Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Teaching programming and free software to those who can listen (and everybody else, too)

[Andrés Muñiz Piniella]

El 22 de enero de 2016 15:39:19 GMT+00:00, Fabio Pesari <fabiop@gnu.org> 
escribió:
>tl;dr: The free software community should teach as many people as it
>       can about programming and free software. The best that can
>       happen is that those people contribute to free software, and the
>       worst is that they become aware of free software and learn how
>       computers work, which might encourage them to reject nonfree
>       software even if they don't end up becoming developers. Win-win.
>
>There are many courses nowadays which aim to teach programming
>(especially in schools) at zero cost, but those are usually funded by
>corporations who develop proprietary software and want to promote their
>own agendas and walled gardens, as well as lower the wages of
>future programmers (which goes against their purposes, since it will
>inevitably encourage independent crowdfunding).
>
>The free software community should do its best to make sure that when
>people are taught about programming, there isn't any bias toward
>proprietary technologies, and that free software is taught as an
>essential concept (like free speech) rather than something optional
>(like "open source"), with an emphasis on copyleft (otherwise, we'd
>be doing those companies a favor).
>
>It would be ideal to teach free software and programming directly in
>schools, but we all know that won't happen anytime soon for a number of
>reasons, so I thought perhaps we could offer people some
>*zero cost courses which ideally, should be recognized as valid
>certifications* (can the FSF or FSFE help there, I wonder)?
>
>Here's some people who might benefit from it, and that should be
>especially targeted (since they are snubbed by all of society):
>
>1. Poor, unemployed people [Easy]
>
>   These are sad times. A lot of (especially young) people are
>   committing suicide (or crimes, see point 3) due to unemployment (and
>   its consequences, like the impossibility to start a family,
>   homelessness, mental illness, addiction and debt) and automation is
>   only going to reduce the number of available jobs in the future
>   (except programmers, until they get replaced by AIs).
>
>   Even if a Basic Income is implemented globally, those people would
>   still have a lot of free time on their hands and depend completely
>   on their government, which might hurt their dignity as well as
>   require them to be "good citizens" and accept every potential future
>   law in order to be eligible for the BI, some of which could force
>   them to use proprietary software (since most countries are
>   considering to ban encryption without backdoors, even if it's just
>   mathematics, and it's hard to enforce such a ban unless proprietary
>   software is also enforced; it isn't hard to imagine a world in which
>   developing or even using free software requires explicit
>   authorization, and only corporations and the government are granted
>   it - even if such a regime would last very shortly).
>
>   Teaching programming to these people can help them find a job in one
>   of the few fields that won't be affected by automation anytime soon,
>   and contributing to free software can offer them a chance to build
>   their portfolios and CVs.
>
>   If they want to keep contributing to free software after they find a
>   job, good for them (and us); if they don't, at least they will know
>   about free software, which is more than you can say about most
>   people who work in IT nowadays (who are all about "open source",
>   which often just means writing the same programs over and over in
>   JavaScript using Sublime Text on Mac OS X and releasing them without
>   any licensing info on Github).
>
>2. Retired people [Medium]
>
>   Retired people have a lot of time on their hands and they often
>   are treated as if they are useless or unable to keep up with the
>   younger generations, but I don't think that's true, and many of them
>   are lonely and abandoned by their own families and would greatly
>   benefit from the warmth of the free software community, as well as
>   the sense of purpose that contributing to free software can offer
>   (or maybe, just a nice hobby, or a side job because pensions are
>   too low, especially now that many adults have to live with their
>   parents due to unemployment, see point 1).
>
>   The way old people are ignored and put aside in our technological
>  world is cold and dehumanizing, and only free software can offer them
>   a chance to participate (because, willing or not, even old people
>   will be forced to interact with technology at some point).
>
>   I spent a lot of time with old people in my life and I know they
>   like to feel useful (or rather, helpful), just like everybody else.
