Bonum Certa Men Certa

How to THRIVE, in Uncertain Times for Free Software

By figosdev

THRIVE



Summary: "The guidelines are barely about conduct anyway, they are more about process guidelines for "what to do with your autonomy" in the context of a larger group where participation is completely voluntary and each individual consents to participate."

First things first: apologies for the acronym.



To Help Realise Ideal Volunteer Efforts

These guidelines were written in late July, before the FSF Titanic series or Stallman stepping down. The reaction I tend to expect to a list like this is: "Oh no, a Code of Conduct."

"The guidelines are barely about conduct anyway, they are more about process guidelines for "what to do with your autonomy" in the context of a larger group where participation is completely voluntary and each individual consents to participate. In other words these are intended to assist, not be imposed. Maybe a better way to consider them is as a sort of informal RFC."If that's your concern, I can appreciate it. Which is why the thrive guidelines have their own Code-of-Conduct Escape clause:

"Wherever these guidelines are misused to threaten community and development, they should be regarded with scrutiny -- whenever these guidelines help create a foundation for purposeful development and progress, they should be considered thoughtfully."

This is despite the fact (and hopefully reinforces the idea) that the guidelines are intended to be non-binding.

The guidelines are barely about conduct anyway, they are more about process guidelines for "what to do with your autonomy" in the context of a larger group where participation is completely voluntary and each individual consents to participate. In other words these are intended to assist, not be imposed. Maybe a better way to consider them is as a sort of informal RFC.

I will quote each of the ten guidelines one a time, then comment on each in the hopes of further clarification.

1. "Integrity and checks and balances are more valuable than false compromise."

I'm fond of pointing out that just enough compromise can be wonderful, but too much can be devastating. Having more than one group working to maintain and improve the ecosystem means that if one authority (or respected group) goes sour, then others can speak up and offer a backup plan. Fans of a single, centralised point of authority won't like this. But, it is a recommendation. It is non-binding, so people who are against it simply won't have anything to do with it.

As I said in my previous article, for example:

"Many have called for a certain large, corporation associated with a particular primary-coloured hue to apologise for their active role in the Holocaust. Yet one of their subsidiaries asks for an arguably more grassroots organisation to seize an opportunity for greater diversity.""When we agree on something, we struggle together. When we can't agree, we struggle apart. It's very useful to find our commonalities, and understand our differences. For many of us, Stallman and freedom are two things we are not willing to compromise on."

That isn't a decision that a central authority needs to make. Many of us are not willing to bend on the Stallman issue (a reminder that this guideline predates the Stallman issue.) So we invite anybody who is willing to work with us despite not bending on that issue, do so. They don't need to sign an oath of loyalty to Stallman, but if they ask us to do something unjust against him -- that's something we won't do.

At that point, you have a schism -- and you would actually have that schism anyway. The difference is that some of us are building something that is more schism-tolerant. Other points address this a little more directly.

2. "Ignoring your own standards, as well as taking rules too seriously, can compromise the integrity of your community. Many communities are already diminished along these lines."

This is mostly a comment on the state of communities, and a recommendation to try to live up to your own community standards. Those who already oppose the imposition of a Code of Conduct can read this as: "If you have a Code of Conduct that expects certain behaviour of others, you are naturally expected to treat them just as well as you're demanding of them."

Nobody is perfect, and it's obvious that people already hold some to a more unreasonable interpretation of their standards than others. While suggesting that people not do that isn't likely to cancel out any hypocrisy directly, this point at least comments on it.

3. "The corporate monopolies that promise to help resolve these problems, have a history of fundamental selfishness and interference. Giving these corporations too great a say in matters has helped them to destroy communities and stifle their efforts."

This point comments on past mistakes, and also predates one of the best examples. Many have called for a certain large, corporation associated with a particular primary-coloured hue to apologise for their active role in the Holocaust. Yet one of their subsidiaries asks for an arguably more grassroots organisation to seize an opportunity for greater diversity.

"One only need look to Stallman to demonstrate how intolerant we've become of opinions -- but that intolerance is a standing threat to all of us if we wish to work together and not be ridiculous when we use the word "inclusion." While these guidelines are not meant to be imposed, if more people had taken them to heart, it would have possibly been more difficult to let Stallman suffer as much as we already have."You could argue this is the same point as the second one, addressed specifically to very large and powerful companies. While it is unlikely to change the course of those companies directly, it serves as a warning to those who would take their requests (and perhaps, their lip-service) too seriously.

4. "In practical terms, 'working together' means finding enough common ground for collaboration. It does not mean abandoning the principles or values of your own community."

This could be considered a re-iteration of what was said in my previous article: "When we agree on something, we struggle together. When we can't agree, we struggle apart. It's very useful to find our commonalities, and understand our differences." Except it is actually a pre-iteration.

Some differences are worth working past. Other differences are simply worth accepting. Another way of saying this is that along with diversity of people, we should make it possible (whenever we can bring ourselves to do so) to include people with a diversity of opinions. In my own opinion, this is a strength that we were doing impressively well with, before all this corporate help showed up.

One only need look to Stallman to demonstrate how intolerant we've become of opinions -- but that intolerance is a standing threat to all of us if we wish to work together and not be ridiculous when we use the word "inclusion." While these guidelines are not meant to be imposed, if more people had taken them to heart, it would have possibly been more difficult to let Stallman suffer as much as we already have.

"These really are anti-monopoly recommendations, for making communities hopefully more robust in the presence of well-organised social attacks."Not that I want you to think this is all about one example. What I really want you to do is think about how it would be for an entire community to start stoning you because of something you yourself were misquoted as saying by Forbes or ZDNet. All of these guidelines predate that incident, but many of these would have helped mitigate it.

These really are anti-monopoly recommendations, for making communities hopefully more robust in the presence of well-organised social attacks. If you think you can create a better version, these guidelines are already in the public domain.

And people are going to argue for more centralisation, of course. Some people like centralisation and single-points-of-failure, because they think of control exclusively in terms of benefits, not costs. Decentralisation has costs as well.

Very few meaningful decisions are made without accumulating both costs and benefits. It's really a question of what benefits are desirable and what costs are unacceptable. If you can accept a single-point-of-failure that guarantees a tragedy in the long run, there are some short-term benefits to say the very least.

5. "In dealing with both critics and allies, it is always more useful to look past the superficial -- towards motivations, true nature and real effects. Society encourages the shallow evaluation of goods and services, as well as of people. Vital communities must do better in this regard than general society, if they wish to thrive. This is not intended to eliminate speculation, only to temper superficiality."

"A lot of it comes down to accepting differences, having more than a single venue for progress to be worked on, and working together when it makes sense. This is more robust because if you get Amish-shunned out of one community that has gotten a bit weird or been taken over, there are other places nearby where you can contribute instead."Superficiality is a theme addressed in my previous article on Techrights (already linked from point 1.)

Back when the "Free Software Federation" was more of a concept, these were guidelines on how people who want such a thing to work (this by no means assumes that everybody would want it to) could understand how to make it run smoothly enough.

A lot of it comes down to accepting differences, having more than a single venue for progress to be worked on, and working together when it makes sense. This is more robust because if you get Amish-shunned out of one community that has gotten a bit weird or been taken over, there are other places nearby where you can contribute instead.

"Another thing to think about the is the level of censorship and interference going on. In security terms, this should be part of our threat model..."It is also a strong suggestion that such schemes have gradually been proven necessary if we want Free software to continue to have the level of practical success it already had in the past. A lot of people already look around and realise that "something has gone terribly wrong." You can be certain there will be people demanding that single-points-of-failure be reinforced by more monopolistic means.

As recent history has shown us, when that happens it can leave us generally out of the loop -- just sort of waiting for "permission" or a "cue" to get back to business as usual, while we try to figure out how to respond or move forward, without much in the way of means to do so. A reasonable word for that effect is "devastation." It's good to ask if we would have that level of devastation right now, if we had found a way to make Free software (as a movement) "more robust" or as I keep saying, "more decentralised."

