Tag Archives: foss

busy busy

I’ve been working with Karen Sandler over the past few months on the first draft of the Declaration of Digital Autonomy. Feedback welcome, please be constructive. It’s a pretty big deal for me, and feels like the culmination of a lifetime of experiences and the start of something new.

We talked about it at GUADEC and HOPE. We don’t have any other talks scheduled yet, but are available for events, meetups, dinner parties, and b’nai mitzvahs.

Fire

The world is on fire.

I know many of you are either my parents friends or here for the free software thoughts, but rather than listen to me, I want you to listed to Black voices in these fields.

If you’re not Black, it’s your job to educate yourself on issues that affect Black people all over the world and the way systems are designed to benefit White Supremacy. It is our job to acknowledge that racism is a problem — whether it appears as White Supremacy, Colonialism, or something as seemingly banal as pay gaps.

We must make space for Black voices. We must make space for Black Women. We must make space for Black trans lives. We must do this in technology. We must build equity. We must listen.

I know I have a platform. It’s one I value highly because I’ve worked so hard for the past twelve years to build it against sexist attitudes in my field (and the world). However, it is time for me to use that platform for the voices of others.

Please pay attention to Black voices in tech and FOSS. Do not just expect them to explain diversity and inclusion, but go to them for their expertise. Pay them respectful salaries. Mentor Black youth and Black people who want to be involved. Volunteer or donate to groups like Black Girls Code, The Last Mile, and Resilient Coders.

If you’re looking for mentorship, especially around things like writing, speaking, community organizing, or getting your career going in open source, don’t hesitate to reach out to me. Mentorship can be a lasting relationship, or a brief exchange around a specific issue of event. If I can’t help you, I’ll try to connect you to someone who can.

We cannot build the techno-utopia unless everyone is involved.

Racism is a Free Software Issue

Racism is a free software issue. I gave a talk that touched on this at CopyLeft Conf 2019. I also talked a little bit about it at All Things Open 2019 and FOSDEM 2020 in my talk The Ethics Behind Your IoT. I know statistics, theory, and free software. I don’t know about race and racism nearly as well. I might make mistakes – I have made some and I will make more. Please, when I do, help me do better.

I want to look at a few particular technologies and think about how they reinforce systemic racism. Worded another way: how is technology racist? How does technology hurt Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC)? How does technology keep us racist? How does technology make it easier to be racist?

Breathalyzers

In the United States, Latinx folks are less likely to drink than white people and, overall, less likely to be arrested for DUIs3,4. However, they are more likely to be stopped by police while driving5,6.

Who is being stopped by police is up to the police and they pull over a disproportionate number of Latinx drivers. After someone is pulled over for suspected drunk driving, they are given a breathalyzer test. Breathalyzers are so easy to (un)intentionally mis-calibrate that they have been banned as valid evidence in multiple states. The biases of the police are not canceled out by the technology that should, in theory, let us know whether someone is actually drunk.

Facial Recognition

I could talk about for quite some time and, in fact, have. So have others. Google’s image recognition software recognized black people as gorillas – and to fix the issue it removed gorillas from it’s image-labeling technology.

Facial recognition software does a bad job at recognizing black people. In fact, it’s also terrible at identifying indigenous people and other people of color. (Incidentally, it’s also not great at recognizing women, but let’s not talk about that right now.)

As we use facial recognition technology for more things, from automated store checkouts (even more relevant in the socially distanced age of Covid-19), airport ticketing, phone unlocking, police identification, and a number of other things, it becomes a bigger problem that this software cannot tell the difference between two Asian people.

Targeted Advertising

Black kids see 70% more online ads for food than white kids, and twice as many ads for junk food. In general BIPOC youth are more likely to see junk food advertisements online. This is intentional, and happens after they are identified as BIPOC youth.

Technology Reinforces Racism; Racism Builds Technology

The technology we have developed reinforces racism on a society wide scale because it makes it harder for BIPOC people to interact with this world that is run by computers and software. It’s harder to not be racist when the technology around us is being used to perpetuate racist paradigms. For example, if a store implements facial recognition software for checkout, black women are less likely to be identified. They are then more likely to be targeted as trying to steal from the store. We are more likely to take this to mean that black women are more likely to steal. This is how technology builds racism,

People are being excluded largely because they are not building these technologies, because they are not welcome in our spaces. There simply are not enough Black and Hispanic technologists and that is a problem. We need to care about this because when software doesn’t work for everyone, it doesn’t work. We cannot build on the promise of free and open source software when we are excluding the majority of people.

