Unionize

[freakboy3742]

One way to force companies to pay for the open source they're using - collectively refuse to work for companies that don't pay for open source. If employers find they can't get employees because of their open source donation policies, then open source donation will become a big issue pretty quickly.

This could also be used to advocate for other desirable social changes - improvements in diversity, ensuring adequate training and mentoring for new developers, eliminating toxic work practices and work environments, and so on.

Unlike traditional labour unions, there's no reason this needs to be tied in any way to pay (except for establishing the social good of basic minimums).

However, it would require collective agreement from a large part of the community - which I suspect would be difficult to achieve without a triggering event.

@kelseyq's keynote at Forward3 is worth watching for some historical context - both in the sense of "things that have happened in San Francisco", and "things that affect dockers (as in Longshoremen) and containers".

[seiyria]

This would be particularly difficult as a lot of people simply won't care. This will lead to employers seeking out those folks instead of us, which is probably not what we want.

[freakboy3742]

Hence why I mentioned a triggering event. Historically, unions have formed when something horrific happens - like a massive factory file - and employees suddenly band together to make sure it never happens again. It's hard to imagine what such an event would look like in tech circles, however.

[buddylindsey]

I grew up in a house with my dad in a Union, and observed the effects. Now as a person that wants to start a business, and is trying hard to do it I see the other side of the coin.

Unions by there very nature create an "Us vs Them" culture, management vs programmers in this case. In that culture people are going to abuse the union rules, it is inevitable. Therefore management is going to try to push as hard as they can to get what they can out of people either in retaliation or preemptively. This leads to a hostile work environment that no one wants to go to. This leads to a high churn rate of devs, leading to poorer quality of code. This all creates a vicious cycle, and toxic one.

In all my talks with people in unions from different industries I haven't talked to anyone who has been in a union culture that isn't a hard line "Us vs Them" mentality.

Also, ironically, my dad has paid, mandatory, dues for almost 30 years in a union. A couple of years ago when he actually needed the unions help there was some technicality in federal law that just went into play that prevented them from helping him.

I have many more stories of how bad things can be with unions for the people in unions than I do of how a union has legitimately helped people. They exist, but are fewer.

If we wanted to go with the collective agreement approach where we do it informally on an individual basis without saying we are part of a union I can see that. In fact I encourage people to look for jobs that fit their needs and wants of teams and culture, including OSS contributions. In fact every team I have helped build I look for OSS devs knowing that we will all contribute back, be default and not forced.

[tomchristie]

At core, this kind of "treat it as a social problem, rather than a legal one" resonates with me most, although I think there's maybe a slower and more organic tack to this than unionization.

Firstly, my feeling on this is that it's too early to adopt a strong-arm approach. Right now we're not doing a good enough job of asking for collaborative funding, and making it a simple & compelling for companies to do so.

However I could imagine something like this further down the road. Eg. The DSF funding has been sharpened up a bit, and has been making lots of positive noise around its sponsors. After a while it could be legitimate to start prominently calling out large corporate users of Django who repeatedly fail to engage with the process in any way.

it would require collective agreement from a large part of the community

Centralized approaches are only one variation on this. Organizations such as the DSF have a large platform, and can speak unilaterally if needed. If anything having individual organizations make the case & publicity based on their own needs could be seen as more valid, as it reflects the market. (OSS organizations which have a voice have gotten to that point because they've provided value, and have grown accordingly)

I believe a precursor to that though would be to have sufficiently demonstrated that collaborative funding is in the industry's collective best interests. Unless a decent section of the industry is already positively behind an active and functioning collaborative funding approach then attempting to use social pressure as an enforcement measure seems premature.

[nanuxbe]

To hop on @tomchristie 's idea. Would it be doable to get in touch with sites like Django Jobs and Python jobs and ask them to display a flag (or more info) for companies that contribute back to open-source?

This + if individuals start caring about who contributes back to open-source before accepting a job offer might be a good way to show companies where their interest lies and encourage them to contribute-back.

It sounds to me to be less radical than unionizing but with some similar benefits?

[freakboy3742]

@buddylindsey I don't want to claim unionisation is a panacea, especially as it has been practiced in the latter half of the 20th century. Most of the "good" stories of unionisation come from the early days, when they were fighting for fair work hours, fair pay, and safe working conditions.

However, just because modern unions are rife with corruption, greed, and bureaucracy, we shouldn't underestimate the power of a collective group to affect change, if that group has a unified goal.

[freakboy3742]

@nanuxbe That's a pretty good idea. We've got the data to say who should be congratulated and promoted; we just have to expose that data and get jobs boards to use that data.

In the Django case, the idea of having an "official" jobs board is one that might be worth giving some more thought to. The DSF is in a prime position to provide the service; we can highlight things that we want to highlight (like DSF membership or sponsorship status); we could also use it as a driver for other social changes - for example, encouraging diversity in hiring, highlighting LGBTI-friendly benefit arrangements, and so.

Historically, the DSF has stayed away from such a service because of the curation/management overhead. However, this may be a situation where we have to spend money to make money, and hire someone to develop and curate the content on the site.

[freakboy3742]

In the context of the broader conversation, it's worth noting that this option isn't available to most projects - it's only because Django is already a large community that acts as a hub for other communities that a job board is a viable funding option. Smaller communities or projects that are just starting wont yet have the momentum to support a job board.

[berkerpeksag]

Would it be doable to get in touch with sites like Django Jobs and Python jobs and ask them to display a flag (or more info) for companies that contribute back to open-source?

This is a nice idea, I can implement it on python.org.

[ericholscher]

You could also limit postings on the job board to companies that financially support the project. Though this might limit the potential revenue, it would be a concrete benefit from sponsorship.

[nanuxbe]

This is a nice idea, I can implement it on python.org.

@berkerpeksag that would be great, I guess it would be one of the first concrete steps :smile: