Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Fear makes people more supine and passive; insecurity leads to obedience

New publication
Summary: Team Campinos continues to attack staff of Europe’s second-largest institution; amid pandemic they’re just totally misusing the crisis for PR purposes (warning: epo.org
link) and also to take away rights of their very own staff
The Central Staff Committee (CSC) of the EPO has a new paper (shown above). In it, as one might expect, further erosions of staff’s protections are described.
This is bad news for everyone in Europe, not just EPO staff.
“This is bad news for everyone in Europe, not just EPO staff.”“Management has now tabled a draft Circular 405 (C405) on the conditions of conversion/extension of fixed-term contracts with the alleged intent to “give staff on fixed-term contracts greater clarity about their future prospect at the Office” (see Communiqué of 17-06-2021),” the CSC explains. “However, to us it is not apparent what in C405 could somehow help colleagues on fixed-term contracts to plan their future or could contribute to enhancing work stability.”
For those who have read this site long enough, maybe 3+ years, this ought to be familiar. Benoît Battistelli started this assault on the work security of staff and their families. António Campinos proves that he’s no better. It’s continuation of the very same agenda, including the attack on staff representatives.
The CSC adds: “Every decision appears to be at the discretion of the Office and the Office does not commit to anything regarding its employees. In addition, some points in draft C405 are unclear (e.g. on notice periods) and are likely to result in legal uncertainty. Read more in this paper.”
The letter was published and circulated yesterday, though it is dated 4 days ago. We reproduce it in full, below, as HTML:
Munich, 25.06.2021
sc21083mp
On fixed-term Contracts
New draft Circular 405 provides neither further clarity nor more work stability
Management has now tabled a draft Circular 405 (C405) on the conditions of conversion/extension of fixed-term contracts with the alleged intent to “give staff on fixed-term contracts greater clarity about their future prospect at the Office”.
However, to us it is not apparent what in C405 could somehow help colleagues on fixed-term contracts to plan their future or could contribute to enhancing work stability. Every decision appears to be at the discretion of the Office and the Office does not commit to anything regarding its employees. In addition, some points in draft C405 are unclear and are likely to result in legal uncertainty.
The future C405, once finalised, will have a tremendous impact on the life and families of the future generation of EPO staff. We will continue to bring forward our proposal and try to improve draft C405. We recognise the responsibility that lies with the working group members to ensure C405 is clear, comprehensive, and complete, and meets both the needs of the staff and of the Office.
A meeting of the working group on extensions/conversions of fixed-term contracts took place on Monday, June 14
The main topic of this working group meeting was a draft of the new Circular 405 (C405), which defines the procedures for the extension or conversion of fixed-term appointments. We expressed our disappointment with the draft. Indeed, none of our input seemed to have been considered. The meeting was closed after only 1.5hrs, and this was much too short for us to put forward all our concerns regarding the draft.
Arbitrary length of contracts, renewable an arbitrary number of times
The draft C405 confirms the model as initially presented based on 5 years + 5 years + conversion. However, it explicitly also permits the assignment of contracts which are shorter than 5 years. Furthermore, the initial idea of limiting the number of subsequent contracts to two contracts – one of the few aspects that was put forward by the administration which we had
welcomed – is now missing from the draft. This would allow the administration full discretion to re-new arbitrary-length contracts for an arbitrary number of times for a total duration of up to 10 years.
Notice period for conversion/extension of 6 or 12 months
The administration acknowledges that draft C405 needs to be clarified on this point, but the current draft provides for the following:
• A notice period of 6 months in case of extension
• A notice period of 12 months after 5 years of continuous service
We made a counter proposal which would provide a 12-month notice period for extension/conversion for all colleagues who would have served 5 years or more at the end date of the contract and 6 months for shorter periods of continuous service.
Conversion only after 10 years
Draft C405 states that conversion to a permanent contract should “as a matter of principle” only occur after 10 years. Although C405 does not exclude an earlier conversion in exceptional cases, it was made clear by the administration that there would be no mechanism for automatic conversion.
Possibility of internal competition for conversion
Draft C405 introduces the possibility to hold internal competitions for conversion of a contract based on qualifications, continuous years of service and/or tests. Final conversion would be subject to a set quota on conversion of fixed-term appointments to permanent employment. C405 lacks further information on how and when such a competition is organised – all seems to be at the discretion of the administration. We asked for further clarification on this point.
Conditions for extensions and conversion remain abstract
The Service Regulation states two conditions for extension/conversion: need of the service and individual performance. Draft C405 does not mention any commitment to offer alternative posts.
