source to build their CVs/resumes?

While they noted the root cause of this perception is systemic and difficult to change, it is helpful to weigh this perspective as an open source contributor. Developers and community managers should consider the systemic challenges when encouraging design contributions to an open source project.

For developers, open source is going mainstream. Without being prompted, you might be asked about open source in an engineering job interview. But it is different for designers. So you might have to “design” a different approach to effectively engage designers in our communities. (pardon the pun)

Learn what design work looks like 🔗

Open source developers, program managers, and community managers may have an uninformed view of what design work is. Eriol’s work in the Open Design project at Ushahidi included workshops with topics about how to construct tasks for designers and developers together.

Listening to their talk, I became conscious of my poor understanding of design work. I realize I have some areas to grow and improve my understanding of open design. Eriol gave some specific examples of design work I want to explore further:

• Empathy mapping
• Defining problems
• Ideation
• Storyboarding
• Sketching and prototyping

Also they gave a humanitarian-centered example of inviting a “witness” into the software design process. Or in other words, inviting someone part of the group that primarily “needs” the software. In the developer world, we are familiar with user testing or conducting focus groups and interviews. But those steps typically come after we have a product or design to get feedback on. Inviting a witness happens early, before much or any code is written. They bring a unique perspective of someone impacted by a particular problem or issue that the software will address.

I want to explore this one deeper. It takes more effort to practice active inclusion for someone who is a non-engineer to feel their opinions and perspective are useful and important in a room of engineers and product managers.

Twitter thread! 🔗

Did I live-tweet this one? You bet.

What makes people come and what makes them stay 🔗

Over the years the tech industry has been trying to change its diversity and inclusion statistics but that seems to have been a hard nut to crack. This is a talk about what makes people come, but then also what makes people stay. Because diversity is inviting people to the dance, but inclusion is enabling them to join it. Let’s figure out how you can make people come and want to stay in your organizations, and teams, and let’s see one use-case where Mozilla did the same.

Gloria Dwomoh

I meticulously live-tweeted this one. Check out the tweet thread below! There are lots of pictures too.

Beyond FOSDEM 2020 🔗

Of course, there is much more to FOSDEM than just a conference. Some highlights outside of the conference were my daily reflective breakfasts with Mike, a ramen lunch with him and Gloria Dwomoh, and evening dinners with Remy DeCausemaker, Georg Link, and Justin Dorfman.

Also, originally I intended to give myself the Monday after FOSDEM off to recover and work from home. However, I heard about this other little conference called Copyleft Conf happening the next day. So, I ended up buying a last-minute ticket for this one too! Read the details in my full event report!

Thanks folx! 🔗

To wrap up this FOSDEM 2020 report, a few thank-yous are in order:

• Stephen Jacobs: For always being supportive for yet another trip abroad and helping me push my career forward in a number of ways (and footing the bill!)
• Mike Nolan: My co-conspirator, partner in FOSS, and comrade in arms (HELL NO, MANIAC!)

I saw many familiar faces and also met many people I previously only knew from Twitter. FOSDEM 2020 takes a lot out of me, but it is always fulfilling to get a healthy dose of the Software Freedom perspective to fill me up on why I do what I do.

Until next time!

Learn about open source project health metrics and tools used by open source projects, communities, and engineering teams to track and analyze their community work. This conference will provide a venue for discussing open source project health, CHAOSS updates, use cases, and hands-on workshops for developers, community managers, project managers, and anyone interested in measuring open source project health. We will also share insights from the CHAOSS working groups on Diversity and Inclusion, Evolution, Risk, Value, and Common Metrics.

chaoss.community/chaosscon-2020-eu/

This is my second time attending CHAOSScon. I attended on behalf of RIT LibreCorps to represent our engagement with the UNICEF Office of Innovation and the Innovation Fund. For CHAOSScon EU 2020, I arrived hoping to learn more about effective metric collection strategies for open source communities and also get a deeper understanding of the technology behind GrimoireLab.

Sessions: Play-by-play 🔗

Event reports take many forms. My form is an expanded version of my session notes along with key takeaways. Said another way, my event report is biased towards what is interesting to me. You can also skim the headings to find what interests you.

Also, I live-tweeted several sessions of CHAOSScon EU 2020, so some sections include tweet excerpts with pictures.

Ethics: What You Know & What You Don’t Know 🔗

Metrics give us a lot of insight into what’s going on with our projects – but only if we have enough context. The catch is that personal biases and pre-conceptions are extremely hard to filter for so no one person can see everything. Those gaps means that even the most well-meaning of us could end up doing more harm than good. In this talk, I’ll share a few examples of the ways human brains make assumptions, some of our typical blind spots and how incomplete data can cause harm when deployed without any checks. For folks who collect, analyze and ultimately make mission critical decisions with metrics, the challenge is to constantly maintain a bit of healthy skepticism of what the numbers seem to be telling us.

Deb Nicholson

Deb’s session was a great opener to a day focused on metrics and automated reporting. Her talk underscored unconscious bias and the ways poorly-designed metrics fail us. We should take an active approach to questioning our perspectives and take suggestions with grace.

During Q&A, my colleague Mike asked for advice on pushing back on management when they ask for bad metrics. Deb suggested a clever strategy to respond in these situations:

1. Provide the metric asked for
2. Provide a metric that contradicts what was asked for
3. Provide the metric they should have asked for

Heat, Light, and Love: Telling Twitter’s Open Source Program Office’s Story 🔗

Making it simple to trust, ship, and grow open source at Twitter demanded visibility into contribution trends that were not readily available. Twitter’s open source program office and the Augur project collaborated with CHAOSS using student interns from Google’s Summer of Code, Twitter’s intern program and the University of Missouri. First, this talk describes Twitter’s engaging interface design and its fit to the needs of Open Source stakeholders within Twitter, but also outside the open source program office. Second, we describe how an open API and data collection tool, Augur, evolved in close collaboration with Twitter.

Sean Goggins & Remy DeCausemaker

This one inspired me. It represented a dream of mine for many open source communities. Sean and Remy presented on three years of building an automated metrics visualization site with GrimoireLab and Augur. The visualization was powerful to communicate the value of open source engagement, participation, and investment to internal and external stakeholders.

The work was based on a philosophy familiar to me from working with Remy years ago in the Fedora Project community:

If we are speaking in metaphors, one way to extend Remy’s “light” metaphor is tying in a theatrical concept: stage lights and backstage lights.

Stage lights are the metrics and insights to present out to the world. They are front and center! These insights validate your mission to an external audience.

Backstage lights are for an internal audience. These metrics and insights illuminate the inside of an organization and build understanding of who and what is there. These are useful to validate work and efforts to funders, or perhaps your CFO.

This talk served as inspiration for something I hope to explore later in 2020.

Measuring Culture 🔗

They say you can’t be certain of anything unless it can be measured – so what about culture? We know it exists and can be passed on to others, so there must be a way to measure it. Using Apache Kibble we attempt to look for cultural indicators at the Apache Software Foundation, set a cultural benchmark then match real Apache projects against it. In theory we would expect a perfect match but as the results show, culture isn’t that simple.

Sharan Foga

Sharan introduced five factors to measure culture: bus factor, contributor experience, contributor retention, sentiment analysis, and key phrase extraction.

Sharan defined culture as what we believe and what we do. So, she introduced five indicators for open source communities to measure culture. These came from learnings at the Apache Software Foundation’s Kibble project:

• Pony (“bus”) factor:
  • “Committership”
  • Authorship
  • Meta factor (# of organizations involved)
• Contributor experience / contributor retention:
  • People who (re)joined
  • People who quit (why?)
  • People retained
  • Active contributors
  • Cross the above over time (e.g. # of months/years involved)
• Mood, or sentiment analysis: Look for these moods…
  • Trust
  • Surprise
  • Neutrality
  • Sadness
  • Positivity
  • Anger
  • Negativity
  • Joy
  • Anticipation
  • Disgust
  • Fear
• Key phrase analysis: Understand community jargon (e.g. if “+1” is used to indicate agreement)

I had two key takeaways. First, nothing matches completely, so don’t over-rely on one factor or metric. Second, identify your baseline indicators and iterate on those. For the above indicators, maybe these are specific to Apache projects. Maybe they apply to your projects too… or maybe they don’t!

Meet Cauldron! Your SaaS Software Development Analytics solution 🔗

Cauldron is a brand-new free open source SaaS able to analyze software development community and processes. It relies on CHAOSS GrimoireLab to collect and process data from different tools used in software development such as git, GitLab, GitHub and/or social platforms like Meetup, and Open Distro for ElasticSearch to store and to display the project data. The talk shows how Cauldron can be easily put into action to analyze the software projects that matter to the attendees, and to get some CHAOSS metrics about them.

Jose Manrique Lopez de la Fuente

I had no written notes other than “wow!”

Finally, Bitergia built a hosted GrimoireLab service, called Cauldron. Cauldron takes the pain out of hosting your own GrimoireLab infrastructure. It is in early alpha and does not support all the data sources available in GrimoireLab yet, but it is promising.

In the FOSS@MAGIC community, we want GrimoireLab to understand our open source community at the Rochester Institute of Technology, home of the first academic minor in free/open source. But as I go deeper, I realize GrimoireLab is very complex. Since my contract with RIT ends in a month, I want to leave something sustainable for my successors. Cauldron seems like a valid option.

I have some homework to do!

Language barriers for open source contributors 🔗

While open source development is common across the world, projects from countries outside North America and Europe, such as China, have difficulties attracting international contributors. One major reason for this is language differences. The presentation provides an overview of the diversity of non-native English speakers in different open source ecosystems. Furthermore, we will provide results about whether or not those contributors face a language barrier when contributing to open source projects. The presentation concludes with a discussion on how we can create metrics to assess the spoken language diversity in open source communities and how to include those people in the community more easily.

Isabella Vieira Ferreira

Fascinating work from @isaferreira_57 on language barrier in #opensource. #choasscon

Contributing + participating in a project operating in a language (technical too!) that's not one's first always require more effort– a useful reminder to be kind and empathetic 💖💖 https://t.co/3cJ6qWWSsH

— Emmy Tsang (@emmy_ft) January 31, 2020

Isabella’s talk was insightful and challenged my unconscious bias. An interesting insight from two case studies was translators did not transition over time to software development contributions.

I believe a bias exists in open source projects with active localization communities. I have seen project leaders invest in localization efforts as one way to bring new people into a community. While it does bring new people in, there is a subtle implication that “bringing new people in” means bringing software contributions. That’s not always the case. Instead, the value of translation work needs to be quantified beyond just software contributions.

This is especially true for supporting grassroots advocacy communities. Localization may not build your developer community, but it can support stronger local communities in regions where English is not the first language.

Metrics are more than the sum of their parts 🔗

We are in a state of Community building that maps success to metrics like lines of code and GitHub stars. I would like us to explore where these metrics fall short on capturing the most significant value of a community, and how we can use other metrics to show the much larger impact Community organizations like Developer Relations (DevRel) can have on a business. This improved process begins with mapping value to business need, pairing it with a community need, and back to the business opportunities. There will be practical advice on how to pitch and position Community, whether you’re a Community Manager, Developer Advocate, or other Developer Relations professional.

Matt Broberg

Matt’s CHAOSScon EU 2020 session pitched strategy on communicating the value of developer relations to our organizations. He covered a lot of material and left me many thoughts to reflect on. I look forward to seeing the video recording of this talk to reflect further on integrating his ideas into my day-to-day. The themes of Matt’s talk struck a chord with me for challenging advocacy work ahead for me in 2020.

Emerging Tech Open-Source Scoring System (ETOSS) 🔗

This is a framework used by the UNICEF Innovation Fund, to evaluate and track the strategic position and growth potential of the early stage startups in its portfolio. The focus is on startups building open source frontier tech: Blockchain, Data Science, Artificial Intelligence and Extended Reality. It classifies the startups into four quadrants, based on two dimensions: the software developed (technology), and the financial sustainability of the project (business sustainability).

Cecilia Chapiro & Justin Wheeler

.@jflory7: The UNICEF tech KPIs are quite similar to @CHAOSSproj metrics - there are also business sustainability metric to measure, placing organisations / tech projects on a sustainable and tech scale... #CHAOSScon pic.twitter.com/e3M440FMS4

— yo yehudi stays away from humans! 🏳️‍🌈 (@yoyehudi) January 31, 2020

Interested in getting involved? Contact details for @jflory7 and @ceciliachapiro here! #CHAOSScon pic.twitter.com/jMsfiCK9Rg

— yo yehudi stays away from humans! 🏳️‍🌈 (@yoyehudi) January 31, 2020

@jflory7 thanks for the great talk, great to hear @UNICEFinnovate is actively funding OSS for the greater-good! #CHAOSScon pic.twitter.com/g81koSI4Ov

— Farbod Saraf (@farbodsaraf) January 31, 2020

#opensource rubric mentioned by @jflory7 at #CHAOSScon https://t.co/U2pIZsgrMz

It helped me evaluate the last proposal we received at @eLifeInnovation 🙌🙌

— Emmy Tsang (@emmy_ft) January 31, 2020

Hey, it’s me!

My colleague Cecilia Chapiro proposed a session for CHAOSScon EU 2020 on how the UNICEF Innovation Fund evaluates the health and success of funded open source projects. However, due to travel complications, she was unable to attend. I presented her slides and work on her behalf at CHAOSScon EU 2020.

Many people were excited, if not also surprised, to hear that UNICEF funds humanitarian open source. In Cecilia’s evaluation framework, there are two key areas: business sustainability indicators and technology indicators. There were good questions about how UNICEF measures on business sustainability. I hope to further explore GrimoireLab/Cauldron to better automate how we measure sustainability with industry-standard tools from the open source ecosystem.

I also gave a shout-out to RIT LibreCorps and the resources we maintain to help UNICEF and the Innovation Fund cohorts build and support sustainable open source projects.

Open and Reproducible Research with Community-driven Research Software Metrics 🔗

What do artificial neural networks, images of the black hole, and SETI@home all have in common? They all trace their roots to research software. In this session, we hope to explore metrics and best practices for evaluating open research software. Research software engineers are evaluated largely based on the numbers of publications and citations. However, metrics based on the number of publications encourage re-creating ‘new’ things or re-implementations instead of reuse, and there are huge variations in existing practices to cite software, meaning software isn’t always cited or citations aren’t always captured. Better metrics that reflect the health of research software is crucial to avoid gamification, incentivizing research software engineers to follow best software development practices by recognizing and rewarding their effort appropriately, and ultimately advancing open science and improving the reproducibility of research.

Yo Yehudi

Yo teamed up with Emmy Tsang and Mateusz Kuzak to deliver this session. I appreciated the audience participation in the second half, which was a creative idea for a session later in the day. It helped revive the conference energy!

Yo and the team captured excellent notes from their time across Brussels, so look there for a deeper dive if this is interesting to you.

Diversity & Inclusion Badging Program 🔗

Within IT, open source software exhibits some of the worst D&I. The open source survey run by GitHub states that only 3% of contributors to open source software are female (GitHub, 2017). While open source has made strides in some aspects of D&I, such as event inclusivity (Irwin, 2017) and community engagement to support organizational diversity (Alexander, 2019), work remains. The proposed is aimed at contributing to this positive growth through the development of a D&I badging system. In open source, badges are available for community leaders to publicly display, providing a way for projects to signal their attention to such things as community health and software security. We can draw from this badging work to improve D&I in open source. In this talk, I will discuss complexities associated with D&I metrics and propose a D&I badging system that provides open source communities the ability to make diversity and inclusion within open source projects more transparent.

Matt Germonprez

First, I must pay my full respect and gratitude to Matt for digging into this topic. It is hard. It is tricky. Nobody I know of is working on this. So, my feedback comes from a place of love because this is an important topic to me too, and I appreciate Matt’s work! Thank you Matt and the CHAOSS D&I Working Group.

Critique: Is a badging system how to do this? 🔗

Matt presented a strategy to incentivize organizations and projects to follow best practices for diversity and inclusion (D&I) through a badging system. Organizations embed a badge on their project website or README when following best practices. This provides an easy way for new contributors to understand if a project community is inclusive and values equality before contributing. Since best practices are defined not by a single organization, there is a way to measure if an organization is living up to their commitment to D&I.

However, a badging system seems like a difficult way to practically measure an organization’s commitment to D&I. There is a risk for manipulating trust of the system at the expense of open source novices. Novices have the least context and direct experience to see through an unauthentic commitment. Also, ongoing compliance seems difficult to enforce over time with a badging system. Maybe initially an organization or project is “checked off” for D&I best practices. But if project leadership or management changes, community culture can also shift. How do you account for change?

Instead of badges, perhaps a central, inter-organizational certification body makes more sense to achieve this goal. A certification body acts as a central authority for validating accountability. They also have an authority to assign (or revoke) public recognition of organizations and projects with authentic, ongoing commitments to diversity and inclusion.

There is potential here, but I don’t think gamifying D&I best practices with a badging system is the way. We need a long-term, human-centered process in evaluating D&I. We need to build in human-centered evaluation as a “feature” to truly hold projects accountable to their commitments.

Addendum: Events and inclusivity 🔗

There are a few things I’m genuinely proud to have contributed to open source. Most of them aren’t code. International candy swaps at conferences are one of those things.

Time for the international candy swap! There are so many things to love about #DevConf_CZ but the geographic diversity of attendees might be my favorite part. Thank you for organizing, @jonatoni & @jflory7! pic.twitter.com/rU1ETp5aTa

— Mary Thengvall (she/her); mary-grace.bsky.social (@mary_grace) January 25, 2020

DevConf CZ 2020 candy swap, mentioned in a previous blog post

Candy swaps are fun, informal events hosted during a conference. Attendees bring local candies, sweets, or snacks from their hometowns to the conference. For an hour or so, folks gather together to swap candies. Before sampling the sweets, everyone introduces themselves, where they are from, and anything special about what they brought with them. When everyone introduces themselves and their candies, the floor is open to sample from the collected assortment.

This is a fun and engaging way to get to know other attendees beyond the conference’s context. Conferences collect people around a specific context: be it technology, metrics, design, engineering, or something else. But beyond that specific context, we are also people! We have families, we have friends, and we eat food. We have things we miss about home when we travel hundreds or even thousands of miles from home. Events like candy swaps help us connect to other people not just as conference attendees, but as people. You learn something new about each other, and if you’re bold, you try something new too.

While it is not a metric in itself, it would be cool to see things like this included as practical examples of how to evaluate “family friendliness” or inclusivity at events.

True Confessions: The Seven Deadly Sins of Open Source Communities 🔗

This talk would take a humorous approach to explaining what really no one should do when managing and measuring open source community best practices, with the primary goal of instilling positive open source development practices to the audience. Such ““don’ts”” include not documenting anything, establishing no clear paths to success, and not bothering to communicate.

Brian Proffitt

Brian explained what to avoid in building healthy open source communities. While I was already familiar with most of them, the most interesting “sin” for me was the last one: “not seeing ourselves in others.”

Brian offered mitigation strategies and metrics for the first six sins, but he acknowledged “not seeing yourself in others” is hard to mitigate and measure. However, I think things like candy swaps (explained above) are one possible way to do this. They connect us to others in an authentically human way, beyond the specific context of a conference we traveled for.

This is more challenging when interaction is virtual. Virtual systems often take away communication cues that make us human! I’m still thinking on how to mitigate “not seeing ourselves in others” if interaction is mostly virtual. (For what it is worth, I don’t think running open source project meetings in V.R. is the answer either.)

Beyond CHAOSScon EU 2020 🔗

An event report wouldn’t be complete without mentioning the hallway track. It was great to see familiar faces and also meet new folks at CHAOSScon EU 2020.

I had a great lunch conversation with Erik Albers from Free Software Foundation Europe. It was cool to meet a facilitator of the Public Money? Public Code! campaign. Hopefully there are future opportunities to collaborate with RIT LibreCorps and AI freedoms.

As always, face time with Mike Nolan and an OG mentor of mine, Remy DeCausemaker, is appreciated and fulfilling. I wish I could get more of it around the year.

Thanks folx! 🔗

To wrap up this CHAOSScon EU 2020 report, a few thank-yous are in order:

• Cecilia Chapiro: Thanks for putting your work forward to the wider open source community!
• Stephen Jacobs: For always being supportive for yet another trip abroad and helping me push my career forward in a number of ways (and footing the bill!)
• Mike Nolan: My co-conspirator, partner in FOSS, and comrade in arms

I hope to continue conversations started here later into 2020 and keep talking with folks doing great things for the ecosystem. Until next time!

Sustain Summit events are led by a facilitator. There are no keynotes, talks, or sponsor demos. Your undivided attention is required. Phones and laptops should not be used throughout the day and you will be asked to put devices away if they are a distraction to you or anyone else.

When we talk about sustainability, we are talking both and equally about the sustainability of resources and the sustainability of its people. We hope you can join us for the conversation.

sustainoss.org/summit-2020/

This is my second time attending Sustain OSS (see my 2018 event report). I attended on behalf of RIT LibreCorps to represent the sustainability efforts at the RIT FOSS@MAGIC initiative, but also to represent myself as an individual and sustainer in the open source movement. For Sustain OSS 2020, I arrived hoping to learn more about community-first governance models. I left with a lot of notes and the first blueprints for Principles of Authentic Participation.

Event reports take many forms. Since Sustain is structured in a unique format, my event report is structured as follows:

• At a glance: structure and key takeaways: High-level overview of what the conference is like and the biggest ideas on my mind at the end of the day
• Community-first governance: I came ready to explore this idea, and had a unique conversation about citizen assemblies
• Principles of Authentic Participation: Impromptu session I facilitated, and thus spent most of my time focused on

At a glance: structure and key takeaways 🔗

If you’re here for the quick overview, this is it.

I loved Sustain OSS 2020 because it is a unique collection of people from various backgrounds in the Free/Open Source movement. Both old and new folks, software engineers and designers, open source program office folks and the FOSS lawyers, all together in one room. Perhaps the best part for me is leaving with a sense of empowerment and connection to a bigger movement of people.

Speed breakout sessions 🔗

The first half of Sustain 2020 started with speed breakout sessions led by many facilitators. There were around twelve small discussion groups focused on specific topics. You could spend 4-5 minutes at six topic groups. Choosing was hard! These speed sessions are primers on what to spend the second half of the day focused on, in a more detailed discussion.

I attended these sessions:

1. Diversity and inclusion
2. Open source movement in Africa
3. Minimum Viable Product: Good governance models
4. Documentation
5. 20 years of sustainability
6. Models for corporate accountability as open source community members / what does it mean to be a corporate member of open source communities?

Key takeaways 🔗

I came up with four key takeaways from Sustain OSS 2020 as a whole (not including the detailed sections further below):

Inclusion is local 🔗

When reaching out to new areas and demographics, include local community leaders. This is to say, if you are organizing communities in Asia or Africa, the success of your outreach campaign depends on your ability to enable and include existing community leaders in these regions. Local perspective is required for authentic grassroots success.

Rules for revising rules 🔗

When defining community governance or policy, expect change. So, include ways to change the rules later when the world changes around your governance or policy.

Generalists transition to specialists 🔗

In the early phases of an organization or project, community members are often generalists. Fewer people wear many “hats.” But context-switching has a cost. As the organization/project grows, defined roles become more important. Defined roles avoid everyone doing everything.

Designers focus first on design. Developers focus first on code. By specializing, you maximize the potentialities of what your team brings to the table.

We got the power 🔗

There was a breakout group about ethics in Free Software. Two emerging themes were creating ethics review boards at organizations and the power of labor organizing. Some suggested normalizing ethics training in employee on-boarding.

Most notably, there was a highlighted need for safer spaces for labor organizing discussions. Labor organizing comes at a high personal cost for many.

Community-first governance models 🔗

I came to Sustain OSS 2020 ready to explore community-first governance models. In December, I published a blog post on why Free Software is still not on activists’ agendas. Free Software outreach often emphasizes technology, not people or ethics. We focus on technology so much, we forget why this movement began in the first place. So, in a world where corporate interests in a project often conflict with interests of grassroots communities, I wanted to know what “community-first governance” really means.

For context, I consult with humanitarian organizations and non-profits that want to build community around their open source projects. But from personal experience, I realize community stakeholders need input to decision-making if the community is going to stick around.

Citizen assemblies in open source? 🔗

While I didn’t explore this in a session, I did have an interesting conversation with Xavier about citizen assemblies and how open source communities might be modeled after them. Xavier explained citizen assemblies to me as a form of hyper-local representation in policy-making in regional governments. For example, U.S. citizens are obligated to serve on jury duty, or a jury with your peers on a court hearing. Similarly for citizen assemblies, individuals are selected at random based on different demographic factors. Those selected serve a period of time on a local legislative body.

In open source projects divided across different contexts, think about the demographics represented in our communities. What might the demographic factors look like?

• In internationally-dispersed communities, it might be approximate region or nationality.
• In corporate-focused projects, it might be diversity of employers.

Citizen assemblies in open source could mean a group of contributors are selected at random to serve on the executive decision-making body of a community. The decision to serve is always optional. If a selected person declines, another person is selected.

I think this is a crafty way to address a cultural divide often present in Global South communities. Many contributors subconsciously look for an invitation to contribute. Being explicit by selecting an eligible, qualified candidate actively includes perspectives not commonly represented. It could also be a way to get around imposter syndrome and self-(non)selection in communities that use committee governance models.

I am still sitting with this idea. But I think Xavier’s idea of applying citizen assemblies to open source communities is valid. I’m interested in exploring what this model could look like in practice when the opportunity for experimentation presents itself.

Principles of Authentic Participation 🔗

I attended a session about corporate accountability in open source contributions. It evolved into a longer discussion about Principles of Authentic Participation. This week, I launched a wider discussion about this on the Sustain OSS Discourse forums, so instead of repeating myself in this post, read the Discourse thread and leave your thoughts there.

However, for the reader’s convenience, the six principles we drafted are below:

Authentic Participation Starts Early. 🔗

This came out of discussions about organizations showing up with mature, fully-baked contributions over which the community had no input.

Authentic Participation Puts The Community First. 🔗

This reflected the general consensus that when an organization and the community want different things, the community needs to come first.

Authentic Participation Starts With Listening. 🔗

This was Duane’s reflection of some comments about folks showing up to projects with no historical context and telling them everything they were doing wrong.

Authentic Participation Has Transparent Motivations. 🔗

Without a shared understanding of the motivations, it’s impossible to resolve differences of opinion effectively. No hidden motives.

Authentic Participation Enforces Respectful Behavior. 🔗

This is about organizations taking responsibility for the behavior of their representatives.

Authentic Participation Ends Gracefully. 🔗

No sudden withdrawal of resources without notification and an exit plan. Clear documentation that would allow the community to pick up projects when a company decides to withdraw support.

Thanks folx! 🔗

To wrap up this Sustain OSS report, a few thank-yous are in order:

• Stephen Jacobs: For always being supportive for yet another trip abroad and helping me push my career forward in a number of ways (and footing the bill!)
• Mike Nolan: My co-conspirator, partner in FOSS, and comrade in arms
• The Principles of Authentic Participation group: I didn’t plan to facilitate at Sustain and I was nervous about it, but you all were wonderful. We had a fruitful discussion and I’m looking forward to the follow-up.

Sustain OSS 2020 continues to give me a lot to think about and consider. I’m fortunate to have attended. I hope this event report gives additional visibility to some of the conversations held in Brussels this year.

Where Byfield was accurate 🔗

While I don’t agree with all of Byfield’s sentiments, he identified some key challenges that still hold truth today: a predisposition to focus on differences and not similarities, an outreach approach centered on ethics and not software, and the importance of opportunities for intersectional interaction.

Predisposition towards difference 🔗

First, Byfield notes the differing age groups of the activist communities and the tendency for viewing others by their differences first, not their similarities. He seems to attribute the tendency to view others by differences first as a characteristic of older generations; however, this is not necessarily the full truth.

As a member of the young activist community, this explanation is too simplistic of the underlying cause. There is also a political motivation by established power to sow division among the population of a nation-state. It makes community organizing more difficult and presents diversity as an issue to “solve” instead of a source of greater unity and common strength.

This is exemplified by the social media algorithms of today that reward sensational content (judged on likes, views, clicks, or other user feedback) and share it widely across a huge platform. In 2006, it was difficult to imagine the relationship social media would have in the lives of an everyday person; today, a great deal of social power is granted to those who understand how to leverage social media, either for good (e.g. social activism) or harm (e.g. deceptively persuading large parts of a nation-state’s population leading up to a national election).

The politics of division are within the fabric of our political systems; this is a challenge for modern-day activism and community organizing to overcome. In identifying this as a challenge, Byfield is correct that a differences-first approach makes it harder to share and spread the importance of FOSS in other activism circles, especially as technology becomes an increasingly relevant way of how we experience our lives and how our systems of law and justice are enforced.

Outreach on ethics, not software 🔗

Second, Byfield suggests an ethics-based approach to outreach is more effective than a software-based approach. This is also correctly noted, even if perhaps overemphasized. The jargon and language of the technology world is not accessible to the large majority of the global population. While some degree of technology literacy might be expected in some populations, much of the existing FOSS community is deeply rooted in technology. Sometimes this limited perspective is counterproductive.

This revisits the rebranding of “Free Software” as “open source” in 1997. For many subsets of the wider open source community in 2019, the default approach to open source software is merely a secondary thought for how to collaboratively work on technology. This is part of the outcome of the Open Source Initiative’s gamble in 1997 by beginning to emphasize the business sensibility and practicality of open source, and de-emphasize the social roots of Free Software (or rather, try and position itself as some sort of translator between these two “worlds”, as if they cannot be spoken of together in the same room).

As such, those who work on open source software projects are not necessarily predisposed to assume the role of an activist. Truly if Free Software is to take root outside of technology, then those who see the ethical values of Free Software need to better organize and promote the values of FOSS externally. This will contribute to the diversity of Free Software activism by helping non-technology activists add FOSS as a tool to their existing work.