Endorsing Megan Byrd-Sanicki and Justin Colannino for the OSI Board

I am endorsing Megan Byrd-Sanicki and Justin Colannino for the Board of Directors of the Open Source Initiative. As an individual member of the OSI, I intend to vote for Megan. I intend to advise Affiliate Members to vote for Justin Colannino.

I’ve been on the Open Source Initiative board of directors for four years and have seen a lot going on in the organization during that time, as a board member, as an officer of the board, and as an activist focused on ethics in technology.

I pick these two candidates out of sincere enthusiasm for both of them, but I also pick them out of concern for the future of the OSI and open source.

These candidates as people

I will start off by disclosing that I actually just really like Megan and Justin. I think they’re both great humans who do wonderful things and are genuinely nice. They have traits I admire – they are generous, work hard for what they believe in, and keep their egos in check.

Megan and Justin are presenting themselves as people in their running from the OSI board. They work for two of the major tech companies (Google and Microsoft, respectively), however they don’t present themselves in context of their employers. They instead focus on their work for the open source community as members of the open source community.

They have lots of experience with non-profit organizations – having worked for important non-profits in the open source ecosystem, and continuing to volunteer within the community outside of their paid work.

These candidates as potential board members

Megan has an incredibly impressive non-profit background and an amazing ability to get things done. She knows how organizations work, what they need to work, and how to make that happen. The OSI needs to expand its organizational capacity through hiring and recruiting non-board volunteers. Megan understands this and knows how to make it happen. In spite of its age, the OSI lacks a lot of the infrastructure necessary for a growing non-profit, and I believe she’ll help rectify that.

For the past several months Megan has served as an advisory resource to the OSI – connecting us with consultants and experts to help with these organizational issues. She has demonstrated a desire to see the OSI succeed by actually helping it take the steps forward it needs to.

When we were making the decision to appoint board members, Megan was nominated by multiple people. I reached out to the nominees I could find contact information for. I had a great conversation with her, during which time she expressed a concrete vision for how she could participate and what she would bring. She had actual plans and detailed knowledge on how to execute them. I was impressed then and I was ecstatic to see that her interest in the OSI continued such that she stepped up to run for the board.

I’ve known and worked with Justin in several different FOSS contexts. He’s worked with friends of mine in a wide range of legal contexts – covering just about everything lawyers do in open source. I respect his expertise and opinions not just because he has shown himself to be knowledgeable and trustworthy, but because others I respect hold him in equally high regard.

Justin is familiar with the needs of non-profits from all of his work with them over the years – as an employee, as counsel, and as a volunteer. He understands what non-profits need to succeed from his years of experience. He is dedicated to the success of FOSS organizations and projects in ways I have seen few others demonstrate. I would especially like to highlights Justin’s work in helping to set up the legal foundations that enable Outreachy to be so successful and help so many people.

Justin is, of course, an expert in licensing and would be a boon for the organization. He goes a step further than just knowing about licensing and the Open Source Definition through theoretical and practical experience. Justin really believes in the ethics behind the OSD.

My major concerns

When defining myself in the context of open source, I am above all else a true believer and user freedom activist. This is what drives all the work I’ve done and do in my professional and volunteer life, from starting my involvement as a organizer at Penguicon in 2007; my volunteering with Debian, the OSI, the Software Freedom Conservancy, and Software Heritage; my work at the Berkman (Klein) Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, One Laptop Per Child, MIT, the Free Software Foundation, and the GNOME Foundation; and my many additional projects relating to FOSS communities, some of which you can find published in the Journal of Peer Production.

My fear for the future of open source is that it becomes overly controlled by corporate interests. I think it is currently on this path and will only become worse if things continue the way they’re going. The OSI carries responsibility for this, as well as other individuals and organizations. It is imperative moving forward the the OSI is led by people who focus on the rights recognized and protected by the process of open source licensing. The board members need to understand the way open source fits into the narrative of our undeniable human rights.

Megan and Justin both work for some of the largest, most monolithic, and, at times, most egregious tech companies out there. However, these companies have also done a lot of good under their guidance. Most importantly, however, is that Megan is not running as an employee of Google and Justin is not running as an employee of Microsoft. They are running as people who care about the future of open source.

