Tag: Foundation

Elephant Followup

This is a response to Allan’s response to my most recent blog post. For context, I think it’s important to note that I’m happy that Allan is on the board now, along with some of the other new members coming from the community who joined in the past year. As I think I made clear in my last post, my concerns with the Foundation are with some of its structures, and the leadership predating this year’s board. I have huge respect for the effort Allan has put into the Foundation since he rejoined the board last year, I know it’s thankless work in difficult circumstances. I don’t know why Allan felt the need to issue a personal reply, seeing as this is not about him. However, since he did, I wanted to clarify a few points.

The Ban Itself

From the perspective of many people in the community, especially volunteers not affiliated with any company, Sonny was our representative on the board, trying to fix long-standing problems with the Foundation. Those of us who worked closely with him on the STF team knew how difficult and frustrating this was for him. In that already tense, low-trust situation, Sonny being banned the way he was obviously looks political — how could it not?

If you ban a board member after they try to address the community’s concerns with the Foundation you really need to do a good job communicating why you’re not just getting rid of uncomfortable opposition. What we got instead was silence and appeals to authority. Of course, given that trust in the structures was low to begin with, that was not very convincing to anyone who knew some of the backstory. “Trust me, I’ve seen more evidence” doesn’t work when there are serious concerns about the process as a whole.

My sense is that a big part of the problem is that the board/CoCC never tried to talk things through with Sonny to clear up potential misunderstandings in the CoC complaint, and as a result everyone is operating off of different facts.

Due to CoC confidentiality and the alleged infractions having happened in private settings without other parties present it’s incredibly hard to find any common ground here. I still think a mediation with everyone involved would have been a good path forward, but we’ve seen no interest from the Foundation side in continuing/re-starting something like that. Therefore, it seems we’re at an impasse — those who trust the structures will continue to do so, and those who don’t will continue not to.

The Aftermath

Allan’s post makes the claim that those of us criticizing the way this has been handled are asking for people who make important contributions to the project to be treated differently in the eyes of the CoC — I’m not sure where this is coming from, because nobody has asked for that.

However, in doing something as drastic as an immediate, long-term ban the board and CoC committee should be concerned with avoiding collateral damage. Other community members who are directly or indirectly affected should not be left hanging with no communication and lots of extra work.

Some thought should be put into which modules, programs, or initiatives might be affected by a ban, and measures taken to avoid adverse effects. None of that was done in this case. As an example: I was working with Sonny on a daily basis co-organizing the STF project, and even I didn’t get any official communication of Sonny’s ban when it happened.

In this case, the fallout from messing this up was massive. I don’t think I need to repeat what this meant for the STF project and contractors, but it didn’t stop there. For example, Sonny’s two Google Summer of Code interns also lost all contact to their mentor, with zero communication from anyone. Other volunteers had to scramble and fill in for Sonny, to avoid the interns failing their GSoC evaluations.

Independently of the questions around the validity of the ban itself, the damage caused by the way it has been (mis-)handled has been severe enough that someone should take accountability for it. While it’s true that some directors have apologized to the STF team in private, this does not seem sufficient given the gravity of the failures. There need to be some concrete consequences if the Foundation wants to be credible again in the eyes of the community.

The Independent Review

It’s true that there was an external review of the CoC decision, but unfortunately it did not bring any clarity. This is primarily because the evidence of the case itself was not examined at all, it was only a review of CoC procedures. The report we got was extremely vague and only made high-level process recommendations, it did not answer any of the actual questions around the ban.

This is why I’m confused about the claim that the report said the ban was justified — I’m assuming this was a misunderstanding. In my (and others, see e.g. Andy’s perspective) reading of the report, it only says that such a ban is within the purview of the CoC committee, and does not comment on the merits of this particular case.

There’s obviously a lot more to say, but my goal here was just to clear up a few misconceptions I’ve seen in recent discussions.

I’d like to thank everyone who has reached out and expressed their solidarity after the previous post. It’s clear that even a year later, many people across the community are still feeling hurt, confused, and isolated by the way this has been handled. Between that and the people who seem to think the elephant is just fine where it is and should be actively ignored I think we unfortunately have a lot to work through as a community.

