-- Leo's gemini proxy
-- Connecting to gemini.techrights.org:1965...
-- Connected
-- Sending request
-- Meta line: 20 text/gemini;lang=en-GB
Posted in GNU/Linux at 2:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Back to “Con in Conference”… (part 1 here)
Reference: BIT Life Sciences
Summary: Calls for papers (CfP) and who gets to assess what's presented or what’s not presented is a lesser-explored aspect, especially in this age when large corporate sponsors get to indirectly run entire ‘community’ events
THE Linux Foundation will occupy a growing amount of our time, space and attention. Readers contact us with pointers and information, which we are slow to process, analyse, and then verify. Our goal is to better understand what goes on behind the scenes, both commercially and bureaucratically. Personal relationships, as we have come to discover, play a considerable role. Some call it “nepotism”, but it’s actually a lot more complicated than this.
“Mozilla recently spoke out about the dangers of hiring programmers from Australia because of Australia’s new draconian laws, which unequivocally mandate back doors.”I recently came to realise that the Foundation, or LF for short (we try to abbreviate without confusing some readers), does not care about freedom, privacy etc. Not at all. Nothing. I saw it surfing the hype wave of listening devices (like Alexa) and participating in mass surveillance projects (disguised using marketing euphemisms such as “cloud”, “edge”, “bid data”, “IoT” and so on). This is no laughing matter and we mentioned it some months ago in passing. For instance, I’m rather disturbed to see the growing role AT&T plays in the LF and I am rather disturbed to see the role Juniper (with NSA back doors and loads of Microsoft veterans at the top of the company) plays in LF and various ‘FOSS’ communities. These communities should know a danger when they see one. Mozilla recently spoke out about the dangers of hiring programmers from Australia because of Australia’s new draconian laws, which unequivocally mandate back doors.
Whose agenda will be served at the LF? Usually, as the old saying goes, “follow the money…”
And that’s rather scary.
“Some of my Notes,” said the author of the first part, include notes about Juniper staff (we’ve removed all the names so as to exercise caution):
I noticed [name omitted/redacted] was working the Conference “circuit” as a volunteer at several conferences, responding to inquiries.
I thought – that was strange.
[Name omitted/redacted] was offering a webinar with [another name omitted/redacted] at (I believe) [third person's name omitted/redacted]‘s lead for LibrePlanet 2018.
“I noticed [name omitted/redacted] was working the Conference “circuit” as a volunteer at several conferences, responding to inquiries.” –AnonymousAlso of note – [name omitted/redacted] wrote a LinuxJournal article several days prior to Libreplanet 2018. [An article saying proprietary software is OK]
I had previously emailed [another name omitted/redacted], regarding [name omitted/redacted] and how it seemed she was reviewing and selecting presentations at several conferences.
What I found disturbing is that [name omitted/redacted] was speaking but also involved in selecting of talks.
“What I found disturbing is that [name omitted/redacted] was speaking but also involved in selecting of talks. ” –Anonymous[Another name omitted/redacted] – the [event] organizer, moved up the ranks and also was volunteering to do CfP.
[Another name omitted/redacted], when approached regarding [name omitted/redacted] and the possibility she was rigging the talks at conferences – told RMS (Richard Stallman) that [name omitted/redacted] was not evaluating talks.
Richard then came back to me about his concerns, I sent him the invitation to a webinar by [name omitted/redacted].
“Over time there seems to be less and less one is “permitted” to say in the so-called ‘community’; condemnation of companies that do illegal things, for instance, may already be impermissible or “toxic”.”It seems apparent that [another name omitted/redacted] covered up for [name omitted/redacted] and did not notify FSF staff. It wasn’t until I approached RMS personally about [name omitted/redacted] that something was done. [name omitted/redacted] is now working for Juniper Networks or something and is not gaming the conference circuit.
I think more research can be done regarding talks and the oddities.
We have done some research over the past week and will report based on it in the coming days (this series takes a great deal of research time to prepare). There’s an aspect of free speech to it. Over time there seems to be less and less one is “permitted” to say in the so-called ‘community’; condemnation of companies that do illegal things, for instance, may already be impermissible or “toxic”. █
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
----------
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
-- Response ended
-- Page fetched on Mon May 6 12:00:13 2024