Free software activities (November 2019)

November brings two things very demanding of my time: Thanksgiving and the start of fundraising season.

Free software activities (personal)

  • The Open Source Initiative had it’s twice-a-year face to face board meeting! Good times all around.
  • Debian is having a GR. I’ve been following the development of proposals and conversation, which is basically a part time job in and of itself.
  • Participated in Debian Community Team meetings.
  • I started drafting Bits from the Debian Community Team.
  • Wrote some blog posts! I liked them this month.
  • Wearing multiple hats I attended SustainNYC, talking about sustainability in free and open source software.
  • I submitted to some CFPs — SCaLE, FOSSASIA, and OSCON.
  • I am serving on the papers committee for CopyLeftConf, and for this I reviewed proposals.

Free software activities (professional)

  • We launched a fundraiser! (About a patent infringement case)
  • Funding a legal case is an expensive proposition, so I am also meeting with companies and potential large donors interested in helping out with the case.
  • We launched another fundraiser! (About general Foundation activities)
  • I participated in the hiring process to fill two roles at the GNOME Foundation.

Health care

One of the most important issues for free software within the US is one we rarely talk about: healthcare. That is why I am going to write about it.

These days, sustainability in FOSS is a hot topic. In my experience, for many years this conversation focused nearly exclusively on making FOSS -profitable- for companies, in order to create jobs. Now, the conversation is shifting to ask: what conditions do we need to create so that everyone who wants to work in FOSS can do so?

The answer is not the same for everyone, nor is it the same in every country. Someone supporting a family of two, three, four, or however many has greater income needs than I do, as my biggest financial responsibilities are debt and a cat. However, I also have a condition with a mortality rate estimated at 15%. Access to affordable, comprehensive health care is not just a nice perk, but crucial for my continued survival.

Access to health insurance has been the primary factor in all of my professional decisions: staying places where I was miserable, doing work I hated, even choosing where to apply. Access to health insurance was a major factor in my moving to Massachusetts, which offers health insurance to all residents.

While my free software career has been amazing — I am extremely lucky that I was able to cultivate a skill set and social network that enabled me to work in the greater sphere of FOSS (and previously open ed) — I would have made different decisions had I not been reliant on employers to provide me with health insurance.

In the United States (and many, many other places), access to affordable, comprehensive healthcare (from here on: healthcare) is a major factor holding people back from FOSS contribution. When your access to health care is tied to your employer, your time — and literally your life — is dependent on your employer. This seriously impacts your ability to even have free time, let alone using that time to build FOSS.

Since the creation of software largely relies on people’s professional skill sets, we’re asking people to do in their free time what they do in their paid time — design, develop software, plan architecture, organize events, maintain systems and infrastructure, be a lawyer, manage finances, and everything else that strengthens FOSS and FOSS communities. In asking someone to take on a leadership role in a FOSS project or community, you’re asking them to take on another job — one that comes with neither pay nor benefits.

When people face constant threats to their existence due to fearing for their lives (i.e. their health), it can be hard, if not impossible to spend their time contributing to FOSS, or indeed to any activist project.

People who live in societies that rise to meet the basic material needs of all citizens are able to spend time contributing to the greater good. Those of us struggling to survive, however, must forgo opportunities to become participating members of communities that are trying to change the world. Instead, we look to our employers (usually with commercial interests) to meet our needs.

When you work in tech, meeting our basic material needs through employer-sponsored insurance comes at a steep price: non-compete agreements, signing away patent and intellectual property rights, fights to ensure your work is available under a free and/or open source license, and giving up more than 8 hours a day/40 hours a week. When we try to create good FOSS in addition to that, we burn out, we become miserable, and we’re trapped.

People are incapable of creating FOSS when they’re sick, burnt out, worried about their health, struggling with an ongoing condition or disability, or dead. It’s that simple. [powerful]

People fighting for access to healthcare should care about free software for many reasons, but we as a free software community also need to care about access to health care. This is for the sake of ourselves and the sake of our communities. We cannot build the tools and resources the world needs when we are struggling simply to live.

If you accept the notion that lack of access to comprehensive healthcare impacts our ability to have the resources necessary to create something like free software, then we can acknowledge that, by providing health care to everyone, everyone will then be in a better, more equitable position from which they can contribute to FOSS and lead safer, happier lives.

