Slash Boxes

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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday January 26 2016, @12:06AM

    by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <{axehandle} {at} {}> 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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2