I’d also like to thank Allan for the work he has done and is continuing to do on the Foundation side. I know having to deal with the fallout from this ban on top of everything else is not making things any easier. This situation really sucks for everyone, and I hope we can bring it behind us.

The Elephant in the Room

In a few weeks it’ll be one year since a board member of the GNOME Foundation was removed from the project entirely (including Gitlab, Matrix, Discourse, etc.) under very suspicious circumstances. Very little has been said or done about this in public since then. The intentions behind keeping everything internal were good — the hope was to get to a resolution without unnecessary conflict. However, because there’s no non-public way to have discussions across the entire community, and with this dragging on longer and longer, what I’ve seen is partial facts and misunderstandings spreading across different sub-groups, making it harder to talk to each other. I’m now convinced it’s better to break the silence and start having this conversations across the entire project, rather than letting the conflict continue to fester in the background.

That’s not to say nothing has been happening. Over the past year, a number of people from the community (including myself), and some members of the board have tried to resolve this behind the scenes. On a personal level, I’d like to thank all the board members involved for their efforts, even if we didn’t always see eye to eye. Medium-term I’m hopeful that some positive policy changes can be made as a result of this process.

One important thing to note is that nobody involved is against Codes of Conduct. The problem here is the Foundation’s structural dysfunction, bad leadership, and the way the CoC was used in this case as a result. I’m aware of the charged nature of the subject, and the potential for feeding right wing narratives, but I think it’s also important to not let that deter us from discussing these very real issues. But just to be extra clear: Fuck Nazis, GNOME is Antifa.

Sonny has been out since last summer, and as far as I know he’s currently not interested in investing more energy into this. That’s understandable given how he’s been treated, but the rest of us are still here, and we still need to work together. For that we need, if not justice, at least closure, and a way forward.

In this case someone was disappeared entirely from the community with no recourse, no attempts to de-escalate, no process for re-integration, and no communication to the rest of the project (not until months later anyway). Having talked to members of other projects’ CoC structures this is highly unusual, especially completely out of the blue against a well-integrated member of the project.

While the details of this case are unknown to most of the community due to the (understandable) need to keep CoC reports confidential, what is known (semi-) publicly paints a pretty damning picture all by itself:

  • A first-time CoC complaint was met with an immediate ban
  • A week later the ban was suspended, and a mediation promised
  • The 2024 board elections were held a few weeks later without informing the electorate about the ban
  • 2 months later the ban was re-instated unilaterally, against the wishes of the new board
  • There was an (unsuccessful) vote to remove the chairman of the CoC committee from the board and CoC committee

Given the above, I think it’s fair to say that the people who were on the board and CoC committee when the ban happened, have, at the very least, acted with incredible recklessness. The haphazard and intransparent way in which they handled this case, the incoherence of their subsequent actions, and the lack of communication have have caused great damage to the project. Among other things, in Sonny Piers they have cost us one of our most prolific developers and organizers, and in the STF development team our most successful program in recent history.

What perhaps not everyone’s aware of is that we were working on making this team permanent and tried to apply for followup funding from different sources. None of this materialized due to the ban and the events surrounding it, and the team has since been disbanded. In an alternate world where this had not happened we could be looking at a very different Foundation today, with an arm that strategically funds ongoing development and can employ community members.

More importantly however, we’re now in a situation where large parts of the community do not trust our CoC structure because they feel it can be weaponized as part of internal power struggles.

This ban was only the latest in a long series of failures, missteps, and broken promises by the Foundation. In addition to the recent financial problems and operational failures (e.g. not handling internships, repeatedly messing up invoicing, not responding to time-sensitive communication), all strategic initiatives over the past 5+ years have either stalled or just never happened (e.g. Flathub payments (2019), local-first (2021), development initiative (2024)).

I think there are structural reasons at the root of many of these issues, but it’s also true that much of the Foundation leadership and staff has not changed throughout this period, and that new people joining the board and trying to improve things tend to get frustrated and give up quickly (or in Sonny’s case, get banned). This is a problem we need to confront.

