No, I will not “lighten up”

Here’s a conversation I was in recently. It’s paraphrased and anonymized because I’m not here to name-n-shame.

Person1: Oh hey, $less_popular_project I work on was found to be one of the most secure!

Me: Nice! Good for them. /me boosts signal

Person2: Too bad no one uses $less_popular_project, lol

Me: Not cool. Don’t bag on other projects.

Person2: Lighten up. It’s a joke, jeez.

Had Person2 known Person1 I could’ve let it go as banter between friends, but Person2 didn’t. Person1 was a stranger to them.

I’d intended to leave it at that. I said my piece and pointed out bad behavior, but after thinking about it a bit, no. I’m not done yet. I’m sick of this crap and I’m going to plant my flag in the sand.

Person1 was excited that their project was receiving well deserved recognition for all of their hard work. Person2 used this as an opportunity for a cheap shot and hurtful language.

No matter what the intention (“It’s a joke, jeez.), hurtful language is still just that: hurtful.

There is absolutely no benefit to being mean here. This sort of micro-aggression is masquerading as humor but is amusing only to the teller, not to most of the hearers and certainly not to the target.

Angry cat photo from Flickr user jing.dong, CC-BY-NCFor many years now I’ve been (usually gently) calling people out when they try this sort of thing, but right now I’m going to be more direct about it:

Shaming people’s open source project or community, programming language, platform, editor, framework… This is what bullies do. It’s not funny. It’s not useful. It’s just childish and mean. Knock it the fuck off.

OK, maybe that was more than a little direct. Whatever. I’m tired of third-rate bullies hiding their attacks behind “it’s a joke, jeez.”

I will be firm, polite, and respectful when I do it, but make no mistake that I will call you on your shit and at absolutely no point will I “lighten up.”

At this point someone will chime in with “Yes, see Aurynn’s post, too!” so let me just beat you to that: The very good Contempt Culture by Aurynn Shaw

On the occasional unpleasantness of community

Dear well-dressed lady who walked by as I was clearing the sidewalk of snow and ice,

No, I am not doing this because, as you state, I am “ambitious.” There are myriad things I’d rather be doing right now, not the least of which is working on the article which is due tomorrow.

I am doing this because, however onerous, it’s the right thing to do. The ice I clear from my sidewalk may save one of my neighbors a very unpleasant fall. You, well-dressed lady walking by, must live in a city rather than a community. This is what we do when we live in a community: we help each other.

The same is true in open source communities. Do we want to write documentation? For many of us, the answer is “no.” Do we want to do code review? Hold design meetings? Take the time out to answer user questions? Triage bug reports? Again, the answer usually is “no.” But we do it because it’s the right thing. Because by taking a little bit of time to do something we may not enjoy, we make our little corner of the world a more pleasant and more welcoming place for others. We turn it from a project, from a city, into a community.

Enjoy the cleared sidewalk.

Love from a community member,

Me

Uploading a Video to Internet Archive

I make no secret of the fact that OSCON is one of my favorite conferences. I try to speak at it whenever I can and do what I can to support its community. When I do get the opportunity to speak there, it's one of the most seamless experiences a tech conference speaker could ever hope to have.

Part of that seamlessness includes a speaker agreement which very clearly sets forth the expectations and responsibilities both of the presenter and of O'Reilly Media. My favorite part of that agreement is this clause:

ORM speaker agreement

What that says is that while I agree that O'Reilly Media has the right to sell its own access to the video of my presentation, I retain the right to distribute it for free as I see fit. This is a marvelous clause. It shows a deep respect for the speakers and their investment of time, effort, and sometimes financial expense to create and present the content at the conference. It's great that O'Reilly Media allows the speakers this freedom to distribute their content and is in line with the free/open/libre principles with which O'Reilly has become associated over their many years.

I typically download the videos of my OSCON presentations and make them available on (where else?) Internet Archive. This post will detail how other speakers can do the same. Most of this process will work for most any video to which you have the rights. That last piece is key. Do not upload videos of other speakers' presentations unless they have given you permission to do so.

Download your video

Naturally, before you can upload your OSCON video to Internet Archive you must first download it from O'Reilly. Duh.

One of the perks of being an OSCON speaker is access to the complete vault of that year's OSCON videos. This is a treasure trove of information presented by world-class speakers and technologists. If you haven't checked it out yet, I highly recommend setting aside a few hours to lose yourself in it and fill your brain.

