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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Saturday January 23 2016, @08:16PM

    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 23 2016, @08:16PM (#293698) Homepage Journal

    It seems likely that this is simple self-defense. When Karen Sandler became head of the GNOME foundation, she nearly bankrupted the organization with her pet project, the Outreach Program for Women. This is just like the people trying to impose political "codes of conduct" on OSS projects, and fighting against a politically neutral code of merit [code-of-merit.org]. Their priorities are not with the project; they want to use the project to further their personal, political goals. Not the sort of person you want on your board.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Troll=2, Interesting=2, Informative=1, Underrated=2, Total=7
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2016, @08:25PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2016, @08:25PM (#293703)

    The first programmer was a woman. Perhaps you've heard of Ada? There's a programming language named after her, but nobody uses it. Sexist fratboy brogrammers took over, forced women out of a field that a woman pioneered, changed the name from "programming" to "coding" and act like they're God's gift to the universe. Coders are the problem here. We need to get rid of them.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2016, @09:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2016, @09:01PM (#293716)

      I studied computer science. There were 10% women enrolled. For the "technical hardcore" subjects (e.g. compilers 202) we usually had 0% to 5% women (i.e.: up to one female in a class of twenty to thirty humans).

      But hey, fine with me. I'm a man, and I can also be a fulltime ski instructor. By all means do get rid of the male coders! Fast as you can!

      And I'll sit by in the snow, happily watching *your* business slide into chaos for lack of software maintenance, while contemplating your smirking "You're fired, John".

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2016, @09:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2016, @09:19PM (#293721)

        You're fired, John. Not because you're a man. Because your job is being outsourced to adequately unskilled workers. Because your job is less "hardcore" than you think it is. Because mindlessly copying and pasting code snippets from Stack Overflow is less "technical" than you think it is. Women know coding is a dead end career. Women know when to leave.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2016, @09:24PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2016, @09:24PM (#293722)

          So wtf is it then with all the "girls can code" bullshit being forced down kids throats?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2016, @04:25AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2016, @04:25AM (#293810)

            Why do you care? Some will like it, and a small percentage of those may choose to pursue it professionally. Most won't. It's not like the office will be flooded with women coders.

          • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Sunday January 24 2016, @04:43AM

            by dyingtolive (952) on Sunday January 24 2016, @04:43AM (#293815)

            Twice the competition for jobs. Less people looking for handouts (read: reasonable wages).

            --
            Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2016, @09:31PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2016, @09:31PM (#293724)

          *clacks ski boots into bindings*

          *smiles at attractive businesswoman in cold-weather attire*

          Come on, 30 more minutes to the lodge for tonight, 10 more and I'll have a good fire going for us :-)

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 26 2016, @12:08PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 26 2016, @12:08PM (#294868)

          If it didn't require skill you could have computer do it for you. No need for outsourcing.

    • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Sunday January 24 2016, @12:14AM

      by Nerdfest (80) on Sunday January 24 2016, @12:14AM (#293758)

      She also had merit. Your point?

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday January 24 2016, @02:28AM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Sunday January 24 2016, @02:28AM (#293780)

      That's a big pile of crap. I graduated college before the Millenial "brogrammers" took over the industry with their ugly, flat, anti-skeumorphic UIs, and before the term "coding" replaced "programming", and there were almost no women in CS and engineering back then either. It wasn't because of sexism, it was because women weren't interested. Women only had programming jobs back in the really old days when women weren't allowed to do "man's work", and programming was somehow considered on par with secretarial work. After the sexual revolution, women were allowed into lots of "men's" jobs like lawyering, doctors, etc. (instead of just legal assistants and nurses and aides), so smart women went into those professions, and mostly ignored engineering and CS, which were seem as the domain of geeks.

      • (Score: 1) by Deeo Kain on Sunday January 24 2016, @02:26PM

        by Deeo Kain (5848) on Sunday January 24 2016, @02:26PM (#293942)

        Programming never ever was "considered on par with secretarial work" in the past. Please provide any reference to prove your allegation.

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2016, @08:36PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2016, @08:36PM (#293706)

    Their priorities are not with the project; they want to use the project to further their personal, political goals.

    [Citation needed]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2016, @03:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2016, @03:15AM (#293790)

      Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Look at what Sandler has done earlier in her life.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2016, @08:02AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2016, @08:02AM (#293853)

        Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Look at what Sandler has done earlier in her life.

        Not all of us are as well informed as you obviously are. Please provide some details and documentation about "what Sandler has done earlier in her life."

        Pretty please!