To those on the board and CoC committee who were involved in Sonny’s ban: I’m asking you to step down from your positions, and take some time off from Foundation politics. I know you know you fucked up, and I know you care about this project, like we all do. Whatever your reasons at the time, consider what’s best for the project now. Nobody can undo what happened, but in the medium-term I’m actually hopeful that reconciliation is possible and that both the Foundation and community can come out of this stronger than before. I don’t think that can happen under the current leadership though.

To everyone else: My hope in talking openly about this is that we can get closer to a common understanding of the situation. It seems unlikely that we can resolve this quickly, but I’d at least like to make a start. Eventually I hope we can have some mediated sessions for people from across the community to process the many feelings about this, and see how we can heal these wounds. Perhaps we could organize something at GUADEC this summer — if anyone would be interested in that, let me know.

Re-Decentralizing Development

As I’ve already announced internally, I’m stepping down from putting together an STF application for this year. For inquiries about the 2025 application, please contact Adrian Vovk going forward. This is independent of the 2024 STF project, which we’re still in the process of wrapping up. I’m sticking around for that until the end.

The topic of this blog post is not the only reason I’m stepping down but it is an important one, and I thought some of this is general enough to be worth discussing more widely.

In the context of the Foundation issues we’ve had throughout the STF project I’ve been thinking a lot about what structures are best suited for collectively funding and organizing development, especially in the context of a huge self-organized project like GNOME. There are a lot of aspects to this, e.g. I hadn’t quite realized just how important having a motivated, talented organizer like Sonny is to successfully delivering a complex project. But the specific area I want to talk about here is how power and responsibilities should be split up between different entities across the community.

This is my personal view, based on having worked on GNOME in a variety of structures over the years (volunteer, employee, freelancer, for- and non-profit, worked under grants, organized grants, etc.). I don’t have any easy answers, but I wanted to share how my perspective has shifted as a result of the events of the past year, which I hope will contribute to the wider ongoing discussion around this.

A Short History

Unlike many other user-facing free software projects, GNOME had strong corporate involvement since early on in its history, with many different product companies and consultancies paying people to work on various parts of it. The project grew up during the Dotcom bubble (younger readers may not remember this, but “Linux” was the “AI” of that era), and many of our structures date back to this time.

The Foundation was created in those early days as a neutral organization to hold resources that should not belong to any one of the companies involved (such as the trademark, donation money, or the development infrastructure). A lot of checks and balances were put in place to avoid one group taking over the Foundation or the Foundation itself overshadowing other players. For example, hiring developers via the Foundation was an explicit non-goal, advisory board companies do not get a say in the project’s technical direction, and there is a limit to how many employees of any single company can be on the board. See this episode of Emmanuele Bassi’s History of GNOME Podcast for more details.

The Dotcom bubble burst and some of those early companies died, but there continued to be significant corporate investment, e.g. from enterprise desktop companies like Sun, and then later via companies from the mobile space during the hype cycles around netbooks, phones, and tablets around 2010.

Fast forward to today, this situation has changed drastically. In 2025 the desktop is not a growth area for anyone in the industry, and it hasn’t been in over a decade. Ever since the demise of Nokia and the consolidation of the iOS/Android duopoly, most of the money in the ecosystem has been in server and embedded use cases.

Today, corporate involvement in GNOME is limited to a handful of companies with an enterprise desktop business (e.g. Red Hat), and consultancies who mostly do low-level embedded work (e.g. Igalia with browsers, or Centricular with Gstreamer).

Retaining the Next Generation

While the current level of corporate investment, in combination with volunteer work from the wider community, have been enough to keep the project afloat in recent years, we have a pretty glaring issue with our new contributor pipeline: There are very few job openings in the field.

As a result, many people end up dropping out or reducing their involvement after they finish university. Others find jobs on adjacent technologies where they occasionally get work time for GNOME-related stuff, and put in a lot of volunteer time on top. Others still are freelancing, applying for grants, or trying to make Patreon work.

While I don’t have firm numbers, my sense is that the number of people in precarious situations like these has been going up since I got involved around 2015. The time when you could just get a job at Red Hat was already long gone when I joined, but for a while e.g. Endless and Purism had quite a few people doing interesting stuff.