According to the KHN, 8.5% of U.S. Americans didn’t have health insurance in 2018. Un-insurance rates are even higher among non-white populations according to HHS. As a community, we’ve accepted that the lack of diversity and the over-representation of cis white folks is a problem. We need to create more equitable conditions — so that people come to FOSS from similar places of privilege, rather than having a huge disparity in privilege and oppression. Providing health care to everyone will help alleviate this, and will enable more people to do the things they are passionate about — or things they will become passionate about once they have the chance to do so.

If we are to create a world where FOSS is successful, access to health care is paramount and we need to take it seriously.

Rebellion

We spend a lot of time focusing on the epic side of free software and user freedom: joys come from providing encrypted communication options to journalists and political dissidents; losses are when IoT devices are used to victimize and abuse.

I think a lot about the little ways technology interacts with our lives, the threats to or successes for user freedom we encounter in regular situations that anyone can find themselves able to understand: sexting with a secure app, sharing  DRM-free piece of media, or having your communications listened to by a “home assistant.”

When I was writing a talk about ethics and IoT, I was looking for these small examples of the threats posed by smart doorbells. False arrests and racial profiling, deals with law enforcement to monitor neighborhoods, the digital panopticon — these are big deals. I remembered something I read about kids giving their neighbor a pair of slippers for Christmas. This sort of anonymous gift giving becomes impossible when your front door is constantly being monitored. People laughed when I shared this idea with them — that we’re really losing something by giving up the opportunity to anonymously leave presents.

We are also giving up what my roommate calls “benign acts of rebellion.” From one perspective, making it harder for teenagers to sneak out at night is a good thing. Keeping better tabs on your kids and where they are is a safety issue. Being able to monitor what they do on their computer can prevent descent into objectively bad communities and behavior patterns, but it can also prevent someone from participating in the cultural coming of age narratives that help define who we are as a society and give us points of connection across generations.

People sneak out. People go places their parents don’t want them to. People stay up late at night reading or playing video games. People explore their sexuality by looking at porn when they’re underage. People do things their parents don’t want them to, and these are things their parents are increasingly able to prevent them from doing using technology.

I met someone at a conference who was talking about potentially installing a camera into the bedroom of their pubescent child — the same kind designed to allow parents to monitor their babies at night — because their child was playing video games when they “should be sleeping.”

This appalled me, but one of the things that really struck me was how casually they said it. Technology made it not a big deal. They already had one in their baby’s room, putting another in seemed simple.

I would happily argue all the epic points that come out of this: creating a surveillance state, normalizing the reality of being monitored, controlling behavior and creating a docile population. These are real threats, but also, seriously, poor sleep hygiene is just a thing teenagers do and it’s okay.

These benign acts of rebellion — staying up later than we’re told to, chatting with our friends when we’re not “supposed to” — are not just important points of cultural connection, but also just important for our own individual development. Making mistakes, doing dumb things, acting the fool, and learning from all of this is important in the process of defining ourselves. Technology should not be used to hinder our personal growth, especially when it offers to many opportunities for us to better explore who we are, or makes it safer for us to continue to rebel in the myriad ways we always have. Rebellion is important to our narratives — it’s certainly integral to mine. I hope that people younger than me don’t lose that because of the fear others hold.

Free software activities, October 2019

A belated hello! I was traveling at the end of October and missed this. Apologies!

A beautiful, green Japanese maple tree in front of a Buddhist shrine.

In October, work was quite busy, though a lot of it was behind-the-scenes stuff I cannot yet update you on. It was also very busy with a very exciting trip I took that had absolutely nothing to do with free software. If you’re ever going to Kyoto or Tokyo and looking for some recommendations for coffee, cocktail bars, restaurants, or general things to do, hmu.

Free software activities (personal)

  • I have regular meetings with Patrick Masson, the general manager of the OSI. We made most of them in October.
  • I did some writing for the OSI. Not all of it is published at this point.
  • I worked on crafting drafts of organizational policies for the OSI, including staffing, travel, and a whistle blower policy. I hope to be able to arrange for an HR specialist or employment lawyer to review these.
  • The OSI has two new board members! In order to make this happen, I contacted all of the nominees for whom I had contact information. I spoke with them about the OSI, the Board and it’s activities, and how they saw their potential involvement. Basically I interviewed a bunch of ~fancy~ people. It was so much fun talking with every one of them and I learned so much during the process.
  • The Debian Community Team had some meetings, wrote some emails, and discussed The Future together and with the greater Debian community.
  • I attended All Things Open and spoke about ethics and IoT devices. My slides were puppy themed.
  • I did some philosophy based writing. I got a  lot out of this and hope you did too.
  • I also found out that my brother’s company does some open source work!
  • I submitted to the Open Source Festival 2020 CfP. And you can too!