>   I'm Italian and in my country, old women who can't chew their own
>   food will spend many hours preparing it for others, even when they
>   are close to death, and feel happy and fulfilled when they see
>   someone eat and enjoy it, even strangers.
>
>   I think giving old people a second chance to participate in society
>  is great, and that they have a lot of wisdom and perspective to offer
>   that most of us don't have (especially when it comes to
>   accessibility, UI and UX. If a granny can understand something,
>   it means it's done properly).
>
>   Plus, there are tons of old people who used to work in software
>   development, it's just a matter of getting them into free
>   software. People in retirement age include Larry Wall, who just
>   helped create Perl 6, Ken Thompson & Rob Pike, co-creators of Go,
>   Bjarne Stroustrup, who's making C++ better than ever and of course,
>   RMS. I'm sure there's someone like them out there, maybe someone
>   who's worked as a researcher or a C64 developer for many years and
>   who can outcode even the leetest of us, and has never heard of free
>   software but would jump on it if given the chance.
>
>3. Prisoners [Hard]
>
>   This can sound controversial - who would use a program
>   knowing that it was written by a criminal?
>
>   Ignoring the fact that authors can legally use a pseudonym, that
>   I don't know anything about who wrote the programs I use daily,
>   that a lot of people are arrested for nonviolent (often
>   drug-related) offences and that some of them committed crimes due to
>   hopelessness (see point 1), people have no issue listening to
>   popular music or watching Hollywood films or mainstream sports, so
>   I don't expect them to react differently to software.
>
>   Some people who've been arrested are sincerely sorry for what
>   they've done, are quietly paying their dues and would like to
>   contribute back to society and to be offered a chance to reintegrate
>   for when (if) they get out.
>   (No need to mention those who are innocent or have been arrested
>   under ridiculous charges, like free software developer Bassel
>   Khartabil - I'm pretty sure that if he's alive, he'd rather write
>   some free code than not. Please never forget about him, it could
>   have been anyone who posts here!)
>
>   Prisoners can already write books and record albums in some
>   countries; there's no rational reason a prisoner shouldn't develop
>  free software and even without access to the Internet, they still can
>   write code that can be reviewed (for hidden messages) and submitted
>   by authorities on their behalf, using a pseudonym if necessary.
>
>   There are plenty of prisoners who can already program and most of
>   the others would benefit from learning this trade, as they will
>   likely be poor and unemployed when they get out (point 1), and even
>   worse, with a criminal record. Why not give them a chance to have a
>   better future, so that they are less likely to repeat their mistakes
>   when they get out?
>
>   Even if someone has been given a life sentence (the "hidden death
>   penalty"), free software could give them another shot at life,
>   something purposeful to look forward to and a chance to share
>   something with the outside world, to redeem themselves and leave
>   behind some good memories of them.
>
>   Prison should aim to rehabilitate people, and free software can do
>   that by teaching its altruistic values.
>
>Teaching programming to as many people as possible, in general, can
>only be helpful for the purpose of spreading free software. Let's say
>you teach programming to 1000 people - even if all of them find a job
>developing proprietary software (unlikely), the chance that at least
>one of them (but realistically, more) will develop or promote free
>software in their spare time and/or as part of their job is pretty high
>compared to the chance people who haven't been taught the same have.
>
>Of course, free software needs more than programmers. Designers and
>people who can spread the word (some would call it "marketing") are
>actually a bigger necessity right now - as we have plenty of free
>replacements for proprietary programs but nobody is using them, like
>Tox or GNU/Linux itself - but the idea is that spreading free software
>awareness to the largest number of people possible will naturally also
>bring in some who have those skills.
>
>What do you think? Any programmers willing to share their knowledge
>with
>everybody else?

Hi Fabio,

looks like a great Plan. fsf have survey:
https://my.fsf.org/civicrm/profile/create?gid=403&reset=1&pk_campaign=survey-launch&pk_kwd=survey

where you can make your priorties heard.

fsfe has done some work on education.

found this mailing list:
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-eu
Look for the work of Guido fellow of fsfe he collected all the stuff that is 
already done.

-- 
RichmondMakerlabs.uk
Ham United Group