Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday January 23 2016, @06:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the we-stay-bought dept.

Matthew Garrett reports

The Linux Foundation is an industry organisation dedicated to promoting, protecting and standardising Linux and open source software. The majority of its board is chosen by the member companies: 10 by platinum members (platinum membership costs $500,000 a year), 3 by gold members (gold membership costs $100,000 a year), and 1 by silver members (silver membership costs between $5,000 and $20,000 a year, depending on company size).

Up until recently, individual members ($99 a year) could also elect two board members, allowing for community perspectives to be represented at the board level. As of [January 18], this is no longer true.

The by-laws were amended to drop the clause that permitted individual members to elect any directors. Section 3.3(a) now says that no affiliate members may be involved in the election of directors, and section 5.3(d) still permits at-large directors but does not require them[2]. The old version of the bylaws are here--the only non-whitespace differences are in sections 3.3(a) and 5.3(d).

These changes all happened shortly after Karen Sandler announced that she planned to stand for the Linux Foundation board during a presentation last September [YouTube]. A short time later, the "Individual membership" program was quietly renamed to the "Individual supporter" program and the promised benefit of being allowed to stand for and participate in board elections was dropped (compare the old page to the new one). Karen is the executive director of the Software Freedom Conservancy, an organisation involved in the vitally important work of GPL enforcement.

Roy Schestowitz at TechRights entitled his coverage
The Linux Foundation Has Become Like a Corporate Think Tank; Microsoft Influence Included

[Our extensive coverage of malfeasance at the European Patent Office] has prevented us from covering as much about the Linux Foundation as we used to, including payments from Microsoft, services to Microsoft, and abandonment of GPL enforcement efforts because GPL enforcers went after a Microsoft executives-run VMware.

Several of the places that covered this remarked about the extremely quiet nature of the process.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Saturday January 23 2016, @06:23PM

    by opinionated_science (4031) on Saturday January 23 2016, @06:23PM (#293666)

    I read this elsewhere first , and got the impression there was some revolution in place, or at least a coup.

    Of course, this is what the politically minded do, change the paperwork when noone is looking, and then enforce a new regime.

    I have seen it done at least once in my professional career by an HR dept.

    I imagine this is along the same lines...

    Anyone actually know what is going on?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2016, @06:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2016, @06:26PM (#293668)

    "Anyone actually know what is going on?"

    One Microsoft Way.

    Beware those who want to wrap their version of [virtual] reality around your head!

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Sunday January 24 2016, @02:34AM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <reversethis-{moc ... {8691tsaebssab}> on Sunday January 24 2016, @02:34AM (#293781) Journal

      It ain't got squat to do with MSFT, who are too busy shooting themselves in the foot with Windows "oh hai, I be spyware lulz" 10 to care.

      You mark my words and mark them well, its gonna come out that its being done by Red Hat to cut down on the dissent when Linux is made a second class citizen wrt SystemD. Anybody who has bothered following the posts by Larry Potter knows he has made it VERY clear that his ultimate goal is to make SystemD the dominant OS like a souped up hypervisior with Linux being nothing but a VM running on top. This fits in with RH's "Cloud Everywhere" computing initiative but I'm thinking the Linux faithful? Are really not gonna like being kicked to the curb for Larry Potter and the ever expanding SystemD.

      I'm telling you its all gonna come to a head in the next year to year and a half and it'll be VERY nasty, I'm betting RH and the devs they have placed in high places (look how many of the key positions at Debian and Ubuntu are former RH employees) are gonna try to just straight up take control of the whole shebang and by getting as many dissenting voices out of the way as possible they are getting things ready for the move. Its no different than what they did when they first pushed SystemD, you had devs that up until that point would bury you with stats and technobabble for why this or that change would be best suddenly throwing ad hominems and insults like "luddite" while damned near taking every single talking point from the Windows Metro guys like "embrace the innovation" and "its the way of the future".

      Something stinks in Denmark guys, and me thinks it be Red Hat and Larry Potter.

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2016, @08:34AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2016, @08:34AM (#293858)

        "It ain't got squat to do with MSFT,"

        Sure it does!

        "who are too busy shooting themselves in the foot with Windows "oh hai, I be spyware lulz" 10 to care."

        Yeah, like it was all an accident.. the eyes of m$ are everywhere, especially anywhere open source has any chance of hindering their power.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2016, @06:56PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2016, @06:56PM (#293672)

    The continued war against open systems. Corporate control is necessary, can't have a bunch of people running around without approved software systems.

  • (Score: 2) by ilPapa on Saturday January 23 2016, @07:34PM

    by ilPapa (2366) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 23 2016, @07:34PM (#293684) Journal

    "Thank you for coming Mr Jones. We just wanted to let you know that your status has been changed from "employee" to "consultant". You now have the satisfaction of knowing that your value to the company has been maximized. Please sign here, here and initial here to indicate that you understand these changes."

    --
    You are still welcome on my lawn.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by http on Saturday January 23 2016, @07:38PM

    by http (1920) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 23 2016, @07:38PM (#293685)

    The second thing to do after "follow the money" is see who moved for the change and who seconded it.

    --
    I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday January 24 2016, @02:22AM

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Sunday January 24 2016, @02:22AM (#293779)

    Can you please elaborate a little on your anecdote about an HR department taking over a company? That sounds like an interesting story.

    It reminds me of the company "Extron Electronics" that I had an interview scheduled with. I read the reviews on Glassdoor.com and was so horrified I called up the recruiter and canceled. There were so many stories about how the HR department ran the place, and even had cameras watching the bathrooms so they could time how long employees spent in there.

    • (Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Sunday January 24 2016, @11:24AM

      by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <{axehandle} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday January 24 2016, @11:24AM (#293900)

      Can you please elaborate a little on your anecdote about an HR department taking over a company? That sounds like an interesting story.

      Anybody who has spent any time in any large organisation can describe it (it's a standard empire building technique).

      It reminds me of the company "Extron Electronics" that I had an interview scheduled with. I read the reviews on Glassdoor.com and was so horrified I called up the recruiter and canceled. There were so many stories about how the HR department ran the place, and even had cameras watching the bathrooms so they could time how long employees spent in there.

      Dilbert is semisatirical entertainment; it is NOT meant to be a fine manual. But it is interesting that so many HR types (or "People Services" in some places) take it so.

      --
      It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday January 24 2016, @05:33PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Sunday January 24 2016, @05:33PM (#294003)

        Anybody who has spent any time in any large organisation can describe it (it's a standard empire building technique).

        I completely disagree. I've worked at several very large organizations (including two huge semiconductor manufacturers) and the HR departments did not run those companies in any way.

        • (Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Sunday January 24 2016, @11:53PM

          by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <{axehandle} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday January 24 2016, @11:53PM (#294135)

          I completely disagree. I've worked at several very large organizations (including two huge semiconductor manufacturers) and the HR departments did not run those companies in any way.

          I really wish my experiences had been the same as yours.

          --
          It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday January 25 2016, @05:40PM

            by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday January 25 2016, @05:40PM (#294486)

            Well, are you going to elaborate as I've requested before? Or am I supposed to believe your vague charges of "HR running the company"? How exactly did HR "run" the company at your workplaces?

            • (Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday January 26 2016, @12:06AM

              by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <{axehandle} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday January 26 2016, @12:06AM (#294677)

              Well, are you going to elaborate as I've requested before?

              I understood you were responding to opinionated_science, post #293666.

              How exactly did HR "run" the company at your workplaces?

              Generally the object was to gain political power within the organisations; the worst situation was where all sections were having their budgets drastically cut except HR which had theirs increased (even though staff numbers were decreasing). I don't know the actual mechanics of how they did it, but the proportion of upper management who came from HR was very high.

              In each case, the point was to increase the size and power of the HR empire. The overall running of the organisation was only affected as necessary to achieve that goal. HR weren't the only empire builders, but they were the most efficient.

              --
              It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.