All of these videos are available for download for subscribers to the vault and are entirely DRM-free, just like O'Reilly's books. Feel free to download all of them for your offline use, but please do the right thing and not distribute the ones to which you have no distribution rights.

To download your video, log into your O'Reilly account and navigate to your library. The OSCON video vaults to which you have access will be listed there.

If you have an ad-blocker enabled on your browser, you may need to disable it for the next step otherwise the necessary UI elements won't appear.

When viewing the vault for that year's OSCON, the videos are organized by track. If you don't remember which track your talk was in (I never remember this), you can just pop open all of the track accordions and use your browser's search function to find your name in the list.

To the right of your talk is a nice little download button. Click that, wait for the entire file to come down and, voila!, you have a video. Go ahead and turn that ad-blocker back on now.

Create an Internet Archive account

While, sure, you could upload your video to YouTube, vimeo, or some other free streaming service, in the spirit of open/free/libre and open access I always upload mine to Internet Archive. I used to work at the Archive, so I confess to no small amount of bias here. But who among us can argue with a mission of Universal Access to Human Knowledge? If you upload your video to the Archive you're guaranteed that it will be free (in all senses of the word) and accessible in perpetuity.

Internet Archive is an accredited library, so to upload to it you need a patron account. Naturally, as with any good library, patron accounts are freely available.

To create or access your patron account, vist the Archive and click the Sign In link. From here you can either sign in with your existing patron account credentials or create a new one.

Upload your video

While it's possible to use an API or a script or Python library to upload your file, today I'll describe how to do it using the Internet Archive upload tool.

Click the Upload icon on the Archive front page:

pic of the front page

Click the “Upload files” button on the tool and then drag your file onto it:

pic of the drop here

After doing a bit of parsing on the filename, the tool displays some metadata fields. Many of these are required to proceed:

pic of the metadata form

Enter the appropriate information then click Upload to start the process. The tool presents a progress bar while it does its work.

pic of the progress bar

After the file upload is complete, the display changes to the Internet Archive page for your file:

pic of the item

If you look at the box on the right side of the page you can see that the file is there and available for access. However, it won't be available for online viewing–nor can changes be made to this page–until the file receives further processing. Once that processing is complete, the file will be available for online viewing:

pic of derived item

Voila!

That's all there is to it! Your video is now available for sharing. The Archive will preserve it and make it freely available in perpetuity. At this point you can click the Edit link next to the title and add or change both the metadata and the files in your Internet Archive item.

Open Source Leadership Succession Plan?

I present at a lot of FOSS conferences and therefore have the chance to meet and speak with a lot of FOSS luminaries. These are inspiring people who’ve been working with, for, and on FOSS since the very beginning of the movement and who are still playing absolutely vital roles in FOSS at a leadership level. These are the people we all consult when forming a new foundation, creating a new license, or open sourcing an internal project. Most of the individuals who are working at these conceptual and policy levels of FOSS have been doing it since the beginning and helped to craft the history, the law, the processes, the politics of Free and Open Source software. It will be difficult to replicate that experience and knowledge.

But here’s the thing: We are, each one of us, getting older.

Some day the Tim O’Reillys, the Danese Coopers, the Simon Phippses, the Allison Randals, the Karl Fogels, the Bradley Kuhns, the other luminaries of the FOSS world will want to move on and/or retire. And well they should, as they’ll have more than earned a break for all the service they’ve given FOSS.

As I look around the ranks of FOSS policy leadership, I see all these great people but I see few to no younger leaders. These people have been serving us so well for so long that perhaps we’ve just had no need to supplement them with additional assistance and, in truth, it would be difficult to do so. Which I believe is precisely why we need to start thinking about this now before it’s too late.

So I have to wonder: do we in FOSS have a succession plan for these luminaries upon whom we’ve learned to rely? Are there programs and initiatives for training and mentoring the next generation of FOSS policy leaders? There are plenty of people working to build up the community leaders of tomorrow, but are we devoting enough attention to the policy and legal side of things?

Perhaps we are. I pay a lot of attention to what happens at that level of FOSS but won’t pretend to know everything which is going on. Mostly I just wanted to pose the question to see what thoughts and insights people have about the matter.

OSCON Portland, 2015

Oh, my. My last OSCON trip report is only two posts back. It seems I’ve been rather a slacker on the blogging front. I’ll see what I can do to change that. In the meantime, here’s my OSCON Portland, 2015 trip report.

This was my first OSCON as a Portland resident, which was as lovely as it was exhausting (both: very). When you know as many people as I and live in the city hosting OSCON, your conference lasts multiple weeks as people arrive and depart town. Next year the conference moves to Austin, so I’m grateful I had at least one opportunity to experience a hometown OSCON.

I only had one talk at the conference this year, and that one not scheduled until the final slot of the final day of the conference. It was well-received and surprisingly well attended, considering the other amazing speakers also in that timeslot. This was a talk which my co-presenter and I have given before and which required only minimal edits, which you would think means that I’d have plenty of free time to attend sessions. Unfortunately, that was not the case. For me, this OSCON was filled with meetings and greetings and hobnobbing and discussions. All were with great people and were productive, but it did impinge upon my session attendance.

However, it wasn’t all meetings and I did get the opportunity to see many really great speakers:

  • Presentation Ninjitsu, presented (as wonderfully as you’d expect) by Damian Conway
  • Rolling dice alone: Board games with remote friends, presented by Tim Nugent. Not only was it incredibly entertaining, Tim also did a great job teaching the audience about the philosophy and psychology of games. It also made me wonder whether it’s possible to apply some of his ideas and research on remote gaming to managing remote teams. That could be an interesting talk.
  • How Do I Game Design? Design games, understand people!, presented by Paris Buttfield-Addison, Jon Manning, and Tim Nugent. This talk expanded upon some of the fascinating philosophy and psychology upon which Tim’s touched the day before. Unfortunately I was only able to see half of this session, so I’m very eager to finish watching it when the videos come out.
  • Test Driven Repair, presented by Chris Neugebauer. Chris did a great job debunking the myth that you can’t do TDD on legacy projects. His approach was as useful as it is logical, and his “even one test is better than no tests at all” makes the approach accessible as well. This is one video most every team should watch once it becomes available.
  • Open sourcing anti-harassment tools, presented by Randi Harper. A somewhat controversial session (more on that in a moment) about the tech required to help people avoid online harassment. Both the session and the questions were almost entirely about architecture and technology. It was inspiring to see what Randi has been able to do with a few lines of Perl code, despite the immense burdens inflicted by her own online harassers.
  • As well, I caught every keynote, the videos for which are already online.

And then there were the talks I sorely regret having to miss:

Overall the conference was amazing, yet there was a dark cloud over the final couple days of the event. Some people rich in opinions but poor in manners took umbrage at OSCON accepting Randi Harper as a speaker. These people flooded every O’Reilly Media inbox and phone line they could find with demands that Randi be dropped from the schedule. When that didn’t work, they stamped their collective little princess foot and spammed the #oscon Twitter hashtag with their complaints, making it entirely unusable. Many of us speakers were perturbed by being unable to use the hashtag, so we suggested to O’Reilly that it install Randi’s own project to help improve the signal-to-noise ratio. The organizers of the conference considered their options and found this one to be best, then asked Josh Simmons–the community manager for OSCON–to install the project but only for the duration of the conference. WE SPEAKERS suggested this, O’REILLY ORGANIZERS agreed to it, JOSH SIMMONS became the target for abuse and harassment. He handled it remarkably well, which is a testament not only to his strength but also to his devotion to the community he manages and which supported him in return both in his actions and in his need. I confess, I have largely ignored the movement which caused all of this mayhem and have largely remained agnostic as to their controversy of choice (they simply have not been worth my time). But now that I have seen their methods first-hand, I have formed an opinion and it is a strong one. Pro Tip, kids: If you want to win friends and influence people, don’t attack the innocent lest we all see you for the cruel bullies that you are.

Aside from that, though, this was by far my favorite OSCON I’ve yet attended. The subjects were engrossing, the speakers were world-class, the people were kind, inspiring, thoughtful, and hilarious (often all at the same time). Before this OSCON I was on the fence about whether to head to Austin next year. Afterward, I immediately booked my hotel for 2016. Hopefully I’ll see you there!

OSCON 2014

Another year, another OSCON. Now that I’m approaching caught up, here’s a quick recap of that busy week.

It was a busy OSCON for me this time around. I had two talks to give, only one of which I’d finished writing before I arrived. Oops. Ah, well. They both went well and were well-received and -reviewed, so I’m a happy camper. The slides and my webcam videos of both talks are available on Internet Archive:

Because my current job is so variable, my session attendance was equally variable. I didn’t really focus on any specific things, instead giving preference to talks by people I know and respect.