In the past, we had collaboration schemes as loosely defined as something called a "web ring." Today, a "mesh network" would be a resilient structure more worthy of consideration than a "ring" (which was often maintained by a single person, albeit one who was very open to all sorts of people joining and adding their website.)

So you could, if you wanted to maybe overhype the idea, call this an "early version of a social protocol for a voluntary organisational mesh network." But just calling it the "THRIVE Guidelines" is probably a lot more reasonable.

Another thing to think about the is the level of censorship and interference going on. In security terms, this should be part of our threat model:

I'm referring to this sort of behaviour from large corporations.

I'm also referring to this sort of behaviour from our beloved non-profits.

And even in the example of the FSF and FSFE:

"In 2018, FSFE used these tactics to make it appear that nobody supported elections any more."

"In 2019, rogue elements of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) staff used the same tactics to undermine their own founder, Richard Stallman."

"I don't even think the other FSF chapters are prepared to defend everything the FSFE is doing right now."NOW, if we can't even even trust the FSF to prevent this sort of thing, and if their own objectives are being compromised by the (completely unjustified -- as in there is simply no good reason given) censoring of mailing-lists, what exactly do we do?

And THAT is why federation is actually key to the future of our movement. It's certainly not that the FSF doesn't have a completely vital role to play. I think as the original, pioneering organisation with the most experience to lend us (and traditionally the greatest authority -- actively maintaining the definition of Free software itself) I think bolstering that organisation (what Stallman asks us to do, I would add) is a very good idea.

But when I wrote about the need to create lifeboats for the same organisation prior to a great tragedy -- which happened not 30 days later, as things turn out -- I wasn't doing that because I thought it would make a great story. I was doing it for exactly the reason it said on the tin:

A. The FSF is vulnerable. B. The FSF is vulnerable. C. The FSF is vulnerable.

The most obvious way around this (mission-damaging) censorship (a topic Daniel Pocock knows more about than I do -- I comment on the things he goes into great detail about -- with actual facts and evidence that I had only expected to come out eventually) is to have more communication, interconnection and organisation between autonomous "nodes" of this movement.

As it happens, such nodes already existed. Right now it appears that (if Pocock's claims are true, and I suspect they are) the FSF (Boston) is at least somewhat compromised, and FSFE is (as I already thought) more compromised. I don't even think the other FSF chapters are prepared to defend everything the FSFE is doing right now.

"FSFE censors, Pocock un-censors, the Federation "boosts" the uncensorship."In terms of Copyright and Patents and yes, censorship -- the EU is a mess right now, and FSFE is just a snail's distance from going along with it on far too much.

So who is going to hold the FSFE accountable on these matters? Their members? The FSFE is (according to what I gather from reading the things Pocock says, but not to put these words in his mouth) manipulating its members with an almost Facebook-like tactic. I'm surprised, but not shocked that it has come to that.

Please don't get me wrong on this -- I'm not saying the future is hopeless for the FSF, only that the present is obviously dire!

And that if we care, we will lend them a hand that they have no real choice to turn away. FSFE censors, Pocock un-censors, the Federation "boosts" the uncensorship.

"Now, where do we get future coders from?"A federation that cares about Free software has the potential to "route around" not only mailing-list censorship, but even the corruption that happens at the very top of these organisations. But it loses that flexibility if we try too hard to "unite." It is the redundancy that creates the robust nature of what we are doing.

But if you've ever tried to write code that uses concurrency, you know that such things are a little less intuitive than traditional scripting. So to make that accessible to more people, we have these recommendations.

If you want to know more about working around mailing list censorship, I strongly recommend looking around Daniel Pocock's blog for more: https://danielpocock.com

Now, where do we get future coders from? From time to time, some people express concern about the "aging" of their developer force. This means that people capable of contributing either aren't allowed to join, aren't aware of the opportunity to join, aren't interested in joining -- or don't even exist.

One way to address all of those points is with education:

6. "Without some greater commitment to the needs and education of users, Free software will soon lose too much ground to corporations that falsely pander to them. This is not a call to make everything 'user friendly.' As a user, you are free to develop on your own terms. There are still areas in which progress could be made regarding development."

