[FOSDEM] Google, FSFE, safety of women and volunteers

[Wouter Verhelst]

Hi Daniel,

[disclaimer: although I'm using my @fosdem.org email address, please
note that the below is my personal opinion and I'm not speaking for any
part of FOSDEM in an official capacity]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 07:32:58PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 11/01/2021 18:59, pjotr.public445 at thebird.nl wrote:
> > This list is for organising FOSDEM 2021. While I sympathise with some
> > of the ideas and sentiments, I don't think it should be discussed on
> > this mailing list. Maybe the organizers can set up a FOSDEM policy
> > mailing list for this type of discussion, people take it there, and we
> > stop the thread where it is now on this list?
> 
> In recent times, there has been a lot of talk about people who were
> enablers for Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump and other undesirables.
> 
> FOSDEM can't be an enabler for Google and their sock puppets any more.

FOSDEM isn't an enabler of anyone.

Our sponsorship policy is very clear on what FOSDEM sponsorship does for
a sponsor:

- We accept your money
- In return, we mention the name and/or logo of your company in a few
  places (where exactly depends on how much money you give us)
- You have no other influence over us.

Specifically, sponsors have no influence over the schedule (the content
team is wholly separate from and independent of the sponsorship team) or
over who does or does not get a stand (the decision which stands to
accept is wholly based on merits and on whether it is about free
software, not whether someone is a sponsor).

To suggest otherwise is not based in facts and has no place on this
mailinglist.

A few years ago, someone put up banners at FOSDEM that decried the
behavior of several companies, including Google and other companies that
are also FOSDEM sponsors. FOSDEM staff did not take those banners away;
the suggestion of doing so did not even come up. I believe that this
example shows clearly that sponsorhip has no influence over FOSDEM.

> Google is to the CIA what Blackwater are to the police.
> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=blackwater+pardon&t=ffab&ia=web

FOSDEM is neither police nor CIA, so I fail to see how this is relevant.

> FSFE now gets 20% of their budget from Google.  This means that several
> booths at FOSDEM, including the FSFE booth, are part of a giant Google
> echo chamber.  That is a massive fraud and deception upon the FOSDEM
> audience.

FOSDEM is not the FSFE. As for the FSFE's booth, where people get their
sponsorship from does not influence our decision on whether or not to
decide they get a stand.

[...]
> Look at the way Google kicked out Timnit Gebru before Christmas.  Truly
> evil.  Copy that move from the Google playbook: Kick Google and their
> sock puppets out of FOSDEM.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timnit_Gebru

On a personal level, I agree with you that some of the more recent
actions which Google has been taking (such as firing Timnit) are
questionable, at best -- and possibly quite evil at worst.

However, at times like these I am reminded of a talk RMS gave at an
early FOSDEM, where he pointed out that large corporations are usually
many-headed beasts. One business unit of the large corporation may be
evil, while at the same time another group within the very same
corporation may be cooperating with the Free and Open Source movement as
a model citizen.

This is true for Google too, who develops a large amount of Free
Software themselves (Kubernetes & Chromium are two examples; they also
sent a not-insignificant amount of patches to the Linux kernel)

As such, I don't think using a number of examples of how a company is a
bad citizen while at the same time ignoring all the examples of how that
same company is a good citizen, is in any way or shape helpful to the
FOSDEM community.

Google wishes to help FOSDEM in a financial manner. We should thank them
for that, because without our sponsors FOSDEM simply wouldn't exist. And
while I will agree with no reservations that there are certain ways in
which I'd like Google to change its culture, I don't think discussing
that is in any way or shape on topic for this mailinglist.

Also, note that in "sponsors" I include all the attendees that buy a
T-shirt at the info desk (or online, as the case may be); in fact the
sum of attendee donations is probably larger than the money donated by
most of our other sponsors.

Thanks for your understanding.

-- 
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy

  -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard