jonobacon

Sorry, this is a long answer.

This is something I have wrestled with too, and something I have explored different methods of trying to fix. Rather unsurprisingly, there is no silver bullet.

Communities are something of a double-edged sword. On one hand it never ceases to amaze me how selfless people can be in building something that benefits the wider community. Open Source is a beautiful example of that; people commit hours of their time to creating something that others will enjoy too. On the flip side, it never ceases to amaze me how hateful, rude, and disrespectful some people can be.

This is something that afflicts Open Source but is not unique to it. Just take a look at many YouTube comments, some unfortunate Reddit threads, website comment boxes, tweets, IRC discussions, mailing list flamewars etc. This is more widely an issue with how people communicate online.

Most typically the people who are hateful use their hate as a method of coping with a situation they don't like because they don't possess the skills to solve problems in a more structured manner. When people lack constructive problem-solving or debating skills, and you remove body-language from the mix and a sense of accountability of their actions (due to anonymous accounts), people often act like dicks because it is the easy way out. In other words: if someone is hateful, they have exhausted the value they can bring, and are not worth listening to anyway.

Now let me clear: this does not mean we should ignore direct, pointed feedback that is uncomfortable to hear. I always welcome very direct discussions...these are often our most defining moments, but when it descends into hate, it is clear that the commentator has little value to bring to the discussion and our efforts are better spent elsewhere.

Where this does affect Open Source is more specifically with entitlement. There are some people who discover Open Source and the mechanics of community-led development and they feel this entitles them to a vote or say in how it evolves. This just isn't the case.

Open Source is rarely a democracy...it is a meritocracy in which good contributions grow a reputation that in turn affects decision-making. Invariably the majority of hate comes from people who are passionate about using Open Source, but rarely contribute to the core projects (in coding, docs, advocacy or other traditional routes), and who treat the Open Source community like People magazine and love to get embroiled in the gossip, and inter-project spats. This is a total waste of time and a distraction, whichever side of the fence you sit. It is almost as if some people treat Open Source like a MMORPG in which you get XP for arguing with others over how pure of a Free Software fan you are. I would rather play a game that is actually fun (Battlefield 4 FTW!).

In terms of the solution, it has to be multi-faceted. I have tried codes of conduct, anti-harassment policies, different governances models, etc, but these traditional methods depend on people following pre-defined rules. As such, we need to grow a culture in which anti-social behavior is essentially downvoted in reddit terms, and this requires leaders and core contributors to behave in a professional and engaging manner, and backed up with suitable moderation. Communities with anti-social leaders often result in anti-social sub-communities.

I also believe that part of the solution is helping people to be able to deal with and cope with hateful commentary and put it in perspective (just because you read it, doesn't mean it is true), and I am working on something right now to support this side of the problem.

Like anything in life, it is a balance.

I have tremendous respect for RMS and the efforts of the FSF. They provide a good guiding path for what truly free looks like. I think it is important though to remember that they are one extreme side of where the pendulum can swing, with a traditional proprietary software company on the other side.

The challenge with fully free within those definitions is that the user experience often isn't there. Certain hardware doesn't work without binary blobs, certain codecs are required to play media, etc etc.

I believe the best approach is to aim to build a fully Free Software platform within the definition of the FSF, but also accept that we will need to make some trade-offs in some areas, but to limit those areas and to focus on the right areas with Free Software.

What saddens me about the more extreme FSF-orientated focus is that I believe more people could enjoy the benefits of a 99% Free Software system if we compromise on the 1%, but in the eyes on the FSF that 1% is a deal-breaker. This is why Ubuntu is not a recommended distribution from them. We can have more people enjoy the benefits of Free Software if we make this trade-off, which is what we do in Ubuntu.

But this is the nature of being an extreme...the FSF provide solid guiding path of what purity looks like, and we use them as one component in building something that is designed to have mass adoption with Free Software principles.

I love the work Fedora do. They are a great bunch of people who maintain a great distro. I think it is different to Ubuntu and more along the lines of a traditional Linux distro, but I think they serve that really well.

I also like how the Elementary folks are evolving their distro and their focus on design.

Of course, nothing, not even Ubuntu, compares to Rebecca Black Linux.

Hey, good question.

I screwed up with the RMS thing. I should never have called him childish...it was a potshot. I still hugely disagree with his notion that it is "spyware"...which I also think is a potshot, but irrespective, I should not have degraded him by calling him childish.

I screwed up and I apologized. I am a human being and not perfect.

I don't think we need a PR person; I think we have things generally well taken care of. People screw up, that happens sometimes.

Make an awesome app and sell it in an app store. Make the code available, but sell it anyway. If people like it, they will buy it.