On needs of the service, draft C405 expands with the following:
• Continuation of the post: the post of a contract staff must continue to be relevant for the Office,
• Continued need for the specific set of knowledge, skills and competencies.
On individual performance of the employee, the draft C405 expands with the following:
• The employee’s ability, contribution and effectiveness, as well as the attitude to work and dealings with others,
• The employee’s development in knowledge, skills and competencies in respect to the
expectations as described in the performance goals.
Our preliminary view: Draft Circular 405 provides neither further clarity, nor more work stability
The intention of the administration on draft C405 was to “give staff on fixed-term contracts greater clarity about their future prospect at the Office”. However, it is not apparent to us what in C405 could somehow help colleagues on fixed-term contracts to plan their future or could contribute to enhancing work stability. Every decision appears to be at the discretion of the Office and the Office does not commit to anything regarding its employees, e.g. looking for alternative posts in case a job position is abolished. In addition, some points in draft C405 are unclear (e.g., on the notice periods), and are likely to result in legal uncertainty.
The future C405, once finalised, will have a tremendous impact on the life and families of the future generation of EPO staff. We recognise the responsibility that lies with the working group members to ensure the Circular is clear, comprehensive and complete and meets both, the needs of the staff and of the EPO.
C405 will also have an impact on the organisation as a whole. The EPO comes from a long tradition of facing future risks together as a community. In the past, a post at the EPO was a lifetime commitment, where new recruits gave up their careers to follow the mission of the Office. This created a strong feeling of belonging and pride for working at the EPO. This extraordinary “esprit de corps” was what differentiated the EPO from other patent offices, and which is the basis of its strengths that made the EPO the leading patent office in the world.
We will continue to bring forward our proposal and try to improve this draft C405 – for the better of our colleagues on fixed-term contracts and the Office.
Reminder: Past publications on fixed-term contracts
To raise awareness and to provide information on the issue of fixed-term contracts in the EPO, we have prepared a series of publications. We also produced a WIN-WIN counter-proposal which has been based on a principals paper.
[Redacted named and other stuff]
It’s important to fight for labour rights in general. The EPO is unaccountable and generally cash-rich; there’s no excuse for these relentless attacks on workers who not only relocated to another country for the job but also brought their family members with them (some are unable to speak the local language). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, KDE, Videos at 6:32 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link
Summary: We take a quick look at some of the more advanced (and scarcely known about) features in KDE; we hope to inspire some users to explore more powerful desktop environments, pushing modern machines to their full capacity without spending like $1000 on a new PC (my main PC cost just 200 pounds)
I HAVE a confession to make. I’m a desktop environments nerd. Since the 90s I’ve been messing around with just about any desktop environment I could put my hands on, tweaking the hell out of it (I went through pretty much every desktop environment that exists and on my Debian box I installed every one that was available in 2020). I love testing those things to better understand what’s available. Even Mac OS 9 back in the very old days. I like to test the limits. Right now I push the limits with 4 desktop environments that I use in tandem over Barrier and Synergy (both running in conjunction) and over the weekend I went through all the settings in the latest stable build of KDE/Plasma5 (for Debian 10). This video is far from an exhaustive tour/walk-through of features, as instead it focuses on the sorts of things no other operating system really has, except maybe FreeBSD or other BSDs with KDE built for them.
“As more and more people’s activities are shifting online (the coronavirus accelerated this trend) it’s important to use desktops that the individual users, not the vendors, control.”The learning curse may be steep for some of these features but once they’re mastered they can save a lot of time for years to come. It pays off, think of it as a long-term investment. That can also help avoid/reduce human errors/mistakes.
In order to avoid mention of (or free press for) other operating systems we might be doing more videos such as this one, showing ways to handle workflows in GNU/Linux, without a terminal or anything like that, just GUI. We don’t try to over-complicate matters. Think of it as hobby ‘marketing’ or advocacy.
This video focuses primarily in visuals and usability aspects, including window- and application-specific settings. It does mention KDE “Activities”, but we’ve not properly demonstrated them, at least not yet. Such a video would definitely require some preparation in advance.
People tend to judge the quality of an operating systems based on media coverage, so they wrongly assume what the media isn’t mentioning can’t possibly be any good. That’s totally false. It shows a misunderstanding of how the mass (corporate) media works. All that fluff about Microsoft vapourware is predominantly paid-for PR, not news. It helps distract from Microsoft blunders and scandals (many of them exist lately).