Intersectional movement building is the future 🔗

Thirdly and finally, and perhaps most importantly, Byfield suggests the importance of intersectional interactions between Free Software communities and other activist communities. This is a fundamental requirement for the growth of Free Software as a social movement. Those of us in Free Software see the world around us informed by a background informed by technology; this background is emphasized in a world that is generating new, advanced technology at an unprecedented rate. However, while software and technology are important parts of the world around us, they are not the world around us. They are one part of a greater picture of fighting for a common good and welfare for all people. There are others in similar niches who have a deep understanding of their problem space and how they want to approach a challenge.

“One group may be working against child poverty, another for recycling, but the people in these organizations can almost be transferred from one to the next.”

Peter T. Brown, Free Software Foundation Executive Director (2006)

Just like a healthy garden, cross-pollination of these niches is vital to help others understand how we can help each other in accomplishing our mutual goals (this also feeds into why the politics of division explained above is so pervasive and difficult). Bringing Free Software technologists to activist communities where there is not an overwhelming Free Software background (and vice versa) is vital to building an intersectional social movement that strengthens the social impact of Free Software, not just open source.

Where Byfield didn’t go far enough 🔗

Byfield made one assumption on how activists have “their own share of insularity” and that the presence of connections between two movements does not mean they could immediately connect their existing beliefs with new ones. Fioretti’s challenge was in others understanding why they should listen to him; there was a lack of foundational knowledge of open source and technology that is normally assumed of someone who works as a software engineer.

Indeed, attention is a currency in the world of an activist. It is not enough for a FOSS advocate to expect others to listen to you on an appeal of technology. Part of the work in sharing is understanding who you are sharing with; if FOSS wants to take deeper roots in the activist community, it needs to understand the backgrounds of activist communities and be creative in how to appeal the mission of FOSS to the mission of their work. Where you can build in-roads together with others through common initiatives is the beginning of grassroots community organizing. So, while Byfield is right that there is an almost competitive nature of ideas in activism, it is not enough to write insularity off as a fixed aspect of nature. To not acknowledge this is to deny the influence of capitalist power structures in the humanitarian sector as they pertain to sustainable funding.

What are today’s challenges? 🔗

Some of today’s challenges are about inclusion and power.

Inclusion builds power 🔗

Diversity and inclusion (D&I) are important but poorly understood; not only are D&I about including people of different identities in technology, but also people with backgrounds outside of technology. FOSS stands to benefit by including more people who do not necessarily have a strong technology or engineering background. The goal is to inspire different perspectives to contribute in meaningful ways to build sustainable technology.

Instead of seeing diversity and inclusion initiatives as problematic or unneeded, D&I groups in FOSS communities stand to be the most effective people at building community and influence.

Power and governance 🔗

In the activist / humanitarian / non-profit world, there is a power struggle for sustainability as it pertains to funding. Funding models in non-profit work (usually sustained by grants, sponsors, and donors) encourage solutions that get funded, not necessarily solve problems the most effective way. Many organizations struggle with how to achieve sustainable funding without being so dependent on the expiration date of a grant’s funding.

We need more representative governance models in open source communities that reflect the interests of the communities around them, not necessarily an individual, a company, or group of companies. Building governance models that empower people within a community to make decisions and reduce the corrosive influence of money from humanitarian work.

Where do we go from here? 🔗

This blog post is an active reflection of my own thoughts and perspectives of Free Software, activism, and humanitarian work. If you are interested in pushing this conversation further, find me in Brussels, Belgium for any of the following three conferences and let’s chat further:

• 30 January 2020: Sustain Summit
• 31 January 2020: CHAOSScon
• 1-2 February 2020: FOSDEM

If you want to discuss this further, you can also drop a line in our online discussion community, fossrit.community.

Photo by Walid Berrazeg on Unsplash

Special thanks and appreciation goes to Tim Zabel and Nic Hartley for their contributions this release cycle.

What’s new 🔗

• Bold usernames in message prefixes (#134, Nic Hartley)
• Include filetype in IRC string when a document is uploaded on Telegram (#139, Tim Zabel)
• Include zero-width space in username for join/part messages to group (#139, Tim Zabel)

Additionally, contributor documentation improved. I added contributor guidelines and instructions to set up a development environment. Also, our friends at Ura Design designed our new project logo. Thanks to Ura, we have an awesome project logo and stickers in time for Imagine RIT 2019 later this month!

They're here! Check out our new @uracreative logo and stickers for the #TeleIRC project. Grab some stickers at the @RITlug @Imagine_RIT festival on April 27! pic.twitter.com/KGjT4F0qdY

— RIT Linux Users Group (@RITlug) April 17, 2019

TeleIRC v1.3.1: sprint retrospective 🔗

Originally, we planned to release v1.4 at the end of this sprint. For a number of reasons, this did not happen. We decided to reduce our scope and finish strong with a bugfix release instead of the originally-planned feature release. This retrospective summarizes “lessons learned” for future project sprints with a team of university students.

Extended holidays are sprint bookends 🔗

In the last sprint, our university had a week-long break from classes. Most students use this time to visit family or travel outside of Rochester. Originally, we agreed to pause the sprint and resume when we returned. In retrospect, it didn’t work out like that.

It was harder to start again when we returned from the break. Instead of an extended holiday acting as a pause in an ongoing sprint, extended holiday breaks should divide two separate sprints. The breaks from classes are personal time; working on projects is not possible for everyone. The interruption caused by a break impacts productivity of the team. Therefore, future sprint planning will take the university calendar into consideration.

Adjustable sprint length to semester 🔗

Sprint lengths should have an adjustable length depending on what part of the academic semester the sprint is. For example, earlier this semester, we released v1.3 in a two-week sprint. For this v1.3.1 release, it was over a month. What happened? Should sprints have a variable length?

When working with an academic crowd, variable sprint lengths are worth considering. The first half of a semester typically has less assigned coursework. Final projects are not at play. Therefore, usually team members have more time to invest in the project at the start of a semester. Towards the end of the semester, coursework and class projects pile on and make it difficult to find bandwidth to work on side projects like TeleIRC.