And, of course, there was the evening of Perl goodness: rjbs with a whole hurricane of lightning talks (in lieu of the State of the Onion, since Larry’s recovering from eye surgery), then a dozen or so individual lightning talks. As usual, rgeoffrey ran a tight ship and kept the talks moving smoothly.

Really, though, most of my time was spent sitting or standing around and talking to people. So many people. So, so many people. I’m not even going to attempt to list them all, but it was all time well-spent. I’m grateful for the opportunity to meet and befriend so many amazing and inspiring people.

One thing that did not happen that week was productivity. Beyond talking (both on stage and off), I accomplished little of substance. Not only does that make this subsequent week more difficult, it’s also an opportunity missed. I could have done some excellent collaboration that week. So when I read rjbs’s OSCON trip report I was intrigued by his idea to set up shop at a table & just get shit done next year. I’d back that play. I have plenty of projects which need love and attention, so having a personal OSCON Hackathon wouldn’t go amiss. Thanks for the idea, Rik!

Overall it was a great trip but an exhausting. I’m honored that I was once again invited to speak and overjoyed to have spent so much time with so many great friends, both old & new. You’ve filled my head with knowledge and ideas and wowed me with your accomplishments. Now I just need to figure out how best to apply all my newfound inspiration.

San Francisco Perl Mongers: 12 months, 50% growth

A Timeline

On June 21st, 2013, Fred Moyer asked whether I’d like to discuss becoming a co-organizer for San Francisco Perl Mongers. On July 5th it was made official. Earlier this year I was promoted to primary organizer, Fred stepping aside to focus on some real life matters (though he still very much loves and is involved with SF.pm).

SF.pm: One Year In

Therefore this marks, more or less, my one year anniversary of SF.pm organizing. That seems as good as any reason for a recap. So, what’s happened in the past year?

  • We’ve held ten events.
  • We’ve been honored to host 16 different speakers (thank you, Lightning Talks, for bumping that number 😉 ).
  • We’ve added five new sponsors. (though we’re always on the lookout for more!)
  • We’ve started recording all events and making them available in our SF.pm collection on Internet Archive. (a post about how we do this is in the pipeline)
  • We’ve added 208 members, going from 394 members to 602.

That one bears repeating: San Francisco Perl Mongers has increased its membership by over 200 people in a single year.

What gives? How’d we do it?

First of all, let me be very clear: I don’t believe for a moment that these are 602 engaged members. Many are lurkers. But they’re lurkers who took the initiative to sign up and who receive our messages about Perl and its community. It’s 208 more people seeing those messages than were before, which—engaged or not—is a win in my book.

Also, another thing to get clear: I did not do this alone. While I am now the primary organizer of SF.pm I am by no means the only organizer. Fred, Joe Brenner, and Jeff Thalhammer deserve equal share in the credit.

Now, how’d we pull off this feat? As you’d expect, it was a multi-faceted approach:

  • Flexible scheduling. After Fred asked me to lend a hand, I started meeting with some local Mongers to get some feedback on where SF.pm has been and where they’d like to see it go. A lot of them said they were no longer attending because there were too many other meetups which landed on the usual SF.pm meeting night. So I scrapped the set “last Tuesday of the month” date in favor of a monthly event which would float to wherever it worked best that month. This allowed for a more diverse pool of potential attendees. Rather than just seeing the same faces each time, we now were seeing people who hadn’t been able to attend either ever or for several months at a time. As well, having a flexible meeting date made it easier to mesh our schedule with that of potential speakers.
  • Diverse content. How many of you work with Perl and only Perl, no other technology? No Javascript, no ops, no continuous integration framework, just Perl? Bloody well none of you, I’d wager. So why was our SF.pm content 100% focused on Perl? We’ve changed that. We still feature Perl in some way in almost every event but often the primary focus of an event has been expanded to “of interest to the SF.pm community.” Some of our most popular events in the past year have been about Data Science, MongoDB, and Docker.
  • Cooperation and collaboration with other communities. Our content is great, our community is amazing. Why should we keep these things to ourselves when others can benefit? Therefore in the past year we’ve been cross-posting many of our events with several other local tech community user groups. We’re Perl, so there’s more than one way to do it. That includes choice of language, so we’ve been thrilled to welcome new members coming in from the local Ruby and Python communities. The additional perspectives help enhance the experience for everyone and we’re very grateful for it. Special kudos go out to SF Ruby, who’ve been particularly welcoming of messages coming in from an external group. The SF Ruby gang really groks that we’re all stronger together than apart and that great learning opportunities can come from anywhere.

Someone else who groks this: John Anderson, aka genehack. I was really thrilled, when watching his YAPC::NA 2014 keynote, to hear him espousing many of the same steps which we at SF.pm were already taking. If you watched that talk and thought he was smoking mad crack, I’m here to tell ya: OK, maybe he was, but his suggestions work and we’re proof of it. Thank you, John. You’re my kind of crazy.

SF.pm: The Future

This post is already taking longer to write than I’d hoped, so I’ll try to wrap it up quickly. What’s next for SF.pm? What will the next year look like?

Right now there are no official plans, but here are some of the things I have rolling around in my head:

  • Update the website. The SF.pm website is…yeah. It’s dated. The only thing standing between us and a nice, clean, Bootstrap-y site on GitHub Pages is me carving out half a day to futz with the thing. It needs to happen, and it’s firmly on my radar. Perhaps I’ll stockpile a lot of round tuits at OSCON this year and use them for this purpose. 🙂
  • Engage more of the membership. We have 602 members, but they don’t really communicate that much. I’d love to get them talking a bit more, both among themselves as well as in front of the group. 602 people represents a vast amount of knowledge and I’d love to tap it so they can share their experiences with everyone.
  • Develop some sort of newbie program. Back in January 2013 I griped that SF.pm (and Perl in general) needs better outreach for newbies. I still stand by that statement. Another way I’d like to engage that burgeoning membership is to get their assistance to develop some sort of program to introduce more people to programming in general and Perl in specific. This is definitely a place where I won’t be able to go it alone.
  • Strengthen and increase collaboration with other communities. That assistance for knowledge sharing and new programmer development doesn’t necessarily have to come from our membership exclusively. When learning the fundamentals of programming (loops, functions, MVC, etc.), it doesn’t really matter which language you use. The concepts are easily applied anywhere. As well, other communities have a lot more experience organizing things like hackathons and workshops than I do. I’d love to collaborate with them to help the entire SF tech community expand their horizons.

Those are a few of the ideas I’m having. Maybe they’ll happen. Maybe they won’t but others will. Hey, that’s cool. All I know is that thanks to its amazing members SF.pm will continue to be a strong and growing community for years to come.

Moving On From The Errors of GitHub and The Ada Initiative

The Story So Far

  • On March 15th of this year, Julie Horvath–a well-known and -respected advocate for gender equality in technology–left her job at GitHub. It caused a bit of an uproar among technologists on the internet.
  • On March 16th, GitHub issued a statement that they were investigating the allegations and that the accused parties were placed on leave or banned from the company’s offices.
  • On April 21st, GitHub issued a statement of findings. This one declared that the investigation was complete, that it had found no evidence of wrong-doing (but did of mistakes & error in judgment), but that the accused parties had left the company regardless.
  • On that same day, Julie Horvath responded to the announcement.
  • On April 23rd, The Ada Initiative issued a statement that they were severing all ties with GitHub as a result of the situation.

Before I dive into the rest of this post, there is one fact which I would like to make crystal clear:

A hostile environment–work or otherwise–is NEVER OK. If you are in an environment which makes you uncomfortable, please immediately do whatever is necessary and legal to get yourself to a safe place. If you witness a hostile environment, speak up. This is everyone’s problem and we all have a responsibility to make sure our friends, families, colleagues, and fellow humans are safe.

Therefore I fully support Julie’s decision to quit GitHub. She states that–for many reasons–it was a hostile environment for her. Staying was not an option. She had the awareness to recognize this and the courage to walk away.

This is not an article about Julie. This is an article about what happened after she left.

Shit Happens: GitHub Edition

When GitHub released its statement of findings on April 21st, the internet lost its shit (as it is wont to do), embroiling itself in its usual under-informed tea leaf reading. Some people expressed a desire to forsake the company’s services. Many more decried the company for it’s “non-answer.”

I confess that I, myself, am dissatisfied with GitHub’s statement of “findings.” In my opinion, it is a legalistic and opaque answer to the questions its community has wanted and needs resolved in order to mend damaged trust. This is counter to the culture of openness which GitHub has fostered. It has shared none of the details of the investigation, instead asking an already skittish and suspicious community to just take it at its word. This was a clumsy (but perhaps necessary) move on their part. GitHub either did not know or entirely disregarded how this sort of a statement was going to further damage their reputation.

Shit Happens: The Ada Initiative Edition

One of the most visible and potential damaging reactions to GitHub’s statement of findings came from The Ada Initiative, when they publicly denounced GitHub and dissolved their partnership with the company.

While I respect the mission of The Ada Initiative and believe they have nothing but the best interests at heart, if GitHub’s statement of findings was clumsy then Ada Initiative’s reaction to it was a pratfall. Rather than taking this opportunity to further its mission by assisting a company struggling with turmoil induced by alleged gender-insensitivity, Ada Initiative instead chose an emotional and reactionary path which removes repository access for underserved and at-risk individuals.

The Ada Initiative statement declares that “The sum of these events make it impossible for Ada Initiative to partner with GitHub at this time,” but it does not actually detail the umbrage which it takes against “these events.” The entire judgment call is left as an exercise for the reader, under, one must imagine, the false assumption that everyone who reads the statement both now and in the future will grok the wrongs performed here.

As well, Ada Initiative canceled their partnership with GitHub but did not tell us either what steps they took to correct the offenses prior to the cancellation, nor what they request of GitHub to mend the wounds. All we are told is “We will not accept future sponsorships from or partnerships with GitHub unless the situation changes significantly.” This is hardly a constructive or actionable statement.

While The Ada Initiative is definitely taking a strong stance here, it is doing so by causing harm to the community it is sworn to protect and uplift. Rather than assisting a company to learn how to make a safe workplace, it has turned its back on it. The Ada Initiative is willfully ignoring an opportunity to make a positive difference.

Moving Forward

There are two things which ought to happen for everyone to move forward and make something good and productive out of this otherwise ugly situation:

GitHub needs to be more open.

I suspect that the GitHub statement of findings was as legalistic and opaque as it was because there may be some potential pending legal proceedings. This would tie their hands as far as what they are allowed/or advised to say by their counsel.

However, if they wish to mend their growing poor reputation, they still should make an effort to be more open about what has and is going on over this issue. They should say as much as possible, and then also tell their community what they cannot discuss and why. Stop the weaseling, start the openness.

Part of this openness must be a discussion of what they are doing to make GitHub into a safe environment for all members of the company, acknowledging that past efforts–however well-intentioned–may have failed and detailing how they hope to change the process and the culture.

The Ada Initiative needs to work WITH GitHub, not against it.

I recognize that Ada Initiative is trying to protect the community and I respect that. However, they should consider making a statement of concern but holding off on their cancellation of partnership with GitHub. Instead, they should consider reaching out to GitHub with a cooperative plan to help improve gender/minority sensitivity in the company. That would be much more in line with the mission of the organization and more productive than walking away in a huff without, from the available evidence, trying to work things out with GitHub first.

I leave on this brilliant and insightful tweet from Nicole Sullivan:

Let’s all please keep that in mind rather than immediately jumping to the worst possible reactions. These organizations are trying to do the right thing. They’re just making mistakes along the way. It happens. Let’s make those mistakes productive rather than cut them down for making them.

A CEO is a Leader: The Recent Mozilla CEO Kerfuffle

Experience comes for free. Learning takes effort.

On March 24th, Mozilla announced that they had named Brendan Eich as CEO.

On April 3rd, Brendan Eich, after much internet uproar over his $1000 donation to disallow same-sex marriage, stepped down as CEO of Mozilla.

So.

WTF happened here?

First of all, some facts…

  • FACT: Brendan Eich is well within his rights to support his personal beliefs through financial donations. Furthermore, that he did not back down from his position shows a strong sense of integrity. He was correct to do what he did. (ed. note: I very strongly disagree with Eich’s position on this matter and share Rarebit’s disappointment, but defend to the death Eich’s right to express his opinion.)
  • FACT: Team Rarebit and others were well within their rights to express outrage at the appointment. They were correct to say what they did.
  • FACT: Yet others were well within their rights to defend the appointment. They were correct to say what they did.
  • FACT: The Mozilla board of directors appointed Eich because they truly believed they were doing what was best for the organization. They, however, erred.

What appears to have happened is that the Mozilla board of directors misunderstood the role of CEO in an organization, particularly in a non-profit and mission-driven organization.

