WEBVTT 00:00.000 --> 00:18.000 Let's start with Ian. 00:18.000 --> 00:22.000 Everybody, let's go ahead and get started. 00:22.000 --> 00:27.000 My name is Joe Brockmire, and this panel is you can read up here unique challenges 00:28.000 --> 00:31.000 and elected governing bodies for thoughts. 00:31.000 --> 00:35.000 And so we are going to talk probably about, 00:35.000 --> 00:39.000 I'm going to try to keep us through about half the session for OSI, if we can, 00:39.000 --> 00:43.000 because there are a couple other things that I'd like to address, 00:43.000 --> 00:45.000 or less, half or less. 00:45.000 --> 00:50.000 So let's go ahead and I'm sure the audience probably has a question or three among them. 00:50.000 --> 00:54.000 So anyway, my name is Joe Brockmire, as you can see from the sweater, 00:55.000 --> 00:56.000 custom. 00:56.000 --> 01:01.000 I write for LWN, but I'm not here necessarily in an LWN capacity, 01:01.000 --> 01:04.000 and I'm going to let each of the panel introduce themselves, 01:04.000 --> 01:06.000 so Ian would like to go ahead and start. 01:06.000 --> 01:09.000 Sure, Ian Kelling here. 01:09.000 --> 01:14.000 FFF president, as of this year, earlier this year, 01:14.000 --> 01:18.000 and I've been working at the FFF for the past eight years or so, 01:18.000 --> 01:23.000 and just paying attention to free software and open source 01:23.000 --> 01:27.000 around the time when OSI started, so. 01:27.000 --> 01:29.000 I mean, it's debrient. 01:29.000 --> 01:34.000 I am currently in temporarily the interim executive director for OSI, 01:34.000 --> 01:37.000 have a long history in the community. 01:37.000 --> 01:40.000 I've done a lot of advocacy in the public sector, 01:40.000 --> 01:45.000 worked at universities, and I have a great affection for the topic. 01:45.000 --> 01:47.000 Thanks. 01:47.000 --> 01:48.000 Thanks. 01:48.000 --> 01:50.000 This, I'm Richard Fontana. 01:50.000 --> 01:51.000 I'm a lawyer. 01:51.000 --> 01:54.000 I currently work for IBM as of January 1st. 01:54.000 --> 01:59.000 I worked at Red Hat for mostly Red Hat for many years, 01:59.000 --> 02:03.000 and my job at IBM is supporting Red Hat. 02:03.000 --> 02:10.000 I also, I was the first OSI board director elected 02:10.000 --> 02:13.000 by the individual membership, I think. 02:13.000 --> 02:18.000 And I have, I sort of, I think I ran, 02:18.000 --> 02:22.000 did I run like two or three times, something like that? 02:22.000 --> 02:26.000 And then, you know, one election to the board, 02:26.000 --> 02:29.000 so I kind of served on the OSI board for several years, 02:29.000 --> 02:34.000 and then then stepped down, or the rules of the OSI, 02:34.000 --> 02:37.000 and last year, as you can see here, last year, 02:37.000 --> 02:42.000 as well, Bradley, I ran for the board again, 02:42.000 --> 02:47.000 but did not, did not, was not seated on the board. 02:47.000 --> 02:52.000 And yeah, I think that's, that's a good enough introduction for me. 02:52.000 --> 02:54.000 So, I'm Bradley Kune. 02:54.000 --> 02:56.000 I'm from Software Freedom Conservancy. 02:56.000 --> 02:58.000 I'm the policy fellow there. 02:58.000 --> 03:03.000 I've been involved in open source and pre-suffer governance since 1997. 03:03.000 --> 03:07.000 And I've thought about all different governance structures 03:07.000 --> 03:11.000 that you could have, or should have, or don't have, or would want to have. 03:11.000 --> 03:14.000 It is a very difficult topic. 03:14.000 --> 03:17.000 But I think the fundamental difficulty with it is, 03:17.000 --> 03:20.000 you have micro constituencies. 03:20.000 --> 03:25.000 When you have a larger electorate, the politics play out a little bit more 03:25.000 --> 03:28.000 straight forwardly than these micro electorates. 03:28.000 --> 03:32.000 So, I, like Richard, ran in one of the OSI electoral districts 03:32.000 --> 03:34.000 that used to exist last year. 03:34.000 --> 03:42.000 I ran in the affiliate district, and I still do not know 03:42.000 --> 03:46.000 how many votes I got, and no one will tell me. 03:46.000 --> 03:47.000 All right. 03:47.000 --> 03:48.000 All right. 03:48.000 --> 03:52.000 So, I hope nobody in the audience is uninformed. 03:52.000 --> 03:53.000 There was an OSI election. 03:53.000 --> 03:56.000 There was a little bit of controversy a little bit. 03:56.000 --> 04:01.000 And the recent announcement folks may or may not have seen 04:01.000 --> 04:05.000 because that was late last week or midweek wasn't it? 04:05.000 --> 04:09.000 So, OSI is an answer not going to do an election this year. 04:09.000 --> 04:12.000 I don't know if everybody saw that announcement or not, 04:12.000 --> 04:15.000 but they're rethinking the way that they're going to appoint board members 04:15.000 --> 04:17.000 and haven't come up with that just yet. 04:17.000 --> 04:22.000 But let's go ahead and talk through briefly kind of what happened 04:22.000 --> 04:26.000 with the election last year and the difficulties of figuring out 04:26.000 --> 04:29.000 who should be voting in those elections and who should be able 04:29.000 --> 04:33.000 to seat on the board your constituencies and things like that 04:33.000 --> 04:34.000 and would like to start. 04:34.000 --> 04:36.000 Ian would like to start. 04:36.000 --> 04:41.000 Yeah, I'd like to start by saying, I mean, we're here at Faustem 04:41.000 --> 04:45.000 and what are those letters sent for? 04:45.000 --> 04:47.000 Free and open source. 04:47.000 --> 04:51.000 So, of course, it matters what those words mean. 04:51.000 --> 04:57.000 And that's a unique role that free software foundation 04:57.000 --> 05:01.000 and the OSI play is trying to define those. 05:01.000 --> 05:04.000 So, I think it's incredibly important. 05:04.000 --> 05:10.000 What they mean and they're decided by people and who are those people? 05:10.000 --> 05:15.000 Those are people that are elected to the boards that have the highest authority 05:15.000 --> 05:16.000 over those organizations. 05:16.000 --> 05:21.000 So, I just want to start out by saying that that's sort of the stakes 05:21.000 --> 05:23.000 is really about why we're all here. 05:23.000 --> 05:30.000 So, yeah, even higher level than any specific organization. 05:30.000 --> 05:31.000 Yeah. 05:31.000 --> 05:32.000 Yeah. 05:32.000 --> 05:34.000 Did anyone else fall in? 05:34.000 --> 05:36.000 Sure. 05:36.000 --> 05:39.000 So, I was a question again. 05:39.000 --> 05:43.000 So, let me clarify something because there was a very recent announcement. 05:43.000 --> 05:47.000 So, a little bit more context, Richard and I served in the board together. 05:47.000 --> 05:51.000 I was the last board member to be appointed before the elections. 05:51.000 --> 05:54.000 At the time, I was doing a lot of work with government. 05:54.000 --> 05:57.000 I didn't really know anyone in the board was not an insider 05:57.000 --> 06:02.000 and they approached me because they were getting increasing numbers of requests from government agencies 06:02.000 --> 06:03.000 to help them. 06:03.000 --> 06:05.000 So, they were looking for someone with help. 06:05.000 --> 06:09.000 When Richard was elected, I had never met him and I was completely intimidated 06:09.000 --> 06:11.000 because I didn't know that he was a clean person. 06:11.000 --> 06:13.000 I just knew him by reputation. 06:13.000 --> 06:18.000 The announcement earlier this week came that a recommendation I had made to the board 06:18.000 --> 06:23.000 to pause the elections because last year was pretty rough. 06:23.000 --> 06:27.000 And I hadn't actually thought I would still be the executive director that's certainly 06:27.000 --> 06:28.000 by FaZe and but I was. 06:28.000 --> 06:33.000 And over the holidays, I looked at the fact that we were facing a new election. 06:33.000 --> 06:36.000 We had necessarily learned all of our lessons from last years. 06:36.000 --> 06:41.000 And encouraged the board to pause the election this spring and to stand up a working 06:41.000 --> 06:44.000 group with some public input to revisit the elections. 06:44.000 --> 06:48.000 And do you mind if I take a minute to give you some background on why? 06:48.000 --> 06:54.000 So, I want to speak from my own experience not necessarily as OSI's official representative. 06:54.000 --> 06:57.000 I'm not the board so I'm not speaking for the board. 06:57.000 --> 07:01.000 But my experience was this that we decided that we're going to do an elections. 07:01.000 --> 07:02.000 We had a couple of assumptions. 07:02.000 --> 07:07.000 One was that OSI would build a large membership base to form the electorate. 07:07.000 --> 07:12.000 Within one year we had 350 members and today we have almost 500. 07:12.000 --> 07:15.000 That was not the kind of growth or representative democracy. 07:15.000 --> 07:20.000 I think that they had hoped so I was very concerned about that being representative. 07:20.000 --> 07:25.000 The other concern was that the year that I was elected, there were three women in the board. 07:25.000 --> 07:29.000 There were two people represented the global south. 07:29.000 --> 07:41.000 And after the 2020, 12 elections, there hasn't been a single person from Africa, South America, Asia, Japan, India as was represented. 07:41.000 --> 07:46.000 And so the idea of having popular elections didn't exactly work out the way we had hoped. 07:46.000 --> 07:52.000 And that's why I asked the board if we could please consider doing a working group and revisit the elections. 07:52.000 --> 07:55.000 It's a difficult thing to do I know is controversial. 07:55.000 --> 07:57.000 I'm sorry it took a while. 07:57.000 --> 08:00.000 I wasn't there a year ago and I wasn't involved in the process. 08:00.000 --> 08:05.000 But I just wanted to kind of shed some light on why the recent announcement and the reflection. 08:05.000 --> 08:09.000 And there's an obligation to the organization that we try to fulfill it. 08:09.000 --> 08:11.000 I just want to clarify one thing. 08:11.000 --> 08:14.000 You said that wasn't the 350 to 500. 08:14.000 --> 08:15.000 Yeah. 08:15.000 --> 08:16.000 Wasn't what they were looking for. 08:16.000 --> 08:17.000 Two few or too many. 08:17.000 --> 08:18.000 Two few. 08:18.000 --> 08:19.000 Okay. 08:19.000 --> 08:21.000 I mean, who wanted to, you know, who were serving a global? 08:21.000 --> 08:26.000 And let's bear in mind that all three of these, I believe all three of us, US-based organizations, 08:26.000 --> 08:30.000 consider ourselves to have a global remit. 08:30.000 --> 08:34.000 You know, we have an obligation to the universe and so we've not. 08:34.000 --> 08:38.000 I'm happy that we have equal representation from Europe and the US and the board. 08:38.000 --> 08:44.000 But it doesn't really represent the scope of what people are looking for open source to solve today. 08:44.000 --> 08:48.000 And all sectors of society. 08:48.000 --> 08:53.000 I don't remember what the question was, but I think the question. 08:53.000 --> 08:55.000 I mean, there's many things we could talk about. 08:55.000 --> 08:57.000 What happened last year could just quite complicated. 08:57.000 --> 09:00.000 And actually you should read Joe's article or multiple articles about that. 09:00.000 --> 09:03.000 Topic, which are very well written, I think. 09:03.000 --> 09:10.000 But, you know, I mentioned that I had served on the OSI board in the past and won these elections. 09:10.000 --> 09:18.000 I served because I won these elections or I won these elections on the OSI board decided to, in recognition of that, 09:18.000 --> 09:21.000 those election victories in the sense. 09:21.000 --> 09:28.000 The OSI board decided in its discretion to appoint, because the OSI is not a membership organization, 09:28.000 --> 09:36.000 but it has, you know, guaranteed member representatives on the board or didn't in the past. 09:36.000 --> 09:44.000 But I will admit that, you know, I have wondered why did I actually win those three elections in the past. 09:44.000 --> 09:55.000 I think it's possible that it had something to do with name recognition among the individual membership group or the ones and the individual members who decided to vote. 09:55.000 --> 10:00.000 Although I don't know much about who the individual members actually are. 10:00.000 --> 10:08.000 And I will be honest, I'm not sure that I ran for the best reasons in the past. 10:08.000 --> 10:11.000 Last year, though, I actually had very good reasons to run. 10:11.000 --> 10:18.000 My decision kind of started out at Fauston last year, because Bradley started talking to me about the idea. 10:18.000 --> 10:24.000 And I moderated a panel here, which mostly sort of like critiquing the OSI ID. 10:24.000 --> 10:32.000 And my views on the OSI ID were sort of deeply affected by some of the views that were on that panel that I was moderating. 10:32.000 --> 10:44.000 And so Bradley and I decided to come up with this reform platform, which is almost, or maybe unique in OSI election history. 10:44.000 --> 10:51.000 I don't know, you know, people running for the OSI board would have platforms, but they were, frankly, including mine. 10:51.000 --> 10:55.000 They were kind of platitudinous if that's a correct word. 10:55.000 --> 11:00.000 They were sort of saying, you know, here's my achievements and here's why I'm involved in open source. 11:00.000 --> 11:03.000 And here's why I think the OSI is so important, blah, blah, blah. 11:03.000 --> 11:13.000 We actually had a set of planks for suggestions for reforms that we thought the OSI should implement, because we thought that the OSI was doing certain things. 11:13.000 --> 11:16.000 You know, incorrectly or sub-optimally. 11:16.000 --> 11:24.000 And so for the first time out of like four times or whatever, I decided I had a good reason to run for the OSI board. 11:24.000 --> 11:33.000 And again, we could talk a lot about what happened last year, but the main thing that happened was that a vote took place, 11:33.000 --> 11:41.000 but we never actually saw the, in a sense, we never saw who won the election. 11:41.000 --> 11:54.000 We never, the individual and affiliate members never actually got their voice reflected because the OSI chose to ignore the direct results. 11:54.000 --> 12:03.000 And they excluded Bradley and me and another person who didn't meet a certain deadline in time because we refused to, 12:03.000 --> 12:15.000 yeah, we didn't, so what happened was we were asked to sign a board agreement right after the voting took place, 12:15.000 --> 12:20.000 but before the victors were announced and that had never been done before. 12:20.000 --> 12:27.000 It doesn't really make sense to ask someone to sign a board agreement if they're just a candidate for elections. 12:27.000 --> 12:37.000 That was a requirement that was created on the spot in the sense after the voting was concluded. 12:37.000 --> 12:47.000 So that resulted, because one of our planks on a reform platform was that we were opposed to the current form of the board agreement. 12:47.000 --> 12:51.000 We did not sign the board agreement in the form in its official form. 12:51.000 --> 12:54.000 We revised, we've each had different revisions of it. 12:54.000 --> 12:58.000 And so we submitted that revised board agreements. 12:58.000 --> 13:06.000 Those were not accepted by the OSI and so we were excluded from the vote, from the vote talent. 13:06.000 --> 13:14.000 And so we don't know, we can kind of play some antics here about what it means to win an election in that kind of context. 13:14.000 --> 13:24.000 But I think in a kind of plain sense, we don't know who actually won the election because we never saw the results. 13:24.000 --> 13:28.000 Yeah, I don't want to belabor the point because I know I heard you Joe that you don't want to spend too much time on OSI. 13:28.000 --> 13:31.000 So I'll try to be the briefest of the four here on this point. 13:31.000 --> 13:35.000 By the way, we've heard from the judges and we've decided to allow platitudes. 13:35.000 --> 13:38.000 Okay, great. Yes, excellent. 13:38.000 --> 13:47.000 Yeah, and I think I agree with everything Fontana said, Richard Fontana said and probably 90% of what website for sure. 13:47.000 --> 13:57.000 I think the most fascinating thing about the OSI elections throughout their history from when they were instituted was they were not a change of the bylaws of the open source initiative. 13:57.000 --> 14:04.000 The elections were advisory and they were always advisory and it was documented that they were advisory, which meant the elections were held. 14:04.000 --> 14:10.000 There was an affiliate district, there was a member district, the votes were separate, the people who could vote were separate. 