The compromise is keeping our sprints short at the start of a semester and stretching them out as a semester goes on. This gives students more flexibility to work at a pace that encourages quality work but isn’t overwhelming with other responsibilities of being a student. Going forward, we will try variable-length sprints in the Fall 2019 semester.

Get involved with TeleIRC! 🔗

More opportunities are coming to participate with TeleIRC! The team is happy for new people to join us. Opportunities are available for short-term and long-term contributions.

Come say hello in our developer chat rooms, either on IRC or in Telegram! Watch for TeleIRC development reports on my blog for more announcements.

Background photo by Daria Nepriakhina on Unsplash.

What’s coming in TeleIRC v1.4 🔗

TeleIRC v1.4 is the next feature release of TeleIRC. The targeted release date for v1.4 is by the end of April 2019 (i.e. the end of the academic semester for students involved with the project). Following v1.4, the project will likely enter brief hibernation until Fall 2019 when the RIT academic semester begins again.

At the developer meeting on March 23rd, we discussed the scope of this sprint and what we felt is realistic for project maintainers to work on:

Primary goals 🔗

• Include limited characters from Telegram replies in relayed IRC message (RITlug/teleirc#51)
• Create doc page on development environment (RITlug/teleirc#77)
• QoL Improvements: show file-type of documents in IRC, insert ZWP character in join/leave messages (RITlug/teleirc#130)
• Allow user to configure more variables for IRC server connection (e.g. port, SSL certs, etc.) (RITlug/teleirc#113)

Secondary goals 🔗

• Add Telegram-side highlighting for IRC messages prefixed with username (RITlug/teleirc#44)
• Bold usernames on Telegram and IRC (RITlug/teleirc#19)

Recap of TeleIRC v1.3 sprint 🔗

The TeleIRC v1.3 release follows the v1.2.2 release on December 8th, 2018. This release is a significant change in how project development is done. For the first time, a special interest group inside of RITlug exists around the project. The team shifted to an agile-like development practice to fit inside of the RIT student academic schedule.

A special shout-out is earned by Tim Zabel for his support and participation as a core contributor during the v1.3 sprint.

Get involved with TeleIRC! 🔗

More opportunities are coming to participate with TeleIRC! We would love to have more people get involved and participate in the project. There is no formal commitment to contributing, although we ask for participation through a single sprint cycle.

Soon, we will have better new contributor on-boarding docs. Our weekly developer meetings are now happening over public audio/video call each Saturday at 15:00 US EDT, so anyone can join and participate.

Come say hello in our developer chat rooms, either on IRC or in Telegram!

Background photo by Daria Nepriakhina on Unsplash.

The blog post I wrote comes from this place in my life. It writes in a voice I would not write in today. It also does not accurately reflect my current perspectives. However, instead of tossing it, I figured to publish it unfinished with this disclaimer would be no different.

Unmodified text: The Integral of a Community 🔗

Many times I’ve sat down to write about the same topic in this same seat. Many times I’ve been filled with the same unique feeling. It’s difficult to put into words. It’s easier to understand it and describe it in my head. But it’s easier to describe it to others when I’m still feeling this feeling. It’s harder to come back to it later and write about it.

This “feeling” is something powerful and organic. I believe it is derived from a core part of what makes us human. In part, it’s a form of social stimulation, but it’s also a little more. The “feeling” is what I’m beginning to term the integral of a community.

integral: (adjective) ˈin(t)əɡrəl,inˈteɡrəl/ - necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental.

From Oxford Dictionaries

What is a community? 🔗

Communities are a fundamental part of our daily lives. We all belong to a community in one form or another. In my view, community is a loosely-defined word that gives rise to many forms. Our immediate family is a community. Our workplaces are a community. Our friends are a community. Our schools are a community. Our homes are a community.

Maybe we feel different about some of the above examples of a community. Your feelings on your familial community may be different from mine. Maybe we feel different about our school communities. But regardless of where you fall, there is a community that you are attached to. Maybe you don’t realize it, maybe you do. But this community holds a special part in your heart. It is, by definition, integral to what makes you, you.

Going forward, it is important to establish your own personal definition of this integral community. Whatever group of people you feel most comfortable with. It doesn’t matter what size. It could be one person or it could be twenty. It could be a hundred. But this community is fundamentally important to you.

What is integral of a community? 🔗

Several different components comprise a different community. They are formed around a range of different topics. Communities can be based around blood ties. Your family. They can be based around a shared interest, like art or technology. You may belong to a community based on your profession, such as a group of educators. Or perhaps you belong to a community full of differences. All of its members come from different backgrounds, professions, races, or anything. Maybe it’s because of close geographical location. Maybe it’s because of a former close geographic location. It depends on the community you identify with.

With such wide difference, it can be curious what makes a community so incredible for you. What components are integral to you? If you break down the outer shell, the answer becomes more clearly visible.

You identify with a community when you share a mutual interest, passion, or engagement with the others in your community.

When you feel most interconnected to your community is when you can feel or understand this most.

< more here >

My community 🔗

My community is the free and open source software community at the Rochester Institute of Technology. There are several individuals who have built this community from the ground up to make it what it is. It has endured its fair share of hardships and challenges. It has celebrated victories and achievements among its members. In the stereotypical application of the phrase, it feels like family.

Our communal responsibility 🔗

Read on to learn more about what’s coming in TeleIRC v1.3.

What’s coming in TeleIRC v1.3? 🔗

The developers’ meeting focused on identifying critical tasks to work on for the next sprint. The following open issues were identified as essential for v1.3:

• #41: Sending an image with a caption in telegram then editing the caption causes the image to get sent again
• #44: Add Telegram-side highlighting for IRC messages prefixed with username
• #53: multi-line messages should have each lined prefixed with the userid
• #102: Splitting of messages sent to IRC, prepending TG username to each one
• #112: Insert zero-width space in Telegram usernames sent to IRC
• #115: Image url reveals bot’s token
• #118: Refactor documentation into smaller pages (to make it more readable)

Of these, #53 and #102 will be closed by pull request #102. Michał Rudowicz contributed #102 and it should be merged during this sprint window. (Thanks Michał!)

Keep up with more development news by watching the v1.3 milestone on GitHub.

When is TeleIRC v1.3 coming? 🔗

TeleIRC v1.3 is projected for Saturday, March 2nd. For the selected issues, we felt four weeks was sufficient to accomplish and meet all existing goals. If we move faster than expected, we may move items from the v1.4 milestone up to this release.

How can I participate? 🔗

Want to help out or get involved with TeleIRC? We are happy to welcome you! Past contributors have come from all around the world.

Say hello in our Freenode IRC channel, #ritlug-teleirc, or join the Telegram group. You can also look through our “good first issue” tickets in GitHub. If something looks interesting, leave a comment of interest in the GitHub issue and a committer can offer more guidance.

If you are a user and want to share feedback or thoughts with the team, leave a comment on this blog post and they will be shared with the team.

Background photo by Daria Nepriakhina on Unsplash.

Open source becomes more common every year, where it appears at government municipalities to universities. More companies turn to open source software too. However, some companies try to take it a step further, and instead of only using the software, they also support projects financially or with developers. Facebook’s open source program encourages others in Facebook to release their code as open source. They also work and engage with the community to support the projects too.

Christine Abernathy, a Facebook developer advocate and member of the open source team, visited the Rochester Institute of Technology on November 15, 2017. She gave the November edition of the FOSS Talks speaker series. Her talk explained how Facebook approaches open source and why it’s an important part of the work they do.

Facebook and open source 🔗

Abernathy explained that open source plays a fundamental role in Facebook’s mission to create community and bring the world closer together. The ideological match was a motivational reason for Facebook’s participation in open source.

Additionally, Facebook has unique problems and challenges to solve for their infrastructure and development. Open source provides a platform to share those challenges and help others avoid similar mistakes.

Open source also provided a way to accelerate innovation and create better software. It helped engineering teams produce better software and work more transparently. Today, Facebook’s 443 projects on GitHub have 122,000 forks, 292,000 commits, and 732,000 followers.

Lessons learned 🔗

Abernathy emphasized that Facebook has learned many lessons from the open source community and hopes to learn many more. She identified the three most important lessons that Facebook took from open source:

1. Share what’s useful
2. Highlight your heroes
3. Fix common pain points

Christine Abernathy visited RIT as part of the FOSS Talks speaker series. Every month, a guest speaker from the open source world shares wisdom, insight, and advice about the open source world with students interested in free and open source software. The FOSS @ MAGIC community is thankful to have Abernathy attend as a speaker!

The Rochester Mini Maker Faire is an annual event at the Joseph A. Floreano Riverside Convention Center in Rochester, NY. Each year, makers, creators, artists, and more from all over upstate New York and beyond show their crafts and creations to the community. Open source software and hardware are popular items at the Rochester Mini Maker Faire, with countless Raspberry Pis, Arduino boards, and open source projects powering many electronic projects.

On November 18th, the Free and Open Source Software initiative at the RIT MAGIC Center and the RIT Linux Users Group presented projects and their communities at the Faire. Students from both communities demonstrated projects made with Raspberry Pis or larger undertakings on other open source projects.

Looking good: Magic mirror and Raspberry Pi 🔗

Students from the FOSS@MAGIC initiative presented the Magic Mirror, a mirror that combines your digital world into your reflection. A Raspberry Pi and salvaged monitor screen sit behind a piece of one-way glass. Through the glass, the mirror shows the time, daily weather report, calendar updates, and more along with your reflection.

Taylor Bowling and Solomon Rubin, two students at RIT, worked together on the project in spring 2017. The frame for the mirror was hand-built for the project. Using this guide, the two created a pair of them for the upcoming RIT MAGIC Center.

Community course-ware with LearnIt 🔗

Another student, Wilfried Hounyo, demonstrated his open source course-ware platform, LearnIt. LearnIt is a platform for topic-based, community-contributed courses and tutorials. Similar to other platforms like Udacity or Coursera, LearnIt enables anyone to host their own learning platform and build a community around it.

Wilfried’s inspiration for LearnIt came from working with the FIRST Robotics community in high school. LearnIt’s original goal was to build an open platform for learning and teaching within the FIRST Robotics community. This way, anyone around the country could create their own lessons for anyone to view and follow. After working on the project, Wilfried decided to make the platform ambiguous for any project, so anyone could use LearnIt for building a learning community around any topic or subject area.

A demo is available here and the source is on GitHub.

Linux operating system for RIT 🔗

Members of the RIT Linux Users Group also presented TigerOS, a custom Linux operating system for students, faculty, and staff of Rochester Institute of Technology. One of the project goals is to offer an installer based on major across all RIT majors. After picking your major, TigerOS installs and configures all the software used by the department or major.

Did you know #RITlug is working on a custom operating system for @RITtigers? Check out #TigerOS at the @ROCHMakerFaire, table #91! #Rochester #MakerFaire pic.twitter.com/aipHh8APz6

— RIT Linux Users Group (@RITlug) November 18, 2017

Development on TigerOS began when student Aidan Kahrs picked up an abandoned project from past RIT students. After building a team, they set out to revive the project over the last year. To date, an early beta is available and efforts are going towards building an automatic CI build system and updating to Fedora 27.

To learn more about TigerOS, visit their website.

Spy Pi 🔗

RITlug also presented the Spy Pi at the Rochester Mini Maker Faire. The Spy Pi is a discreet camera embedded inside a picture frame powered by a Raspberry Pi. Taylor Bowling also helped lead this project.

In the picture, R2D2 is carried away by the Jawas in Star Wars: A New Hope. Taylor added two orange LED lights into one of the hooded characters and attached an infrared motion sensor, webcam, and Raspberry Pi into the picture frame. Whenever someone walks in front of the picture frame, the LED “eyes” light up and the webcam takes a picture that’s stored to the Raspberry Pi.

Taylor designed the project himself and wrote simple Python scripts to automate using the sensors. His code is available on GitHub.

See you next year! 🔗

This year was the third year for FOSS@MAGIC and first year for the RIT Linux Users Group to exhibit at the Rochester Mini Maker Faire. Both communities look forward to showing off our projects and what we’re working on again at Imagine RIT in May and again next year at the Faire.

To learn more, visit the websites for FOSS@MAGIC and the RIT Linux Users Group.