A CEO isn’t merely a leader; a CEO is a Leader. In a non-profit and mission-driven organization, a CEO is a LEADER. LEADERship extends far beyond merely setting technical and strategic direction for an organization. It includes becoming the very public face of everything for which the organization stands.

As an organization with a brilliant track record for supporting diversity and freedom of all sorts, Mozilla could not have a CEO who was on public record as opposing what a great many people see as a civil right.

Undoubtedly, as CEO, Eich would have continued his admirable track record of not allowing his personal political and religious beliefs to impact his professional performance. He had, after all, been CTO of Mozilla almost since the beginning and from all appearances his personal beliefs did not affect that performance. But being CTO is not being CEO. A CTO is responsible for setting and delivering the technical vision for an organization. One’s opinion on social issues is unlikely to come up in such a role.

A CEO, on the other hand, is responsible for setting and delivering the overall vision for an organization. This vision includes not only business strategy but also culture and mission. As such, a CEO’s beliefs must completely track with those of the organization which they lead. This is part of what makes the hunt for a new CEO so challenging. While a CEO’s personal beliefs may not affect the easily quantifiable parts of their job, (as we have now seen) they can have untold effects on responsibilities which, while more fungible, are no less important.

If there is any blame to be placed here, it is with the Mozilla board for not realizing this fact. They were aware that Eich had taken a public stance on an issue which could be seen as contrary to the Mozilla culture, yet they apparently did not see this as a potential problem for acceptance of him as a CEO. It was this ignorance and lack of awareness which led to the recent drama. Thankfully ignorance is curable. And undoubtedly Mozilla has had an effective dose of its medicine for this ailment.

There is no doubt in my mind that Brendan Eich has the experience, the vision, and the competence to lead Mozilla for years to come. He has proved that with his many years of experience as CTO. But from a cultural point of view he was, unfortunately, damaged goods. As such, the Mozilla board of directors should have refused delivery of the CEO package. If they had, they could have retained him, his passion for the open web, and his talents to help further the Mozilla mission.

Instead they are left with a learning opportunity and without the contributions of a founding father. Thankfully, the organization is populated by thousands of brilliant and insightful human beings. Mozilla will recover from this mistake, and even while recovering it will continue its work toward the open web. Those of us who agree with and believe in this mission should, now more than ever, support Mozilla. Let’s turn this experience into learning and continue to move forward.

Announcing Documentation for the Internet Archive S3 API

Back in 2011 I was hired at Internet Archive to develop a digital archive service for memory institutions. Unfortunately, after six months the project was scrapped (along with my position).

In the last month of the project, while waiting for the go-ahead to keep moving forward, I undertook documenting the Archive’s S3-like API. The project was going to need this API and, to be entirely frank, the existing documentation is laughable (sorry, IA team, but it’s a spade). My API doc was nearing completion about the same time the project was axed, but it was never published and ended up collecting dust in my Dropbox.

Fast forward a couple of years. Now, as a co-organizer for San Francisco Perl Mongers, I stream and record as many of our events as possible. Afterward, I upload them to our SF.pm Collection on Internet Archive because I believe in their mission of “Universal access to all knowledge.”

In the process of that uploading, I found myself referring frequently to that old in-progress API doc. Finally it dawned on me that I should probably share the damn thing so others could benefit as well.

It took a lot of cleanup and editing, but now I present to you:

The Internet Archive S3 API Documentation.

This API will allows for the creation and maintenance of items on Internet Archive. It also allows uploading of files to the item and, if the item has the appropriate metadata values, Internet Archive provides online viewers for this item content. For more information, have a look at the API Summary & FAQ.

It’s my hope that this documentation will allow many more user groups, individuals, and institutions to preserve and share their content via Internet Archive (for free, might I add, but donations are always welcome). I think of it as a grassroots continuation of the stillborn Digital Archive Service I once worked to produce.

NOTA BENE #1: If you have a lot of content to upload to the Archive, please be a good citizen and contact Internet Archive to coordinate with them. The crack IA Collections department will help the process be as smooth as possible.

NOTA BENE #2: This is not an Internet Archive document. They are not responsible for any shortcomings it may have. Please see the support page for more information about that.

If you use this document (and I do hope you will) and do find any shortcomings, please let me know! This doc is in Github specifically because it makes it so easy to collaborate on this sort of thing.