14:10.000 --> 14:25.000 The affiliate district, by the way, is all non-profit organizations, open source projects sort of actually kind of a haphazard group of about 200 of them who elected who were in the district I was in. 14:26.000 --> 14:45.000 Richard, I understood that this was a pivotal moment in OSI's history because it was the first time as Richard pointed out that anybody around a platform that was contentious and the OSI ID had made it contentious because the OSI basically had never done anything contentious before the OSI ID. 14:45.000 --> 14:48.000 So there was now a very contentious election before that. 14:48.000 --> 15:05.000 And we, as the election was going on, there were a series of just big mistakes, which were just through not now fees but bundling. 15:05.000 --> 15:09.000 And then there was one mouthpiece and thing, which is not that important. 15:09.000 --> 15:13.000 But in the end, it would have been okay. 15:13.000 --> 15:21.000 And we were actually okay with the idea that if the OSI said, look, Richard and Bradley had the most votes, we don't know if we did because the ballots were tampered with. 15:21.000 --> 15:31.000 But if they'd said, look, these people got the most votes, but we don't think for the right people for the OSI and our rules allow us to ignore the results of the election. 15:31.000 --> 15:40.000 But instead of doing that, the OSI download and you can talk more about the tonal qualities of this, but they downloaded the vote ballots from the election platform. 15:40.000 --> 15:44.000 Deleted the previous election and then rerun it election. 15:44.000 --> 15:52.000 And they were using a platform that was designed so that people could send in votes and that the organization whose election was happening wouldn't be able to do that. 15:52.000 --> 15:58.000 So they had actually canceled that election and run one where they were the only voter using the tampered ballots. 15:58.000 --> 16:01.000 And so we felt that was a very inappropriate thing to do. 16:01.000 --> 16:06.000 There's a petition that you can still sign asking the OSI just to release those results. 16:06.000 --> 16:09.000 I think everything the OSI wants to do next is a great idea. 16:09.000 --> 16:18.000 Everything Dev is pitched is a good steps one through N to figure out what to do next, but they haven't done steps zero, which is simply published the results of the past election. 16:18.000 --> 16:21.000 So we know what actually happened. 16:21.000 --> 16:22.000 All right. 16:22.000 --> 16:29.000 So let's move forward now a little bit because I think this is an interesting question. 16:29.000 --> 16:34.000 The OSI is unique in that. 16:34.000 --> 16:40.000 Most of the 501C3 organizations represent specific open source communities. 16:40.000 --> 16:41.000 You've got Python. 16:41.000 --> 16:43.000 You've got Ruby. 16:43.000 --> 16:49.000 You've got, you know, you know who your constituents are because they are the contributors. 16:50.000 --> 16:52.000 They're the users, et cetera. 16:52.000 --> 17:04.000 And I think there's a big difference of opinion between, say, maybe Bradley and Deb or somebody, about who are the constituents of OSI and how do you determine that? 17:04.000 --> 17:10.000 So how do you figure out who should really have their voice heard or considered when you, 17:10.000 --> 17:14.000 because I heard like during the OSI, AID process. 17:15.000 --> 17:20.000 We're trying to build a, I'm not going to use the word big tent because that's been spoiled recently. 17:20.000 --> 17:25.000 But we're trying to consider the opinions of people who haven't ordinarily been involved in open source. 17:25.000 --> 17:28.000 And a lot of people said, oh, wait a minute. 17:28.000 --> 17:30.000 Your constituency isn't them. 17:30.000 --> 17:31.000 It's us, right? 17:31.000 --> 17:35.000 So how do you figure that out as an organization now? 17:35.000 --> 17:38.000 And who would like to start it then? 17:38.000 --> 17:39.000 I think I have a question. 17:39.000 --> 17:40.000 All right. 17:40.000 --> 17:46.000 There's a difference between the open source AI definition, which is a specific project. 17:46.000 --> 17:50.000 And the general remit of who the constituency is for open source. 17:50.000 --> 17:52.000 There's going to be some overlap. 17:52.000 --> 18:01.000 We had the, some of the contention came in that this is the first time OSI had work with people that weren't just focused on open source software. 18:01.000 --> 18:09.000 To work on the open source AI definition, which is something that OSI took on that was very complex and very ambitious. 18:09.000 --> 18:13.000 We took it on because we were concerned about the outfall and part for open source. 18:13.000 --> 18:17.000 We had to call in people from other domains that we don't naturally work with. 18:17.000 --> 18:20.000 AI practitioners, data scientists. 18:20.000 --> 18:26.000 And some of the really difficult conversations came down with folks who said if something's going to be open, 18:26.000 --> 18:29.000 it should all be open in that includes data, right? 18:29.000 --> 18:33.000 This is a hard line that some of the folks in the open source community drew. 18:33.000 --> 18:41.000 And when I spoke to people like from Ulutur AI that forked the open AI code to create a nonprofit to make sure that it really was open, 18:41.000 --> 18:43.000 they said, no, we don't want the data. 18:43.000 --> 18:44.000 It's dirty. 18:44.000 --> 18:47.000 We don't know where the IP came from, so we don't want in the definition. 18:47.000 --> 18:54.000 And I don't think we necessarily did a good job of creating a culture where we had some conversations. 18:54.000 --> 18:59.000 So by the time the outcome was made, the people had an appreciation for the positions. 18:59.000 --> 19:00.000 So that's tricky. 19:00.000 --> 19:07.000 So there was some specific constituencies that people in that community that we hadn't normally worked with. 19:07.000 --> 19:19.000 But generally, I have to tell you my view of the constituency that OSI serves has really been colored by my last 15 years of experience in open source. 19:19.000 --> 19:20.000 I started. 19:20.000 --> 19:25.000 I spent six years at Open State University's Open Source Lab. 19:25.000 --> 19:30.000 And we hosted scores of really high impact open source communities. 19:30.000 --> 19:33.000 We hosted the Linux kernel for years. 19:33.000 --> 19:37.000 We hosted the Linux foundations infrastructure early on. 19:37.000 --> 19:39.000 Mozilla foundations infrastructure. 19:39.000 --> 19:41.000 And we were doing meaningful work. 19:41.000 --> 19:45.000 And my view of who we served was really centered around software, 19:45.000 --> 19:51.000 centered around industry, centered around specific communities that were clear to me. 19:51.000 --> 19:59.000 But over time, and particularly when I was at Red Hat, and this sort of precipitated me going back to work in civil society again. 19:59.000 --> 20:01.000 Because I started doing work with the UN. 20:01.000 --> 20:03.000 I started realizing the work. 20:03.000 --> 20:06.000 I worked with Remi on humanitarian open source software. 20:06.000 --> 20:08.000 And I worked in the public sector. 20:08.000 --> 20:15.000 And I realized that the breadth and the reach of open source software today really is quite global. 20:15.000 --> 20:19.000 And the constituency we're serving are also people that are in areas that are underserved. 20:19.000 --> 20:22.000 That wouldn't that struggle with power and clean water. 20:22.000 --> 20:25.000 And yet we still see projects that stand up. 20:25.000 --> 20:28.000 That's out of our view, you know, if you're living in a warm house. 20:28.000 --> 20:31.000 So I see a very global constituency. 20:31.000 --> 20:36.000 I think the thing that's critical is that you just need to understand your mission and understand who your mission serves. 20:36.000 --> 20:39.000 And then your obligation is to the institution to execute on the mission. 20:39.000 --> 20:45.000 And you figure out the governance that will help reflect being sensitive to how you meet those needs. 20:45.000 --> 20:46.000 Let me see if I can start. 20:46.000 --> 20:47.000 Is that platitudinous? 20:47.000 --> 20:48.000 No. 20:48.000 --> 20:49.000 Okay. 20:49.000 --> 20:50.000 Thank you. 20:50.000 --> 20:53.000 I do want to see if I can sharpen that though a little bit. 20:53.000 --> 20:55.000 And I just ask you like. 20:55.000 --> 21:01.000 Do you consider the OSI's constituency open source developers globally? 