Re: [Libreplanet-dev] Code of Conduct / Charter text

[John Sullivan]

Peter <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wednesday 11 March 2009 22:00, John Sullivan wrote:
>> I know there are other open threads that still need replies, they are on
>> my to-do list, but I didn't want to delay getting these texts to the
>> list so that they can be improved a bit and then moved to the wiki.
>>
>> So, please have a look at these and suggest improvements, then on Monday
>> we will post whatever we have to the wiki so it can be refined further
>> there.
>
> I include my alternative remarks in the appropriate section, but also added 
> additional comments that should not appear in the document.
>
>>
>> I know Peter also worked up some text that should probably be merged
>> into this.
>
> Yes, but it needs some reworking, too. I think we're on the same page, I seem 
> to be more exact about what I think the group network is about. My proposal 
> has become two and the current one I'm working on is a bit more work than I 
> expected. 
>
> Your group code of conduct overlaps my previous proposal made in 2006 
> (http://groups.fsf.org/index.php/User_talk:Blacky). At that time I had not 
> heard of Libre Planet and coined my own name (FUGA - Free User Group 
> Association). While the name, slogan, and icons have changed the principle of 
> the group network remains. The key points are that: groups should be small 
> (10 people), they should be connected (associate member), they should be in 
> close proximity (to rally and protest), they should merge and split (to 
> maintain member levels). They should run themselves and provide FSF with the 
> necessary info to formulate strategies and tactics. I believe intelligence 
> gathering will play an important role in changing views and society.

I would like to avoid the "associate member" terminology because that is
also the name of the FSF's fundraising program.

I agree that we want to emphasize small groups but I don't think we need
to mandate that. We should encourage it, though.

> [insert]
> Every member is expected to:
> 1- Raise public awareness about the Free Software Foundation.
> 2- Recruit new members for Libre Planet network.
> 3- Create Libre Planet groups.
> 4- Help members do 1-4.
> [/insert]

I agree with the sentiment here, but I don't think we need to enumerate
it that explicitly in the mission statement. I also don't think we need
to specifically say that people should promote the FSF. What we're
striving for here is promoting free software as an ethical issue.
Promoting the FSF (or FSFE, FSFLA, FSFI, etc) is one way to do that but
it's not the only way. In fact, part of the purpose of this umbrella is
to provide a way for people to do that in a way that supercedes specific
organizational affiliation.

I think the other activities can be listed in a place that suggest
activities and campaigns.

> [insert]
> Libre Planet is a movement intent on removing software restrictive laws and 
> practices, educating the public to the dangers of restrictive legislation by 
> providing a platform to act and defend their freedom, and giving them the 
> collective power to change their society through coordinated action.
> [/insert]
>

Okay, I incorporated this. I'm a little concerned about focusing too much on
legislation. 

> I'd like to avoid the technical stuff, so no one can refer to it, and focus 
> on 
> the political issues. While LIbre Planet may provide gnusense (for example), 
> it directs technical support to mailing lists or websites. We don't have to 
> say any of that here, though.
>

Agreed.

>>
>> === Promotion ===
>>
>> Groups should only promote distributions that are on the list of fully
>> free distributions.
>
> [insert]
> Libre Planet only promotes Free Software as it is the only community that 
> furthers the cause of the Free Software Foundation.
> [/insert]
>
> erm, I am leery of distros as they try to be incompatible and create brand 
> loyalty rather than promote free software. By generalizing, we don't target 
> distros and allow people to homebrew their own GNU system (which is the Unix 
> way). However, when I first read this section, I thought it was about 
> promoting Free Software ethics and creating public awareness, which again has 
> nothing to do with actual software at all.
>

Hm, I agree that it doesn't quite fit. I changed the heading to be
"Software advocacy" and expanded it a bit.

>>
>> === Fundraising ===
>>
>> Groups that want to help support the Libre Planet network and the other
>> work of the FSF often encourage their members or attendees at their
>> events to [donate to the FSF](http://donate.fsf.org). They pass out FSF
>> membership sign-up cards and collect contributions which they then
>> forward directly to the FSF.
>
> [insert]
> You will have to appoint an approved member with the necessary financial 
> skills before engaging in fundraising. Libre Planet provides a distributed 
> fundraising system that allows every group to raise funds. However, groups 
> must comply with the Libre Planet's financial requirements to audit bank 
> account transactions and any fundraising activity. Libre Planet will allocate 
> the funds according to group budgets where finance permits.
>
> Groups may raise funds for special activities and to defray unusual expenses. 
> However, these monies will be offset against their budget unless the 
> activities/expenses were not included in it.
> [/insert]
>

I'm not sure we are ready to do or mandate auditing at this level. Why
do you think we need to do that?