Chrome OS is a very dumbed down and locked down environment, even if it’s built on top of Gentoo GNU/Linux (originally). We encourage people to explore and examine freedom-respecting alternatives, not just for freedom’s sake but for purely practical/pragmatic reasons; they’re just technically better, maybe not for companies that want users to upload everything to them (including keystrokes, as in keylogging). As more and more people’s activities are shifting online (the coronavirus accelerated this trend) it’s important to use desktops that the individual users, not the vendors, control. The users also collectively control them because they can exercise choices by forking (owing to the more technically skilled among them). At the moment KDE is not controlled by large vendors. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, FUD, GNU/Linux, Kernel at 4:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link
Summary: Linux kernel 5.13 is now officially released, but hostile media is trying to brew unnecessary panic or scandals, spicing up with drama an otherwise banal and mundane situation
ALTHOUGH we have been critical of him for a number of years if not decades, Mr. Linus Torvalds is nowhere as problematic as the Linux Foundation, which is abusing his trademark and handing over control to corporations which dislike the GPL, don’t really care about Linux, and basically view that kernel of his as a zero-cost commodity to be exploited.
“Official messages about the release of Linux 5.13 are totally innocuous, technical, and one might say not interesting.”The way the media treats “Linux” remains very frustrating, aside from the lack of attribution to GNU. It seems to be thinking that Microsoft (e.g. GitHub/NPM) sending malware to GNU/Linux servers is in fault of “Linux”, it pretends that Microsoft loves Linux, and it misuses the term “Linux” to promote Vista 10, WSL, and Vista 11. It’s grotesque. But the video above deals with another kind of negative slant.
Last night, just before midnight, Torvalds released Linux 5.13, as expected. We kept track of media coverage in [1, 2] — pages we’ll keep updated as more media coverage arrives.
The release of Linux 5.13 was very calm and normal, but once again, just like years ago, a certain writer from 'El Reg' (whom I confronted over his sensationalist coverage of kernel releases just a few years ago), decided to publish a provocative headline. It’s also worth noting that around the time of the release, maybe just minutes apart, an anti-Torvalds article was republished (yes, just minutes apart, yet again). It’s obviously timed to cause damage to Torvalds, who was likely ‘entrapped’ by a hostile interviewer, a journalist who slants a technical project as some sort of political endeavour where gender diversity is more important than technical excellence (gender diversity in Linux kernel development is actually a lot better already… compared to the average Free software project).
All those straw man arguments and personal attacks need to be pointed out if they’re ever to stop. In my personal take, the video focuses on the ITwire article. Sam doesn’t write there so much anymore (not this month anyway), but this article is appreciated. It’s very much needed. Last night’s 81-minute video response to the a new article about Mr. Torvalds and about Linux isn’t related to the latest from a British tech ‘tabloid’, but in days to come we might see loose connections. These people have long been trying to cause instability and maybe weaken the leadership of Linux (making ways for corporations to fill up a vacuum of ‘cancel culture’ and/or fatigue).
Official messages about the release of Linux 5.13 are totally innocuous, technical, and one might say not interesting. What’s a lot more interesting is how a certain large publisher has published with the headline “Profile of Linus Torvalds, Creator of Linux Operating System” an actual ATTACK on Linus Torvalds. Then they REPUBLISHED it, only minutes apart from the Linux release (to coincide with the Linux 5.13 release! No way the timing was a coincidence; it’s a Sunday and a holiday!). As noted or alluded to in the video, the same person who is attacking Torvalds right about now (behind paywall; maybe the intention is to sell subscriptions) also boosts the illusion of Microsoft Azure ‘success’ (even amid Azure layoffs that Microsoft is trying hard to hide). With promotional Microsoft tweets and headlines such as “Microsoft is closing the gap with Amazon’s cloud” (basing it on “a survey of 750 professionals,” which isn’t scientific at all!) one might as well assume that Rosalie Chan’s objective is sinister. She waited until the day of the Linux release (this happens only once in 2-3 months), and then hours beforehand she published the ‘hit piece’ (and again minutes after the actual release!). They pushed out a misleading headline, “Profile of Linus Torvalds, Creator of Linux Operating System” though it is not a profile at all but an ATTACK on the guy, starting with a list of vulgarities from Torvalds (to cast him in a negative light on a Sunday and a holiday).
The corporate media (whose real owners are known; it’s in the public record) won’t be happy until Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman (RMS) are dead or at least retired, leaving their projects at the hands of corporations like Microsoft and Google (that's what happened to Python). Torvalds is only 51. By the time he’s flirting with retirement (a decade and a half from now) the age threshold for pensions might be 70. RMS is already in his retirement age and he still works tirelessly. But Chan has decided to write Torvalds off as a dead or dying horse! At 51. How very nice and polite… █

Permalink
Send this to a friend