Zoë Kooyman on Post-Stallman Changes at the Free Software Foundation (Part 2)

In this second of our two part interview, Kooyman talks about moves the foundation has made to remain resilient and relevant in an ever changing world where nothing is certain.

In the first part of this interview, executive director Zoë Kooyman described the Free Software Foundation today. The interview was particularly surprising for its redefinition of open source advocates as allies with partly overlapping goals with the free software movement — a striking change from the sometimes hostile view prior to Richard Stallman’s cancellation and resignation in 2019. Part 2 of this interview goes into more detail about the FSF’s recent philosophical and structural changes, as well as its current priorities.

Bruce Byfield: How has the FSF’s organization altered in the last few years?

Zoë Kooyman: Our current board is eight members and our voting members are ten. We have added four new board members since 2021, one of which is a staff seat, and the other three were elected through the new governance process.

We rely on our new board members to bring fresh energy and expertise to our governance as much as we rely on our older board members to bring their lessons learned through experience and historical knowledge to the table. The process of electing the new board was very immersive and had a lot of engagement, and was a good way to get to know them and for them to feel comfortable enough to start making a difference.

With this new energy, and the simple fact we now have a larger board with more and different levels of expertise, more work is being done. Additionally, and importantly, now that we have gone through this process, we are at the tail end of this introspective period, and conversations are moving back to free software.

Byfield: How are decisions made today?

Kooyman: We now have several ways in which the organization is more horizontal. We have a union staff seat in the board, and a direct connection has been established between associate members and board and voting members for the first time in our history.Internally,we have also established better processes of making sure there is more horizontal communications to enhance that connection. Remote work can be a challenge, but as we have been through this change, it has been another opportunity to forge transparent connections.

I took on the executive director role in 2022, for our president Geoff Knauth who has been in the role since 2020. He has committed to withdrawing from the position when a replacement is found, and this is still his intention when the possibility presents itself. Geoff has little involvement in the day-to-day operations of the FSF and gives a lot of trust to myself and the staff. Not everyone can fill an officer role, let alone the president role.

The context for decision-making has also changed. There is a renewed commitment to the community and the FSF’s associate members for transparency and responsible governance of the FSF as a result of the immersive journey we have been on.

Byfield: In the past, the FSF was sometimes criticized for lacking diversity. In particular, it was said to be male-dominated. How has that changed in recent years? What ongoing efforts are being made to encourage diversity?

Kooyman: The main purpose of diversity is recognizing that we do not live in an insular environment. I think the FSF is able to do that to a reasonable extent with the people we have, but there are also still many backgrounds that are not represented at the FSF and we are aware of that. With the new board nomination process, the board established a list of fundamental requirements and valuable attributes. They highlighted diversity as one of them.

When it comes to being male-dominated, I think you can review our staff and board page to see that there is not an issue there. In fact, in the FSF staff, males are the minority at this moment.

Byfield: What are the main concerns today?

Kooyman: The FSF is working on a statement of criteria for machine learning applications. We are discussing the issues we have encountered with experts and community members alike through public speaking and internal discussions with our working group. It is the FSF’s responsibility to set aspirational standards in a field that is developing quickly. More and more people’s computing is influenced by machine learning, and so our response needs to be thoughtful but firm on the side of user freedom.

Obviously, training data is the most debated topic in this debate, but here too the FSF puts freedom first, even if that means that few current systems can qualify for it. This is about setting a standard for the future we want to live in.

Byfield: What licensing issues is the FSF currently concerned with?

Kooyman: Like the rest of the FSF, our licensing team has gone through change in these last years. As license violations seem to be growing, this is a space in which we need to continue to put much of our resources. Software freedom is not a self-sustaining idea, and we need compliance to our licenses to guarantee philosophy’s existence. That will not happen without continued license enforcement.

Large proprietary corporations are using their already existing powers to make user freedom more and more difficult to obtain, and tend to make it seem illogical ask that would be at our own expense. We wish there were sweeping solutions to the issues we encounter, but it is grassroots campaigns and convincing one person after another that will get us to a freer digital culture, much like with other social movements (think of environmental efforts, the right to repair, or animal rights).

An additional project I am planning to put resources towards in the medium term is to use our technical knowledge and infrastructure from hosting the GNU Project and other community projects to increase opportunities of safe and free (as in freedom) infrastructure for community projects so that they can continue pushing our community forward.

Byfield: What new technologies should advocates be concerned about?

Kooyman: Software freedom has never been about just one technology. The issue of software freedom is at the core of so many elements of our daily lives that we have to consider the pervasiveness of software as a whole in our society as the biggest concern. We’re talking about privacy, surveillance, software use in schools, IoT, reliance on centralized systems, hardware obsolescence, obscene amounts of data processing, and we can go on. Software that affects everyone should be free software.

Another thing, not a technology at all but worth mentioning as a major concern for advocates, is the free software and digital rights funding situation. The organizations that are working for digital rights need financial support, and limiting those funds can have disastrous consequences for our user freedom, but also for technological development. Somewhere around 97% of all software has free software in it, it follows that stymieing free software organizations will negatively impact technological development as well.

Byfield: Can you summarize how the FSF has changed in the last few years?

Kooyman: The FSF I stepped into is not that different from the one I am currently talking with you about. From the moment I stepped into this movement, I have been welcomed with open arms and with a lot of patience, because there is an immense amount of wisdom in this community that could take a lifetime to absorb, but everyone is ready to teach. Much like most people in the community, the people working for the organization are exceptional people, both in their advocacy, as well as in their day to day actions and their persistence for the cause. That was true when I joined the organization and it is just as true today.

And with these people, the FSF remains just as fervently committed to our founding ideals and core documents, such as the Free Software Definition. On the other hand, we’re lucky to have strong mix of historical knowledge and new perspectives in our leadership, the ability to now turn inwards and reflect, and we take pride in the steps we’ve taken recently to ensure the FSF’s governance remains strong. There is more work to do here and it may never fully be concluded, but the strides we made will benefit us.

The challenges we face in our movement are more complex and difficult than ever, and our ideals are being co-opted more than they have been at any point in the past. Our renewed focus and engagement will strengthen us as we continue to bring every conversation back to its core — where does this leave the user’s freedom — and we will continue to sustain and grow our base of dedicated free software advocates who stand fast against Big Tech’s attempts to deny users their freedom.

Byfield: Is there anything else you would like to say?

Kooyman: We are a better organization for the internal discussions and the reflections that came from it. It’s work we will profit from long term. We have updated our ethics policies and modernized our governance process. We are a more transparent organization. The vast majority of our annual budget comes from individual donors and associate members, and they are now also given a voice in these governance processes. We have designed a platform to speak up, making it easier to cover the distance between associate members and our governing body.

As we now go into the 40th anniversary of the FSF’s founding, we are on guard against efforts that distract the organization from its worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom, and we are ready to take on the next 40 years of opportunities and challenges, standing alongside the peer organizations that share
our goals.