21:01.000 --> 21:03.000 Or is it bigger than that? 21:03.000 --> 21:05.000 Well, bigger than just. 21:05.000 --> 21:08.000 The development of the people who create open source. 21:08.000 --> 21:10.000 Is it bigger than that? 21:10.000 --> 21:12.000 No, I think it is broader than that. 21:12.000 --> 21:14.000 There's a bit of, and we've voiced this. 21:14.000 --> 21:15.000 I think when we excited the mission. 21:16.000 --> 21:17.000 There's a whole ecosystem. 21:17.000 --> 21:20.000 And we have that really as many foundations do. 21:20.000 --> 21:21.000 We have that needle that's red. 21:21.000 --> 21:23.000 We have sponsors. 21:23.000 --> 21:24.000 And for funding. 21:24.000 --> 21:26.000 And yet we're not obligated. 21:26.000 --> 21:28.000 I mean, we're talking about meta. 21:28.000 --> 21:30.000 We thank you Simon for those comments. 21:30.000 --> 21:32.000 We lost meta's funding that year. 21:32.000 --> 21:38.000 You know, so we understand that the end game, the who the mission is supporting. 21:38.000 --> 21:42.000 And that's going to include a broad ecosystem, not just of developers. 21:42.000 --> 21:45.000 But also, you know, people working in commercial areas. 21:45.000 --> 21:48.000 People working in humanitarian efforts. 21:48.000 --> 21:49.000 It's much broader than that. 21:49.000 --> 21:51.000 I think it's articulated in the mission. 21:51.000 --> 21:53.000 You could have lost meta for any reason. 21:53.000 --> 21:56.000 I mean, they're usually scraping around for money. 21:56.000 --> 21:58.000 So you never know. 21:58.000 --> 22:04.000 So I'm curious, you know, who else has a thought about what OSI's constituency should be? 22:04.000 --> 22:05.000 Richard? 22:05.000 --> 22:09.000 Yeah, so I mean, it's an interesting question because I don't know if it ever occurred 22:09.000 --> 22:11.000 to me to ask that question. 22:11.000 --> 22:17.000 Even though I had this history with the OSI and the OSI board, I kind of agree with Deb. 22:17.000 --> 22:22.000 I mean, I've always, if the question had been posed to me in the past, I would have assumed, 22:22.000 --> 22:24.000 well, OSI is constituents. 22:24.000 --> 22:29.000 OSI aspires to a worldwide global constituency of basically everyone. 22:29.000 --> 22:31.000 It's not certainly not just developers. 22:31.000 --> 22:38.000 There is a viewpoint that the OSI should be just, you know, serving or representing developers. 22:38.000 --> 22:41.000 That is not, like, that is on a mainstream OSI viewpoint. 22:41.000 --> 22:44.000 And it isn't what the OSI has actually done certainly. 22:44.000 --> 22:46.000 Certainly not developers. 22:46.000 --> 22:52.000 I think maybe users and that sort of sounds a little closer to the, to the FSF's mission, I suppose. 22:52.000 --> 22:55.000 But users as maybe is maybe closer. 22:55.000 --> 23:01.000 But I think it's just the, as I would have thought about it, I think if someone had asked me the question, 23:01.000 --> 23:03.000 it's really the entire world. 23:03.000 --> 23:09.000 Because the entire world is touched in some way by open source software. 23:09.000 --> 23:19.000 And the, you know, the governance mechanisms that the OSI experimented with evolved adopted were maybe sort of a, you know, 23:19.000 --> 23:30.000 a clumsy or kind of crude way of trying to get, you know, some involved in representation that reflected that global constituency. 23:30.000 --> 23:38.000 But, but I think the constituency never really quite matched the governance. 23:38.000 --> 23:40.000 I see him really was to get into this. 23:40.000 --> 23:41.000 I'll be very brief. 23:41.000 --> 23:43.000 I'll be very brief, actually. 23:43.000 --> 23:46.000 I, so I'm very much a US nonprofit geek. 23:46.000 --> 23:53.000 I don't a lot about nonprofit around the world, but my expertise is in the US where I was, unfortunately, born. 23:53.000 --> 23:55.000 And this is unfortunate. 23:55.000 --> 23:57.000 You were born or you were. 23:57.000 --> 23:58.000 Wow, you got me. 23:58.000 --> 23:59.000 It's true. 23:59.000 --> 24:01.000 Is that my demerit for my phone going off? 24:01.000 --> 24:02.000 Yes. 24:02.000 --> 24:03.000 Yes. 24:03.000 --> 24:04.000 I apologize. 24:04.000 --> 24:05.000 I deserve that. 24:05.000 --> 24:06.000 But yeah. 24:06.000 --> 24:14.000 So as, as the website, the, these non-profit charities in the US are supposed to serve a very broad 24:14.000 --> 24:15.000 constituency. 24:15.000 --> 24:20.000 In fact, they are required legally to serve the general public, which I've always loved because that's 24:20.000 --> 24:23.000 a phrase the IRS uses and it's also in our favorite license. 24:23.000 --> 24:26.000 But yes, the services to the general public. 24:26.000 --> 24:31.000 And I say that as the whole world, the, the US non-profits 5133 should serve the world. 24:31.000 --> 24:38.000 I had always assumed that the reason the OSI left the bylaws the way it was with this idea that the 24:38.000 --> 24:44.000 elections were purely advisory was because they might have to make the tough decision that somebody who won a popular 24:44.000 --> 24:51.000 election either in the affiliate district or the member district was not somebody that could trust to serve in service 24:51.000 --> 24:52.000 of the general public. 24:52.000 --> 24:55.000 So I, I guess that's what they thought of me. 24:55.000 --> 24:58.000 And Richard, if we happen to a one, I don't know. 24:58.000 --> 25:03.000 But, but I think of it that way of like that's what the IRS requires in the United States for you to get a charity 25:03.000 --> 25:09.000 to get all these tax benefits in the US no taxes paid, US donors get tax deductions. 25:09.000 --> 25:14.000 So I, I think that the constituency is the entire public, not just the open source public. 25:14.000 --> 25:19.000 It's, it's the entire public and the mission that was filed in the 1023 when they find up. 25:19.000 --> 25:22.000 Sorry, that's such a bureaucratic way of thinking about that, but that's how I think of it. 25:22.000 --> 25:23.000 All right. 25:23.000 --> 25:26.000 Yeah. 25:26.000 --> 25:27.000 Yeah. 25:27.000 --> 25:33.000 I think what Bradley and Richard said makes sense. 25:33.000 --> 25:40.000 There's like a broad general public that software effects, you know, the whole world. 25:40.000 --> 25:48.000 I mean, there are people who are avowed non software users in communities. 25:48.000 --> 25:56.000 I wouldn't say that those people are specifically included necessarily. 25:56.000 --> 26:03.000 So, and I do want to respect them. 26:03.000 --> 26:08.000 And, and then when you, when you think about that, you think, well, that's such a broad responsibility. 26:08.000 --> 26:17.000 You know, it's so strange to have a small group of people, you know, trying to have such a broad effect for 26:17.000 --> 26:25.000 so many people that they don't know haven't heard from, haven't, don't have experience meeting all of humanity. 26:25.000 --> 26:37.000 So it is, it's a strange situation, but, so, and I've thought about that over the years, like, well, how could that be better? 26:37.000 --> 26:50.000 And, mostly, I thought about it in the context of the FSF, because that's where I have an actual power to effects change more. 26:50.000 --> 27:05.000 And, you know, in a lot of times, I've just come to the conclusion that there's not a obvious practical better. 27:05.000 --> 27:09.000 The governance structure to step into. 27:09.000 --> 27:28.000 And, but I've been encouraged by the FSF having some sort of skin in the game, if you will, by being funded broadly by individuals. 27:28.000 --> 27:37.000 And, with a mission that directly deals with people and the software that they're using. 27:37.000 --> 27:57.000 So, I guess that's the, the biggest thing I wanted to say, but I mean, also want to say, I noticed, Deb saying that the first time that OSI idea was the first time OSI talks directly with people not focused on open source. 27:57.000 --> 28:08.000 And then, you know, but the people that software effects are mostly not people who are focused on the software at all. 28:08.000 --> 28:17.000 So, perhaps OSI needs to continue to try to broaden. 28:17.000 --> 28:20.000 Yeah, that's all I wanted to mention. 28:20.000 --> 28:21.000 All right. 28:21.000 --> 28:24.000 Quick poll, I'm just curious. 28:24.000 --> 28:35.000 How many folks in the audience have burning questions for this group so that I can allocate the reasonable amount of time for audience questions? 