>>>>> "Roberto" == Roberto C Sánchez <robe...@debian.org> writes:
Roberto> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 02:25:19PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 at 13:08, Roberto C. Sánchez
>> <[1]robe...@debian.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Since we as a project have left Twitter/X (as recently announced
>> by our Publicity Team) on the basis of "We do not want to be
>> present in a place where we cannot ensure that users will be
>> respected and where abuse happens without consequences" [0] [1],
>> I would like start a discussion about how we as a project can
>> promptly sever ties with Google.
>>
>> Full disclosure: I am currently employed by Google, and do not
>> speak for the company. DFSG #6 discusses not discriminating
>> against fields of endeavour. I can see the project wishing to
>> cut ties with a social media platform that is unable to ensure a
>> minimum level of civil discourse. I'm not seeing how this is even
>> remotely equivalent to disengaging from a corporate sponsor
>> because of their commercial practices? regards Andrew
>>
Roberto> The formula I am applying here is directly:
Roberto> "We do not want to be present in a place where we cannot
Roberto> ensure that users will be respected and where abuse happens
Roberto> without consequences."
I'm not going to contribute to this discussion much, because I do not
have a lot of time.
I think the further away from free software something is, the higher the
bar we should apply for getting involved in the politics.
I think both in the X and Google cases, Debian should not get involved
in the politics.
I did not object to the X decision for a couple of reasons even though
it made me uncomfortable.
Mostly, I didn't have time and thought following the discussion closely
would lead to a lack of happiness on my part.
Secondly, I think we should allow people in Debian doing the work to
have significant flexibility in how (and whether) that work gets done.
If what the publicity team and those maintaining Debian's X presence
were saying was that *they* felt uncomfortable being in a place where
they were not respected, then I fully support them. Similarly, if they
were saying that they did not want to do work in a place where users
were not respected, then as the people previously doing that work, I
support them in withdrawing.
In my mind that's different than a political statement: that is Debian
supporting the safety and comfort of members of our community. I think
that support should be encouraged by the project.
Distinguishing those cases (where we are supporting our people) from the
cases where we are making a broader political decision is hard, and
frankly I didn't have the energy, especially since I'm not involved in
the publicity team enough to be a decision maker, and I do not support
overriding the publicity team in this instance.
How do I feel about the statement we made?
honestly, I am not thrilled.
If it really was a political decision (our people felt comfortable in
the X environment, but wanted to make a statement by leaving), I really
wish we had done something different.
If it was a non-political decision (our people felt uncomfortable
continuing the work), and we made a political statement anyway … well,
there are many worse things in the world.
So how would I apply this reasoning to Google?
If the DebConf team is uncomfortable in their interactions with
google---say because they are not treated respectfully, I absolutely
support them in withdrawing from the relationship. (I believe that to
be counter-factual; as far as I know Google has always treated us with
respect.)
If the Salsa team and CI team want to work on more free cloud options, I
absolutely support that, even if that involves spending some Debian
money.
If we developed a free option for our CI infrastructure and wanted to
make a press release about it, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if we
focused on free software issues than broader issues with Google's
decisions.
I think the interesting question comes up if say Debconf wanted to put
together a policy for what sort of sponsors were acceptable.
Non-profits sometimes have to do that. My university, MIT, was in the
news for some of their infamous donors in ways they really did not
enjoy, and as a result, they have chosen to be much more clear about who
they take money from.
In my mind I'd rather the Debconf group put that together rather than
the project as a whole.
If they wanted to start including issues like environmental impact and
issues like you bring up, I guess I would hold my nose and support the
people doing the work making the decisions.
I wouldn't have a lot of sympathy if there were a budget shortfall if
the policy was too strict.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