In a sense this lack of corporate interest is not unusual for user-facing free software — maybe we’re just reverting to the mean. Public infrastructure simply isn’t commercially profitable. Many other projects, particularly ones without corporate use cases (e.g. Tor) have always been in this situation, and thus have always relied on grants and donations to fund their development. Others have newly moved in this direction in recent years with some success (e.g. Thunderbird).

Foundational Issues

I think what many of us in the community have wanted to see for a while is exactly what Tor, Thunderbird, Blender et al. are doing: Start doing development at the Foundation, raise money for it via donations and grants, and grow the organization to pick up the slack from shrinking corporate involvement.

I know why this idea is so seductive to many of us, and has been for years. It’s in fact so popular, I found four board candidacies (1, 2, 3, 4) from the last few election cycles proposing something like it.

On paper, the Foundation seems perfect as the legal structure for this kind of initiative. It already exists, it has the same name as the wider project, and it already has the infrastructure to collect donations. Clearly all we need to do is to raise a bit more money, and then use that money to hire community members. Easy!

However, after having been in the trenches trying to make it work over the past year, I’m now convinced it’s a bad idea, for two reasons: Short/medium term the current structure doesn’t have the necessary capacity, and longer term there are too many risks involved if something goes wrong.

Lack of Capacity

Simply put, what we’ve experienced in the context of the STF project (and a few other initiatives) over the past year is that the Foundation in its current form is not set up to handle projects that require significant coordination or operational capacity. There are many reasons for this — historical, personal, structural — but my takeaway after this year is that there need to be major changes across many of the Foundation’s structures before this kind of thing is feasible.

Perhaps given enough time the Foundation could become an organization that can fund and coordinate significant development, but there is a second, more important reason why I no longer think that’s the right path.

Structural Risk

One advantage of GNOME’s current decentralized structure is its resilience. Having a small Foundation at the center which only handles infrastructure, and several independent companies and consultancies around it doing development means different parts are insulated from each other if something goes wrong.

If there are issues inside e.g. Codethink or Igalia, the maximum damage is limited and the wider project is never at risk. People don’t have to leave the community if they want to quit their current job, ideally they can just move to another company and continue most of their upstream work.

The same is not true of projects with a monolithic entity at the center. If there’s a conflict in that central monolith it can spiral ever wider if it isn’t resolved, affecting more and more structures and people, and doing drastically more damage.

This is a lesson we’ve unfortunately had to learn the hard way when, out of the blue, Sonny was banned last year. I’m not going to talk about the ban here (it’s for Sonny to talk about if/when feels like it), but suffice to say that it would not have happened had we not done the STF project under the Foundation, and many community members including myself do not agree with the ban.

What followed was, for some of us, maybe the most stressful 6 months of our lives. Since last summer we’ve had to try and keep the STF project running without its main architect, while also trying to get the ban situation fixed, as well as dealing with a number of other issues caused by the ban. Thousands of volunteer hours were probably burned on this, and the issue is not even resolved yet. Who knows how many more will be burned before it’s over. I’m profoundly sad thinking about the bugs we could have fixed, the patches we could have reviewed, and the features we could have designed in those hours instead.

This is, to me, the most important takeaway and the reason why I no longer believe the Foundation should be the structure we use to organize community development. Even if all the current operational issues are fixed, the risk of something like this happening is too great, the potential damage too severe.

What are the Alternatives?

If using the Foundation is too risky, what other options are there for organizing development collectively?

I’ve talked to people in our community who feel that NGOs are fundamentally a bad structure for development projects, and that people should start more new consultancies instead. I don’t fully buy that argument, but it’s also not without merit in my experience. Regardless though, I think everyone has also seen at one point or another how dysfunctional corporations can be. My feeling is it probably also heavily depends on the people and culture, rather than just the specific legal structure.

I don’t have a perfect solution here, and I’m not sure there is one. Maybe the future is a bunch of new consulting co-ops doing a mix of grants and client work. Maybe it’s new non-profits focused on development. Maybe we need to get good at Patreon. Or maybe we all just have to get a part time job doing something else.

Time will tell how this all shakes out, but the realization I’ve come to is that the current decentralized structure of the project has a lot of advantages. We should preserve this and make use of it, rather than trying to centralize everything on the Foundation.