We won't be providing infrastructure off the bat for groups to do
fundraising, though maybe that's something that we should have an eye to
for the future.

> If we get the ngo donation software working, we can provide a network 
> financial database to manage all financial matters. I have studied software 
> that does something very similar to this (hierarchical accounts, summarized 
> and detailed reporting), but we should get a qualified accountant or auditor 
> to oversee the project. My thinking is that all monies will be handed over to 
> Libre Planet who then distributes the funds where needed. However, it may be 
> more practical to have groups open their own accounts, which Libre Planet can 
> access (perhaps read only). I do anticipate some unethical use of any system, 
> though, and am not entirely confident in fundraising at all.
>

I think this is something we should postpone for the time being. The
Software Freedom Conservancy is doing something like this for free
software projects and it's something that we could consider in the
future but it is a very large project and I think we should stick to the
basics first. Running a group and doing the activities we are talking
about doing really requires very little money. 

> [insert]
> Advertising is discouraged as it leads to commercial incentives inconsistent 
> with the mission of Libre Planet. However, advertising free software, the 
> FSF, Libre Planet, the GNU Project, or similar, may be approved as part of a 
> marketing campaign to attract commercial interest in free software or its 
> ethics.
> [/insert]
>
> Again advertising involves money which can put pressure on members. However, 
> Libre Planet needs to advertise itself, so this type of advertising might 
> work.
>

Why do you think we need to discourage advertising in general? We won't
have any advertising on LibrePlanet itself, because we have a policy
against that for both FSF and GNU. But I'm not sure we need to mandate
others have the same policy. I think that as long as the advertising
does not conflict with the core mission, we can leave it up to the
individual groups. In this case, that means no proprietary software. 

>>
>> === Resources ===
>>
> [delete]
>> Groups should not depend on any nonfree resources. They shouldn't use
>> things like Launchpad, or proprietary web services.
> [/delete]
> [insert]
> The Libre Planet will provide all the necessary resources to create and 
> operate a group. However, each group should have a local copy which they can 
> pass on to new groups. The resources include software, training, and 
> operation manuals. These resources are updated by all members themselves via 
> Libre Planet's wiki.
> [/insert]
>
> We should create a group package that provides a turn-key solution for every 
> group. This ensures all groups use the same software and reduce network 
> troubleshooting and technical training. This should allow non-technical users 
> to run their own group without needing to know what they're using.
>

I agree that we should strive for that. We are starting off with the
simple wiki and mailing list hosting, and we can continue to add more
resource options as they are requested and as we can.

What is your thinking in suggesting that groups maintain local copies?
The FSF isn't going away any time soon :).

I tweaked the section a bit, but I kept in the part that says groups
should not rely on nonfree resources. 

> Each person is expected to become a member of a group. Every member is 
> expected to create their own group. Thus, groups are connected by associate 
> members, forming a group network. A group consists of about ten people, so if 
> more members join, it should divide into two new groups. If two local groups 
> have less than five members, they should merge into one.
>
> A group consists of ten people, a family consists of ten groups, a clan 
> consists of ten families, a tribe consists of ten clans, and a region 
> consists of ten tribes (about 100 000 people). A continent consists of ten 
> regions (1 mill) and six continents gives us 6 million people. Note that 
> Libre Planet need only talk to six associate members to access every single 
> person (continent, region, tribe, clan, family, group), and vice verse. The 
> inter-continental group (LibrePlanet) consists of FSF staff members who 
> report directly to the FSF itself. Clearly the regional and continental group 
> members cannot be in geographical proximity and must conduct virtual meetings 
> rather than real ones. Nevertheless, they should also meet physically 
> bi-annually.
>
> While all groups are autonomous in their daily operations, they are all 
> connected to Libre Planet and each other. Each member, however, need only 
> focus on their group members and associated group, limiting direct contact to 
> about twenty people.
>

I think it can be useful to think about things this way in that we want
to make sure we are covering the whole globe, but I think specifying
this level of detail and being rigid about it isn't something we need to
do in the document that specifies our base level of agreement.

Thanks for all the work.

I have now moved our draft to the wiki at
http://groups.fsf.org/index.php/MissionStatement for further work.

-- 
John Sullivan
Manager of Operations
GPG Key: AE8600B6