28:35.000 --> 28:39.000 So, okay, so there, what's that? 28:39.000 --> 28:41.000 Okay, so there are a number of folks. 28:41.000 --> 28:42.000 All right. 28:42.000 --> 28:52.000 I think if we've beaten the OSI horse enough, I'd like to switch topics a little bit to another governance thing that is recently cropped up. 28:52.000 --> 29:04.000 So, a community that I'm fairly familiar with, I imagine most of you are at least passingly familiar with Fedora has historically allowed people to vote in FESCO. 29:04.000 --> 29:08.000 So, Iimental-Center Engineering Steering Council elections. 29:08.000 --> 29:20.000 If you had a FESCO count and a FESCO membership, any other SIG group or something like that, which is pretty loosey goesuy and not super well maintained. 29:20.000 --> 29:26.000 It's not like Debbie and for example, which has a very stringent Debbie and developer path. 29:26.000 --> 29:30.000 You know, the fast stuff was fairly loosey goesuy, but it seemed to work for Fedora. 29:30.000 --> 29:32.400 but it seemed to work for Fedora. 29:32.400 --> 29:35.680 Recently, what came to light was one group 29:35.680 --> 29:38.120 was dulling out temporary memberships 29:38.120 --> 29:39.680 to allow people to vote when they said, 29:39.680 --> 29:43.120 it's too hard to be in a sig. 29:43.120 --> 29:46.240 And so I'd like to ask a group for a group 29:46.240 --> 29:50.520 like Fedora that is kind of got both the corporate sponsored 29:50.520 --> 29:51.520 thing going on. 29:51.520 --> 29:56.120 And hard time, how do you figure out who gets to vote? 29:56.120 --> 29:57.560 And how do you measure it? 29:57.560 --> 30:02.720 And when they don't have stringent membership groups and things 30:02.720 --> 30:03.800 like that. 30:03.800 --> 30:05.960 I have a modified version of the Winston Churchill 30:05.960 --> 30:08.960 quote, which was the democracy 30:08.960 --> 30:12.000 is the worst form of government, except for all the others. 30:12.000 --> 30:16.400 I find with false projects and false nonprofits, 30:16.400 --> 30:19.880 self-propeutuating boards are the worst form of government 30:19.880 --> 30:21.640 except for all the others. 30:21.640 --> 30:23.480 And I really think you mentioned Debbie 30:23.480 --> 30:25.040 and sort of in the middle there, the Fedora 30:25.040 --> 30:26.880 sounds like it's kind of going through things. 30:26.880 --> 30:30.480 Debbie and has gone through before in a number of different ways. 30:30.480 --> 30:34.800 Debbie and it's just so unique as the only international 30:34.800 --> 30:40.800 false republic with a constitution and a political system 30:40.800 --> 30:44.960 that's been able to survive having that kind of system. 30:44.960 --> 30:47.040 I serve on the board of directors where I work 30:47.040 --> 30:48.640 at the software freedom conservancy and where 30:48.640 --> 30:50.240 a self-propeutuating board. 30:50.240 --> 30:52.680 The OSI has technically always been a self-propeutuating 30:52.680 --> 30:53.560 board. 30:53.560 --> 30:56.680 The OSF is still a self-propeutuating board more or less. 30:56.680 --> 30:59.360 Other is that member thing, but you can explain. 30:59.360 --> 31:04.400 And most open-source projects, it's a phrase I don't like 31:04.400 --> 31:07.520 to do accuracy thing where people who show up end up in charge. 31:07.520 --> 31:10.280 And I think we're still using that model 31:10.280 --> 31:14.880 because we haven't found an electorate-based, 31:14.880 --> 31:18.920 republic, middle-art republic model that doesn't 31:18.920 --> 31:20.760 isn't gameable in this way. 31:20.760 --> 31:23.040 And I think it has to do with the micro constituency problem. 31:23.040 --> 31:27.240 There's just not enough voters for it to create a political 31:27.240 --> 31:34.360 structure that will sustain the things that a republic needs 31:34.360 --> 31:35.160 to be sustained. 31:35.160 --> 31:35.960 OK. 31:35.960 --> 31:37.840 I'd like, yeah, I was going to ask for Richard, 31:37.840 --> 31:41.960 because this may wind up on your plate and some form anyway. 31:41.960 --> 31:44.920 Yeah, I have to admit, I'm not sure I was even aware of this change 31:44.920 --> 31:48.800 possibly because I was aware of it on some conscious level, 31:48.800 --> 31:53.560 but it was too boring for me to pay my attention to. 31:53.560 --> 32:00.680 So one of the things I do provide legal support for Fedora 32:00.680 --> 32:04.200 in a certain official sense, like the Fedora. 32:04.200 --> 32:06.280 So Fedora is, I think the interesting things about Fedora 32:06.280 --> 32:12.000 governance are wrestling with having an actual big community, 32:12.000 --> 32:14.760 which is actually mostly non-red headers. 32:14.840 --> 32:19.320 But it is a creature in a sense of red hat, red hat, controls, 32:19.320 --> 32:25.760 and owns the branding, the trademarks, red hat 32:25.760 --> 32:29.640 employees, the Fedora project lead. 32:29.640 --> 32:33.200 That's probably not the right name for the position. 32:33.200 --> 32:36.840 But it's always said, OK. 32:36.840 --> 32:37.240 Yeah. 32:37.240 --> 32:43.120 And so the challenge is how do you, 32:43.120 --> 32:46.240 it's actually, in a way, I can think of a very unique project, 32:46.240 --> 32:52.320 because it has the looming corporate presence. 32:52.320 --> 32:58.360 But on the other hand, that the history is one of largely, 32:58.360 --> 33:03.160 as I have always seen it, largely stepping back, 33:03.160 --> 33:05.920 and stepping back in the sort of corporate management 33:05.920 --> 33:12.440 sets, and letting the engineers and volunteers 33:12.440 --> 33:14.640 who are not red hat employees, and engineers 33:14.640 --> 33:17.560 who are red hat employees, kind of figure things out for themselves. 33:17.560 --> 33:19.240 And that is a very interesting experiment 33:19.240 --> 33:21.840 that has not been really talked about much, 33:21.840 --> 33:24.480 but it's something that I have observed a lot. 33:24.480 --> 33:29.600 And how do you, I have noticed that in these elected 33:29.600 --> 33:32.840 Fedora bodies, you mostly have red haters, 33:32.840 --> 33:36.440 like red haters of the ones who red hat engineers, 33:36.440 --> 33:38.440 the ones who tend to run for these positions, 33:38.440 --> 33:42.280 they tend to get elected, doesn't look great 33:42.280 --> 33:45.960 if you conceive of Fedora as being this thing that 33:45.960 --> 33:49.080 aspires to being something much bigger than red hat, 33:49.080 --> 33:50.920 and in fact, it is bigger than red hat, 33:50.920 --> 33:55.760 because of all the contributors who are non-red haters. 33:55.760 --> 34:00.360 So this is something that the Fedora project has for, 34:00.360 --> 34:03.520 I guess, decades now, wrestled with and tried to figure out, 34:03.520 --> 34:07.080 and I think it's still very much a work in progress, 34:07.080 --> 34:09.080 but a very interesting one. 34:09.080 --> 34:12.240 Anybody else have thoughts? 34:12.240 --> 34:14.840 No? No? All right. 34:14.840 --> 34:16.040 All right. 34:16.040 --> 34:21.040 I think let's go ahead and turn over to some audience questions 34:21.040 --> 34:24.160 and so that we can make sure we get everybody 34:24.160 --> 34:26.560 from the audience addressed. 34:30.000 --> 34:33.080 Karen, what is the recommendation for the microphones? 34:33.080 --> 34:34.480 Just repeat the questions. 34:34.480 --> 34:35.880 I think it's better if people are chatting out 34:35.880 --> 34:36.720 and you're good. 34:36.720 --> 34:38.160 Okay, great. 34:38.160 --> 34:39.000 Who would like to go first? 34:39.000 --> 34:39.880 Let's see some hands. 34:39.880 --> 34:41.280 Who's got questions? 34:41.280 --> 34:42.120 Yes. 34:42.600 --> 34:47.120 I didn't understand what's the plan now for you, 34:47.120 --> 34:48.360 for the agency's plans, 34:48.360 --> 34:51.400 so are you going to modify the banos, 34:51.400 --> 34:53.440 or is what system, 34:53.440 --> 34:55.680 how are you going to make it into demochetical lots? 34:55.680 --> 34:56.680 Thank you. 34:58.040 --> 34:59.000 Did I question for you? 34:59.000 --> 35:00.760 I think you're a guest on the show. 35:00.760 --> 35:01.600 All right. 35:01.600 --> 35:05.400 So the question is, what's the path forward now? 35:05.400 --> 35:07.760 So you've positive election, what's going to happen? 35:07.760 --> 35:09.560 Are you going to amend the baili laws? 35:09.560 --> 35:13.400 So I want to make an extra comment about why 35:13.400 --> 35:14.760 the baili laws never changed, 35:14.760 --> 35:18.800 because we did want to see if this would be a successful process. 35:18.800 --> 35:22.320 And because changing the baili laws for a non-profit 35:22.320 --> 35:24.880 under this construct in the United States 35:24.880 --> 35:27.200 is consequential and it can actually 35:27.200 --> 35:29.000 send up a little red flag that says, 35:29.000 --> 35:31.680 re-evaluate whether or not it should be a non-profit. 35:31.680 --> 35:34.080 So we wanted to take it very seriously. 35:34.080 --> 35:35.840 This is not a play to hold back 35:35.840 --> 35:38.240 so we could not bring in someone that we thought 35:38.240 --> 35:40.800 and it would be unethetical to the organization. 35:40.800 --> 35:42.720 So the path forward is this. 35:42.720 --> 35:44.880 We're standing up a working group, 35:44.880 --> 35:47.920 and the board led working group. 35:47.920 --> 35:52.800 It'll return by the board meeting here in the month of February 35:52.800 --> 35:55.400 with its charter and with its work plan 35:55.400 --> 35:58.920 to explain how they're going to go about revisiting 35:58.920 --> 36:01.400 the best way to bring in new board members. 36:01.400 --> 36:02.600 So they could come back and say, 36:02.600 --> 36:04.000 we really should do elections. 36:04.000 --> 36:05.360 We'll do it differently. 36:05.360 --> 36:06.840 They could go back and say, 36:06.840 --> 36:10.560 well, what we want to do is find a way to create new vehicles 36:10.560 --> 36:12.360 to get member input. 36:12.360 --> 36:14.400 They'll evaluate maybe look at other models, 36:14.400 --> 36:16.800 like open-rights group is one that was suggested 36:16.800 --> 36:19.440 where it's also a self-appointed board 36:19.440 --> 36:22.600 but they have methods to be able to get recommendations. 36:22.600 --> 36:25.840 We'll probably also consider asking the OSI board 36:25.840 --> 36:28.680 to do a thorough public job of describing 36:28.680 --> 36:32.880 where they see the gaps in their own board constituency. 36:32.880 --> 36:35.480 Where they do two years ago would have been great to say, 36:35.480 --> 36:38.000 you know what, we really need someone who understands AI 36:38.000 --> 36:42.800 on a board this year and asked our constituency for ideas. 36:42.800 --> 36:45.560 But what I do is make sure that we have methods and means 36:45.560 --> 36:48.040 to collect those things and that disappoint people again. 36:48.040 --> 36:52.720 So you'll see the timelines and the charter published, 36:52.720 --> 36:53.880 I can't really exact date, 36:53.880 --> 36:56.360 but either the end of February or the first week in March, 36:56.360 --> 36:57.680 that'll be the first step. 36:57.680 --> 37:00.040 Then they have a finite period of time, 37:00.040 --> 37:02.720 probably September or the latest, probably early, 37:02.720 --> 37:05.240 but September is the date we've said in September 37:05.240 --> 37:07.800 to come back with recommendations to the board review. 37:07.800 --> 37:09.480 This is also going to give us a chance 37:09.480 --> 37:11.360 to onboard the new executive director. 37:11.360 --> 37:13.840 I think we'll have someone hopefully next month 37:13.840 --> 37:16.200 and then they'll have an opportunity to participate 37:16.200 --> 37:19.280 in that process and really bring it into execution. 37:19.280 --> 37:20.880 So that's the current plan. 37:22.840 --> 37:25.280 I just want to say I read the plan 37:25.280 --> 37:28.000 and I like the extra detail and color just put on it. 37:28.000 --> 37:30.200 It sounds like an excellent plan. 37:30.200 --> 37:31.840 I'm glad you're undertaking it. 37:31.840 --> 37:34.960 As I said earlier, it's a great step 37:34.960 --> 37:36.160 one through end. 37:36.160 --> 37:38.160 I'd like to ask you now, will you just step zero? 37:38.160 --> 37:41.680 Will you either clean up the old mistakes 37:41.680 --> 37:42.680 that have been made? 37:42.680 --> 37:45.080 Either publish the unanimized ballots 37:45.080 --> 37:47.720 or publish the on-campure election results. 37:47.720 --> 37:51.840 You have a petition in front of you with hundreds of signatures. 37:51.840 --> 37:53.080 I think about a dozen of them 37:53.080 --> 37:55.280 or from former OSI directors themselves. 37:57.160 --> 38:00.560 I believe that Richard and I won. 38:00.560 --> 38:02.080 We're now looking for board seats now. 38:02.080 --> 38:03.640 We just want the past cleaned up. 38:03.640 --> 38:05.600 Will you publish the results? 38:05.600 --> 38:10.120 So that was a board decision that preceded me 38:10.120 --> 38:12.040 and the board would need to make that decision. 38:12.040 --> 38:13.880 I think they were a public on the record 38:13.880 --> 38:15.960 and said that that wasn't their plan, 38:15.960 --> 38:17.800 but I'm happy to take it back to the point 38:17.800 --> 38:20.160 of them to discuss it with them. 38:20.160 --> 38:21.840 As exactly the doctor, will you advocate 38:21.840 --> 38:24.320 to your board to do it? 38:24.320 --> 38:27.880 To be honest, last year during election process, 38:27.880 --> 38:29.440 I was an involved in the process. 38:29.440 --> 38:30.880 I didn't run the process. 38:30.880 --> 38:33.240 So I have a very neutral opinion about this. 38:33.240 --> 38:34.680 I have a lot of respect for the board 38:34.680 --> 38:37.400 had to go through those days and they have 38:37.400 --> 38:40.360 respite reasons or whatever reasons they had, 38:40.360 --> 38:43.680 but I will advocate for them thinking about it. 38:43.680 --> 38:46.280 But I don't have an opinion on it because I don't. 38:46.280 --> 38:48.840 In part, because I don't know what it will serve 38:48.840 --> 38:53.160 in terms of moving forward, but I respect your curiosity. 38:53.160 --> 38:55.480 And I'll promise to bring it up in the next board meeting. 38:55.480 --> 38:56.080 Thank you. 38:56.080 --> 38:57.080 Appreciate it. 38:57.080 --> 38:58.560 All right. 38:59.520 --> 39:06.400 Oh, I'll add that OSI, as a last month, 39:06.400 --> 39:10.400 I looked, it still set on their front page. 39:10.400 --> 39:12.720 Become a member so you can vote. 39:12.720 --> 39:15.960 That's why I became a member. 39:15.960 --> 39:20.720 And basically, I felt pretty lied to after the last election 39:20.720 --> 39:24.680 because my vote got thrown in the trash. 39:24.680 --> 39:30.640 And it doesn't seem like it's a extremely controversial 39:30.640 --> 39:35.520 decision to just do what you said you were going to do. 39:35.520 --> 39:37.680 So that's all. 39:37.680 --> 39:41.160 All right. 39:41.160 --> 39:46.360 I see in the back kind of a pink shirt, I think it is. 39:46.360 --> 39:48.280 I can't really tell with the, yeah. 39:48.280 --> 39:52.040 I have a lot of questions on the work we do. 39:52.040 --> 39:54.400 Are you contact with, we can need a foundation 39:54.400 --> 39:58.520 on the recent changes that they did for the electoral process. 39:58.520 --> 40:02.360 For a short recap, the foundation has a separate 40:02.360 --> 40:09.040 preventing board, but it has assumed a majority of community 40:09.040 --> 40:11.720 elected members. 40:11.720 --> 40:14.160 And there were some controversy in the process. 40:14.160 --> 40:18.720 So now there is a short, least-take of process where the board 40:18.720 --> 40:22.680 keeps the voters, the candidates that they are happy with, 40:22.680 --> 40:27.360 and the electorate picks one of those. 40:27.360 --> 40:29.960 So the question of the audience is, are we aware of what 40:29.960 --> 40:34.080 a media's recent publishing of their electoral process? 40:34.080 --> 40:36.560 And will we go take it absolutely? 40:36.560 --> 40:38.800 That's part of what you can help us with here 40:38.800 --> 40:42.640 is give us reference models for other way to do things. 40:42.640 --> 40:45.080 I appreciate that. 40:45.080 --> 40:46.640 All right. 40:46.640 --> 40:48.640 Yes, you there. 40:49.200 --> 40:50.800 There wasn't controversy of the last week 40:50.800 --> 40:56.320 media election because a couple of candidates in the short 40:56.320 --> 40:58.800 place were removed. 40:58.800 --> 41:00.320 The actual reasons are not. 41:00.320 --> 41:02.200 No, but there was some speculation that it was 41:02.200 --> 41:05.840 pretty to do their use. 41:05.840 --> 41:10.240 The fact that they were made up on making cars being present 41:10.240 --> 41:14.880 with, I mean, it's not for get status question. 41:14.880 --> 41:17.320 So my question is, is there anything to be done 41:17.320 --> 41:20.440 for organizations that have a global beat 41:20.440 --> 41:23.920 by some legal basis thing that you asked? 41:23.920 --> 41:30.520 So you avoid this kind of threat from affecting their functioning 41:30.520 --> 41:32.920 or their elections? 41:32.920 --> 41:37.640 So the question was, basically, is there anything that can be 41:37.640 --> 41:42.880 done for organizations based in the US that have a global 41:42.880 --> 41:48.360 constituency to deal with possible legal threats that 41:48.360 --> 41:51.760 only really exist in the US right now? 41:51.760 --> 41:54.080 And can I feel one? 41:54.080 --> 41:56.360 Yes, all right. 41:56.360 --> 42:00.480 So as a US-based person, also, unfortunately, 42:00.480 --> 42:03.800 is Bradley said, unfortunately, not both, 42:03.800 --> 42:05.360 can't really. 42:05.360 --> 42:11.920 But I would say that a lot of organizations, if things 42:11.920 --> 42:15.200 don't change in the United States and the very near future, 42:15.200 --> 42:19.360 should be thinking really hard about either a sister 42:19.360 --> 42:29.160 organization or relocating to a less contentious country. 42:29.160 --> 42:32.160 And I'd be curious what you all think about that. 42:35.160 --> 42:38.920 I mean, I'm going to get sort of probably a lot of debbing 42:38.920 --> 42:40.920 developers coming out to me saying that the debbing 42:40.920 --> 42:44.520 processes, there's problems in nebium, which we all know there are. 42:44.520 --> 42:48.960 But I really, debbing seems like lightning in a bottle to me. 42:48.960 --> 42:52.000 It's magic that it is a constitutional international 42:52.000 --> 42:57.800 republic, and it's still been running for 35 some years, I think. 42:57.800 --> 43:01.280 And I wish I knew how to recreate that, 43:01.280 --> 43:04.560 because I think that's the right structure for open source 43:04.560 --> 43:06.280 and free software. 43:06.280 --> 43:09.720 It doesn't have any official entity that it's 43:09.720 --> 43:13.040 under affiliate, it doesn't work with SFC, it does work with SPI, 43:13.040 --> 43:17.280 it does work with a bunch of EVs and Germany and so forth. 43:17.280 --> 43:20.280 And it tends to be the case that all these organizations end up 43:20.280 --> 43:23.440 legally existing wherever the original people that started them. 43:23.440 --> 43:26.120 Katie is an EV in Germany, because most of the original 43:26.120 --> 43:27.920 Katie developers are there. 43:27.920 --> 43:31.000 It's a five-aliency three because mostly original developers were in 43:31.000 --> 43:32.840 the United States at the time. 43:32.840 --> 43:37.480 So I think this is a basically an unsolved problem. 43:37.480 --> 43:40.960 I spent a lot of time working in my day job. 43:40.960 --> 43:43.280 It's all for freedom conservancy trying to figure out what we have 43:43.280 --> 43:45.840 lots of our member projects that we serve. 43:45.840 --> 43:49.000 They're like, well, I don't necessarily just want to be in the US 43:49.000 --> 43:51.480 for all the reasons Joe was saying and others. 43:51.480 --> 43:53.800 And we're like, well, you can go to another nonprofit. 43:53.800 --> 43:55.160 But why don't I want to be in the Netherlands? 43:55.160 --> 43:55.880 I don't want to be in Germany. 43:55.880 --> 43:57.640 I want to be everywhere. 43:57.640 --> 43:59.760 And I also want to be in the US as well. 43:59.760 --> 44:03.360 And I've talked to all my colleagues who've started nonprofits 44:03.360 --> 44:04.160 around the world. 44:04.960 --> 44:09.080 There's kind of this solution unless you become an agency of the UN. 44:09.080 --> 44:14.000 We kind of need to came in islands for open source. 44:14.000 --> 44:17.040 So Jed, Deb, you have been a board member of the Eclipse 44:17.040 --> 44:22.000 Foundation, and they're not a charitable nonprofit, 44:22.000 --> 44:25.560 but they are an example of one that has reconstituted itself 44:25.560 --> 44:28.400 as a European organization. 44:28.400 --> 44:29.400 Yes. 44:29.400 --> 44:31.040 So do you want to comment on that? 44:31.040 --> 44:32.840 No, I mean, I think that if we have more time, 44:32.840 --> 44:35.000 like, I think there's a more interesting question 44:35.000 --> 44:37.640 lurking here that Bradley was kind of hinting at, 44:37.640 --> 44:41.440 which is that there is a tension between these structures 44:41.440 --> 44:43.640 that get these formal structures that get created 44:43.640 --> 44:47.320 to help communities or projects and the projects themselves. 44:47.320 --> 44:51.440 And like years ago, I gave a talk here that was very critical 44:51.440 --> 44:55.920 of foundations or at least like trade association foundations. 44:55.920 --> 45:00.400 And I think that was kind of rooted in some of those concerns. 45:00.400 --> 45:03.680 So there is a kind of deep question here, 45:03.680 --> 45:09.520 maybe not so relevant to the OSI or even the FSF about what 45:09.520 --> 45:14.560 is the point of these kinds of administrative entities 45:14.560 --> 45:19.360 and the sense that spring up above some sort of organic, 45:19.360 --> 45:23.560 organically developing community or software development project. 45:30.400 --> 45:34.840 So I, as you were saying with the constituents, 45:34.840 --> 45:39.440 was like, the people who were voting was much less, 45:39.440 --> 45:43.080 which is like 300 or 600 people. 45:43.080 --> 45:47.160 Now, the FSF is not going to last time. 45:47.160 --> 45:50.960 We have some planning to do it. 45:50.960 --> 45:53.560 And this is a highly confidential in the sense 45:53.560 --> 45:58.680 that the OSI, the FSF, is a degree of this sort 45:58.680 --> 46:00.720 of a different animal problem. 46:00.720 --> 46:05.680 This initials like 30s and 30s, which 46:05.680 --> 46:10.040 generally the software developer are not really excited about. 46:10.040 --> 46:11.880 So which is very important. 46:11.880 --> 46:13.800 It's like the mother and the teacher, a mother 46:13.800 --> 46:15.360 who you take for granted and the teacher, 46:15.360 --> 46:17.560 you are like always obliged to. 46:17.560 --> 46:24.360 So why we are expecting that OSI or FSF is going to have 46:24.360 --> 46:29.440 that many people as of the point. 46:29.440 --> 46:33.440 I'm sure I'm the sixth point. 46:33.440 --> 46:35.840 I guess the point was that when OSI, 46:35.840 --> 46:37.040 you need to repeat the question. 46:37.040 --> 46:38.280 I'm sorry. 46:38.280 --> 46:40.680 OK, so the question is around. 46:40.680 --> 46:45.320 And to give an example of Python foundation, 46:45.320 --> 46:48.600 having about, which is 900 people voting, 46:48.600 --> 46:50.520 and it's more specific, and it's different, 46:50.520 --> 46:52.680 and then a narrow limit to OSI. 46:52.680 --> 46:55.080 Why would we expect to be there to be more voters? 46:55.080 --> 46:58.200 Well, I think OSI expected that because I 46:58.200 --> 47:02.920 don't know why I look at the AFF who has tens of thousands. 47:02.920 --> 47:06.960 We had a notion that we would have broader representation. 47:06.960 --> 47:07.840 That was our aspiration. 47:07.840 --> 47:11.000 We found out that really did work out the way we thought, 47:11.000 --> 47:13.880 just because of the global reach of OSI. 47:13.880 --> 47:15.880 Membership was not the same. 47:15.880 --> 47:18.720 I mean, I figured you'd have at least one voter for every license. 47:18.720 --> 47:20.720 And that's no. 47:20.720 --> 47:21.720 Yeah. 47:21.720 --> 47:22.600 Oh, wow. 47:22.600 --> 47:23.600 So, yeah. 47:23.600 --> 47:26.160 I'm sorry. 47:26.160 --> 47:27.160 Sorry. 47:27.160 --> 47:28.320 Simon has a question. 47:28.320 --> 47:29.960 Simon's going to tell me, no, they don't really 47:29.960 --> 47:31.240 have that many licenses. 47:31.240 --> 47:32.200 Yeah, Simon. 47:32.200 --> 47:43.200 I'm trying to relate some examples of how to run these sorts of presses. 47:43.200 --> 47:47.880 So my favorite at the moment is open rights for the UK 47:47.880 --> 47:52.960 who uses a list of candidates for the world that 47:52.960 --> 47:57.120 are using, considers the company's various constituencies. 47:57.120 --> 48:01.640 And I know both FSF and SFC have self-controls. 48:01.640 --> 48:04.680 And I want to hire you if you get to know how your guarantee 48:04.680 --> 48:08.640 you go representing your constituencies to regard that professor. 