Should we allow repos (such as F-Droid) to be balkanised over political differences? Maybe not:

7. "It is better to have communities divided over politics than to have software development and repos hijacked and repurposed by a single political faction."

How can a federated community help prevent such hijacking of repos? With a (relatively) neutral 3rd (or 3rd, 4th and 5th) party:

8. When communities with valuable contributions become divided over political differences, umbrella communities and organisations are a positive way to invite long-term resolution. Haste and superficial resolution are less positive, though "first step" efforts will hopefully count for something.

But false compromise is once again warned against -- due to the amount of it I think we've already witnessed. We always want to enable cooperation where we can, without introducing false compromises and bad compromises. Freedom of course, produces differences:

9. "Each community should be allowed to explore its own options to further the long-term benefits of its efforts towards software freedom -- subject to informal approval and/or intellectually honest (fair) critique from from other communities."

If you need permission to comment, we really have dramatically changed as a movement. Point 9 says more than that, but this is a point worth reiterating at this time.

But what about the users? What should we do for them? The user of today may one day become the ally of tomorrow. So maybe, let's one way to set a good example for our future is:

10. Communities should avoid, as much as possible and practical, efforts to lock other users into their software or distributions. The more important and popular (and fundamental) the software is, the more modular and optional and flexible the software should ideally be. Even the distro itself should become more modular and universal -- via thoughtful design conventions, rather than rigid and demanding standards. But when in doubt, refer to points 5 and 9.

If you've read the FSF Titanic series, there are many more comments on making this sort of thing possible.

As for this list of recommendations -- you can think of it as being told what to do, no matter how much someone stresses that the idea is nothing of the sort. On the other hand, I would say that it's unfair to ask people to do something complicated and revolutionary without providing some real suggestions as to how it could be possible.

These guidelines were one of the first steps (predating, and even helping to inspire the FSF Titanic series) towards providing those real suggestions. As a bonus, this many-paragraph article and contextual update can be swapped out to some reasonable degree with just the 10 points mentioned. Though now that there's some commentary on them, it's possible their value is a little more obvious.

Long Live Stallman, and Happy Hacking.

Licence: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 (public domain)

Recent Techrights' Posts

XBox is Rapidly Turned Into a Slopfarm by Microsoft
Slop isn't about efficiency and saving money
Reboots Should Never be Necessary
"BUT WHAT ABOUT SECURITY!!"
Microsoft's Halloween Documents and systemd, Wayland, Etc.
Maybe one day Wayland will be widespread. Or maybe not.
Changing One's Name Won't Change One's Past
People who have earned a bad reputation are not magically "entitled" to reset
People Who Assault Women Are Not Victims of "Distress"
It seems like an American tradition. In a country with almost 50 presidents, not even one was a female.
Adoption of Gemini Protocol Still Growing
Gemini Protocol is being obscured by the media - it doesn't help that Google 'hijacked' the word "Gemini" - but people still manage to find out about it, download a client, and use it
 
There's Still Hope for the World Wide Web
Let's hope that the trajectory of the Web won't be leading us to over-reliance on Google, nor will it reward worthless slopfarms
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Monday, July 14, 2025
IRC logs for Monday, July 14, 2025
Gemini Links 15/07/2025: Gemini "Style Sheets" and Switching From Microsoft GitHub to Codeberg
Links for the day
Coming Soon: Another OSI Scandal, This One Implicating Molly de Blanc
OSI has been fairly quiet lately
Outreachy & Debian pregnancy cluster, Meike Reichle evidence
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Again, "Lunduke is Actually Sending His Audience to Attack People"
Microsoft Lunduke is not trying to "protect" Linux
One of the Most Hilarious Things About the Microsoft SLAPPs
It's so ridiculous
Financial Support for the Free Software Foundation or the GNU Project
The FSF has extended until Friday its fund-raising campaign
Illegally Hiding (or Demanding Secrecy Around) Illegal Requests or Attempts at Extortion
unlawful communications like threats
Gemini Links 14/07/2025: BOFH Archive, Updating Old Palm PDAS, and Nginx vs Slop Bots
Links for the day
Ubuntu is Becoming GAFAM-Like
What does that say about Canonical and Ubuntu?
Slopfarms Which Take Real Articles About GNU/Linux and Turn Them Into Copycats Which Are False
Even before the LLM hype those were quite common
The Firm That Picks on Techrights is Accustomed to Working With Criminals
Techrights never did anything illegal. So why is it being picked on by people who work with criminals?
Microsoft Said the Mass Layoffs Were for "Investment" in "AI", But It's Also Laying Off the "AI" and "Copilot" Staff
Months ago we showed many so-called "AI" people were getting the boot and this time it's the same
DryDeadFish is Dead, Long Live DryDeadFish
We kept checking, hoping it can recover from some temporary technical issue
For Quite Some Time Already Microsoft Attracts Crackpots, Scams, and More
Occasionally we talk about the situation at IBM as there are many parallels
Links 14/07/2025: Chatbots Broken Again, McHire LLM Shows Limits of the Hype
Links for the day
Slashdot Media Turned Linux Journal Into a Slopfarm and Now Slashdot Actively Promotes Anti-Linux Slopfarms
Yes, "no-nonsense" apparently means actual nonsense
Links 14/07/2025: Arresting Photographers, Threats to Revoke US Citizenship Over Criticism
Links for the day
More EPO Leaks on the Way
We hope that Mr. Rowan will actually try to refute what we say and show, not merely point the finger at the messengers
Decommodification is a Corporate Strategy Against Communities
systemd is led by Microsoft and hosted by Microsoft
copyleft.org 'Hijacked' by the People Who Attack the Person Who Created Copyleft
So far there's nothing "tasteless" in copyleft.org, but that can change at any time in the future
Asking People to Take Down Articles and Videos Only Makes These More Popular and "Viral"
If you do something bad, one of the worst things you can possibly do it try to silence those who speak about it
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Sunday, July 13, 2025
IRC logs for Sunday, July 13, 2025
Two-Thirds Towards FSF Goal, Richard Stallman to Give Talks in Europe
There are 67 left before reaching the target
Brett Wilson LLP "Takes it Personal" (Character Assassination, Not Professionalism). Everybody Can See That.
On behalf of violent men
Gemini Links 14/07/2025: Politicised Tech and "Leaving GitHub"
Links for the day
Pissing Contests and Pissing Off Everyone
people who came from Microsoft are trying to vex and divide the community
Microsoft Repeats the Mistakes Made by the EPO After We Exposed a Major Microsoft/EPO Scandal 10 Years Ago
That scandal was all over the media, not just in English
The Demise of LLMs
We've just checked BetaNews again. They've dropped all the slop and went back to human authors.
Gemini Links 13/07/2025: Sonpo Museum of Art and FCEUX
Links for the day
Links 13/07/2025: UnitedHealth's Censorship Campaign, Australia Wary of China
Links for the day
Firing Away With Nonsense
Or fighting fire with fire
Links 13/07/2025: Climate Crisis, GAFAM Poisoning the Water
Links for the day
Turns Out LLMs for Code Don't Save Time and Don't Improve Quality
Neither legal nor useful
The Microsofters Will Have an Obligation to Compensate Us
This story isn't just about Microsoft. It's also about corruption, there are many women victims, there is abject "abuse of process", and many more scandals to be illuminated in years to come.
Reproducing at the EPO Instead of Producing Monopolies for Foreign Monopolies With Their Price-Fixing Cartels
Does the EPO recognise the need of well-educated Europeans to bear kids?
Valnet Inc. Dominates Real (Not LLM Slop) GNU/Linux Coverage in 2025
And likely in prior years, too
Free Software Foundation (FSF) Fund Raiser Goes on
Later this month we'll expose another OSI scandal
EPO Staff Representatives Issue a Warning About Staff's Health and Inadequate Care
Even the EPO's own stakeholders (money sources) are openly protesting against what the EPO became
Links 13/07/2025: Partly Assorted News From Deutsche Welle and CBC
Links for the day
Gemini Links 13/07/2025: Board Games and Battle Styles
Gemini Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Saturday, July 12, 2025
IRC logs for Saturday, July 12, 2025