Free software activities (professional)

  • I attended All Things Open and had one of the most awesome tabling experiences I have had to date! It was such a great crowd at ATO! They took all of our stickers!
  • I had a lot of meetings with some more great people. Thank you everyone who made some time for me!
  • We launched a Patent Troll Defense Fund! I cannot thank the donors enough! It’s so inspiring for me to see the community come together to support a project I really believe in.
  • We’ve been doing a lot of work on this Rothschild Imaging thing.
  • We did some fundraising for Linux Application Summit (which happened this week!).

Autonomy and consent

When I was an undergraduate, I took a course on medical ethics. The core takeaways from the class were that autonomy is necessary for consent, and consent is necessary for ethical action.

There is a reciprocal relationship between autonomy and consent. We are autonomous creatures, we are self-governing. In being self-governing, we have the ability to consent, to give permission to others to interact with us in the ways we agree on. We can only really consent when we are self-governing, otherwise, it’s not proper consent. Consent also allows us to continue to be self-governing. By giving others permission, we are giving up some control, but doing so on our own terms.

In order to actually consent, we have to grasp the situation we’re in, and as much about it as possible. Decision making needs to come from a place of understanding.

It’s a fairly straightforward path when discussing medicine: you cannot operate on someone, or force them to take medication, or any other number of things without their permission to do so, and that their permission is based on knowing what’s going on.

I cannot stress how important it is to transpose this idea onto technology. This is an especially valuable concept when looking at the myriad ways we interact with technology, and especially computing technology, without even being given the opportunity to consent, whether or not we come from a place of autonomy.

At the airport recently, I heard that a flight was boarding with facial recognition technology. I remembered reading an article over the summer about how hard it is to opt-out. It gave me pause. I was running late for my connection and worried that I would be put in a situation where I would have to choose between the opt-out process and missing my flight. I come from a place of greater understanding than the average passenger (I assume) when it comes to facial recognition technology, but I don’t know enough about its implementation in airports to feel as though I could consent. Many people approach this from a place even with much less understanding than I have.

From my perspective, there are two sides to understanding and consent: the technology itself and the way gathered data is being used. I’m going to save those for a future blog post, but I’ll link back to this one, and edit this to link forward to them.

Conferences

I think there are too many conferences.

I conducted this very scientific Twitter poll and out of 52 respondants, only 23% agreed with me. Some people who disagreed with me pointed out specifically what they think is lacking:  more regional events, more in specific countries, and more “generic” FLOSS events.

Many projects have a conference, and then there are “generic” conferences, like FOSDEM, LibrePlanet, LinuxConfAU, and FOSSAsia. Some are more corporate (OSCON), while others more community focused (e.g. SeaGL).

There are just a lot of conferences.

I average a conference a month, with most of them being more general sorts of events, and a few being project specific, like DebConf and GUADEC.

So far in 2019, I went to: FOSDEM, CopyLeft Conf, LibrePlanet, FOSS North, Linux Fest Northwest, OSCON, FrOSCon, GUADEC, and GitLab Commit. I’m going to All Things Open next week. In November I have COSCon scheduled. I’m skipping SeaGL this year. I am not planning on attending 36C3 unless my talk is accepted. I canceled my trip to DebConf19. I did not go to Camp this year. I also had a board meeting in NY, an upcoming one in Berlin, and a Debian meeting in the other Cambridge. I’m skipping LAS and likely going to SFSCon for GNOME.

So 9 so far this year,  and somewhere between 1-4 more, depending on some details.

There are also conferences that don’t happen every year, like HOPE and CubaConf. There are some that I haven’t been to yet, like PyCon, and more regional events like Ohio Linux Fest, SCALE, and FOSSCon in Philadelphia.

I think I travel too much, and plenty of people travel more than I do. This is one of the reasons why we have too many events: the same people are traveling so much.

When you’re nose deep in it, when you think that you’re doing is important, you keep going to them as long as you’re invited. I really believe in the messages I share during my talks, and I know by speaking I am reaching audiences I wouldn’t otherwise. As long as I keep getting invited places, I’ll probably keep going.

Finding sponsors is hard(er).

It is becoming increasingly difficult to find sponsors for conferences. This is my experience, and what I’ve heard from speaking with others about it. Lower response rates to requests and people choosing lower sponsorship levels than they have in past years.

CFP responses are not increasing.

I sort of think the Tweet says it all. Some conferences aren’t having this experiences. Ones I’ve been involved with, or spoken to the organizers of, are needing to extend their deadlines and generally having lower response rates.

Do I think we need fewer conferences?

Yes and no. I think smaller, regional conferences are really important to reaching communities and individuals who don’t have the resources to travel. I think it gives new speakers opportunities to share what they have to say, which is important for the growth and robustness of FOSS.

Project specific conferences are useful for those projects. It gives us a time to have meetings and sprints, to work and plan, and to learn specifically about our project and feel more connected to out collaborators.

On the other hand, I do think we have more conferences than even a global movement can actively support in terms of speakers, organizer energy, and sponsorship dollars.

What do I think we can do?

Not all of these are great ideas, and not all of them would work for every event. However, I think some combination of them might make a difference for the ecosystem of conferences.

More single-track or two-track conferences. All Things Open has 27 sessions occurring concurrently. Twenty-seven! It’s a huge event that caters to many people, but seriously, that’s too much going on at once. More 3-4 track conferences should consider dropping to 1-2 tracks, and conferences with more should consider dropping their numbers down as well. This means fewer speakers at a time.

Stop trying to grow your conference. Growth feels like a sign of success, but it’s not. It’s a sign of getting more people to show up. It helps you make arguments to sponsors, because more attendees means more people being reached when a company sponsors.

Decrease sponsorship levels. I’ve seen conferences increasing their sponsorship levels. I think we should all agree to decrease those numbers. While we’ll all have to try harder to get more sponsors, companies will be able to sponsor more events.

Stop serving meals. I appreciate a free meal. It makes it easier to attend events, but meals are expensive and difficult to logisticate. I know meals make it easier for some people, especially students, to attend. Consider offering special RSVP lunches for students, recent grads, and people looking for work.

Ditch the fancy parties. Okay, I also love a good conference party. They’re loads of fun and can be quite expensive. They also encourage drinking, which I think is bad for the culture.

Ditch the speaker dinners. Okay, I also love a good speaker dinner. It’s fun to relax, see my friends, and have a nice meal that isn’t too loud of overwhelming. These are really expensive. I’ve been trying to donate to local food banks/food insecurity charities an equal amount of the cost of dinner per person, but people are rarely willing to share that information! Paying for a nice dinner out of pocket — with multiple bottles of wine — usually runs $50-80 with tip. I know one dinner I went to was $150 a person. I think the community would be better served if we spent that money on travel grants. If you want to be nice to speakers, I enjoy a box of chocolates I can take home and share with my roommates.

 Give preference to local speakers. One of the things conferences do is bring in speakers from around the world to share their ideas with your community, or with an equally global community. This is cool. By giving preference to local speakers, you’re building expertise in your geography.

Consider combining your community conferences. Rather than having many conferences for smaller communities, consider co-locating conferences and sharing resources (and attendees). This requires even more coordination to organize, but could work out well.

Volunteer for your favorite non-profit or project. A lot of us have booths at conferences, and send people around the world in order to let you know about the work we’re doing. Consider volunteering to staff a booth, so that your favorite non-profits and projects have to send fewer people.

While most of those things are not “have fewer conferences,” I think they would help solve the problems conference saturation is causing: it’s expensive for sponsors, it’s expensive for speakers, it creates a large carbon footprint, and it increases burnout among organizers and speakers.

I must enjoy traveling because I do it so much. I enjoy talking about FOSS, user rights, and digital rights. I like meeting people and sharing with them and learning from them. I think what I have to say is important. At the same time, I think I am part of an unhealthy culture in FOSS, that encourages burnout, excessive travel, and unnecessary spending of money, that could be used for better things.

One last thing you can do, to help me, is submit talks to your local conference(s). This will help with some of these problems as well, can be a great experience, and is good for your conference and your community!