48:08.640 --> 48:09.000 OK. 48:09.000 --> 48:17.000 So the question and comment was he wants to know how SFC and others 48:17.000 --> 48:22.000 are guaranteeing their constituencies by appointed boards? 48:22.000 --> 48:23.000 Yeah. 48:23.000 --> 48:24.000 I'll do a first. 48:24.000 --> 48:31.000 I think basically I've already answered this question. 48:31.000 --> 48:33.000 So I'm not sure why Simon's asking it again. 48:33.000 --> 48:38.440 But as I said, I think self-propecuated leadership groups are the worst form 48:38.440 --> 48:42.200 of government except for all the others for open source and free software projects. 48:42.200 --> 48:46.000 I've not been able to come up with another model other than Debbie 48:46.000 --> 48:49.680 and which I've already said, I don't think anybody's been able to reproduce that. 48:49.680 --> 48:51.920 And I wish they would. 48:51.920 --> 48:54.800 It's interesting that you mentioned open rights group because they have a similar structure 48:54.800 --> 48:58.600 to Wikimedia, which we've heard from two people in Hawaii and says having problems 48:58.600 --> 49:01.720 we're using that structure. 49:01.720 --> 49:06.000 I think, again, I'm kind of bureaucratic on this, unfortunately. 49:06.000 --> 49:11.600 But the only way you can stay a charitable organization in the United States 49:11.600 --> 49:18.800 is having filed a form 1023 that states exactly what your mission is and prove to the regulators 49:18.800 --> 49:23.120 that it serves the general public and then you are audited every year and you have to file 49:23.120 --> 49:29.600 forms every year to explain exactly to both the public and the regulatory body how you've 49:29.600 --> 49:31.600 served the general public. 49:31.600 --> 49:36.280 I believe transparency is just so essential in these situations, which is why I think it's 49:37.280 --> 49:46.280 so unfortunate that OSI in the last election that they did refused to be transparent. 49:46.280 --> 49:52.280 Yeah, I mean, I think kind of what I said earlier is it's a little bit impossible 49:52.280 --> 50:01.280 but to have such a broad mission to represent everybody in the world. 50:01.280 --> 50:03.280 But your question... 50:03.280 --> 50:05.280 I said can you request a question? 50:05.280 --> 50:07.280 Because I know you do not do it. 50:07.280 --> 50:09.280 Yes. 50:09.280 --> 50:15.280 Okay, yeah, but yeah, that's why I got you. 50:15.280 --> 50:23.280 So, when we were, when I had to think through, you know, what's the right way for us to get 50:24.280 --> 50:28.280 new board members and I heard Deb say new members. 50:28.280 --> 50:35.280 But, you know, the question if you're thinking from a governance perspective is not just a new board 50:35.280 --> 50:38.280 members but is even the existing ones. 50:38.280 --> 50:41.280 Who's the right people to govern the organization? 50:41.280 --> 50:52.280 And so I would say, you know, in the nonprofit realm there is a big... 50:52.280 --> 50:59.280 If you read the literature, there's a big emphasis on recruiting and having a pipeline 50:59.280 --> 51:05.280 a process that can repeat itself and that way you're constantly... 51:05.280 --> 51:08.280 You're not neglecting this issue. 51:08.280 --> 51:11.280 You're constantly bringing in new people. 51:11.280 --> 51:12.280 It helps... 51:12.280 --> 51:17.280 For most nonprofits, it helps to get fresh ideas and fresh energy. 51:17.280 --> 51:19.280 That's all good things. 51:19.280 --> 51:27.280 But, you know, for organizations like the FSF and probably OSI2, it's also really good to have 51:27.280 --> 51:35.280 maybe more than other nonprofits, existing people who have long experience and rooted values. 51:35.280 --> 51:46.280 So, what we did was we set up a process which we documented extremely thoroughly in... 51:46.280 --> 51:53.280 ahead of time internally, then we published a... 51:53.280 --> 52:00.280 Well, actually two different documents explaining it to the public in a abbreviated form, 52:00.280 --> 52:09.280 which I could summarize as put out a call for people who wanted to join our board. 52:09.280 --> 52:18.280 And then that call would have some questions for those people. 52:18.280 --> 52:24.280 Those answers would get vetted or get examined by the existing board. 52:24.280 --> 52:30.280 People with plausible answers moved through to being published a list of people. 52:30.280 --> 52:36.280 And then we opened the discussion forum to discuss those people and actually have... 52:36.280 --> 52:42.280 Anybody in our community asked them questions about their... 52:42.280 --> 52:44.280 You know, candidacy, how they... 52:44.280 --> 52:46.280 Whether they would be good board members. 52:46.280 --> 52:49.280 And that whole process was really enlightening. 52:49.280 --> 52:52.280 Really, really worked well. 52:52.280 --> 52:55.280 I mean, it took... 52:55.280 --> 52:59.280 We had a lot of engagement. 52:59.280 --> 53:01.280 We learned a bit. 53:01.280 --> 53:09.280 Basically, you know, people are not that interested in governance generally. 53:09.280 --> 53:23.280 So, you have to design the process in a way that people can jump in and make a contribution that's valuable in evaluating potential candidates. 53:23.280 --> 53:26.280 And we think that happens. 53:26.280 --> 53:33.280 And I actually think I would like to do some writing about the whole process in reflecting on it. 53:33.280 --> 53:35.280 So, I really appreciate the question. 53:35.280 --> 53:36.280 All right. 53:36.280 --> 53:38.280 Sorry, we're very close on time. 53:38.280 --> 53:40.280 We have several hands up. 53:40.280 --> 53:41.280 We only have time for one. 53:41.280 --> 53:44.280 Can you just read the access to the... 53:44.280 --> 53:48.280 I think this important is the nomination phase. 53:48.280 --> 53:51.280 Yeah, as I said, I missed the nomination phase. 53:51.280 --> 53:53.280 Yeah, that was super important. 53:53.280 --> 53:57.280 So, we took nominations from the general public. 53:57.280 --> 54:01.280 People could self-nominate or nominate others. 54:01.280 --> 54:09.280 And because one of the things we realize is not everybody was part of our community. 54:09.280 --> 54:10.280 Not everybody. 54:10.280 --> 54:12.280 There might be candidates who... 54:12.280 --> 54:16.280 Wonderful candidates who weren't even interested had never heard of the F stuff, 54:16.280 --> 54:19.280 who we would need to go out and scout and recruit. 54:19.280 --> 54:21.280 So, yeah. 54:21.280 --> 54:22.280 All right. 54:22.280 --> 54:25.280 So, I'm going to call it actually, so that was... 54:25.280 --> 54:27.280 We're down to like one minute. 54:27.280 --> 54:29.280 So, please, everybody. 54:29.280 --> 54:33.280 I really want to say I appreciate everybody for being here. 54:33.280 --> 54:37.280 I appreciate that we've all been pretty... 54:37.280 --> 54:44.280 You know, kind about the issue that I think had raised some feelings. 54:44.280 --> 54:48.280 And, yeah, just thank you all for being here. 54:48.280 --> 54:49.280 You have like 30 seconds. 54:49.280 --> 54:52.280 We'd like to thank you for being our moderator. 54:52.280 --> 54:56.280 I think I can speak for everybody to say we all appreciate your journalism. 54:56.280 --> 54:59.280 And that's why we wanted you as our moderator. 54:59.280 --> 55:01.280 I think everybody would agree. 55:01.280 --> 55:03.280 You've done a wonderful job and we really appreciate it. 55:03.280 --> 55:05.280 Thank you. 55:09.280 --> 55:12.280 All right, and thanks for everybody being here. 55:15.280 --> 55:17.280 Do you want to make a... 55:17.280 --> 55:19.280 I don't know if you'd like to be here. 55:19.280 --> 55:22.280 I don't know if you'd like to have a crowd. 55:22.280 --> 55:24.280 I don't know if you'd like to have a crowd. 55:24.280 --> 55:26.280 I don't know if you'd like to have a crowd. 55:26.280 --> 55:28.280 So, there's one more to come. 55:28.280 --> 55:29.280 Oh, okay. 55:29.280 --> 55:30.280 Sorry. 55:30.280 --> 55:32.280 Okay, I'll take a closer. 55:32.280 --> 55:33.280 I'll just be here now. 55:33.280 --> 55:34.280 Okay. 55:34.280 --> 55:36.280 Oh, no minute to second mic. 55:36.280 --> 55:37.280 Okay. 55:37.280 --> 55:39.280 I don't know if we'd like to have a crowd. 55:39.280 --> 55:40.280 Leave it on. 55:40.280 --> 55:41.280 Leave it on. 55:42.280 --> 55:43.280 Sorry. 55:49.280 --> 55:52.280 I think we need to do a good job.