 Good afternoon. So what I wanted to do today is start a conversation about how the companies that we work for, the companies that are involved in open-source software, and the communities and projects that we're building are working together to create a culture. And I think often when we say the word culture, we think diversity or we think hiring more women. Culture is how we work, how we think, how we interact with each other. So that's what I want to focus on today. I wanted to thank each and every one of you because this week, by coming here together, by the talks that you decided to go to, by the tweets that you put out, by the conversations and topics you decided to talk about at the party or in the expo hall, you helped shape our culture. So we're all every day, every minute helping to shape this culture. And so I'd like to just create that conversation and make it something that we're doing together. So feel free to tweet your ideas, to write about it later, to catch me later. Let's continue the conversation. Companies are pretty enmeshed in open-source software at this point. So it used to be, so I have a little anecdote, it used to be that companies were confused by open-source software and communities were kind of a little skeptical about companies. These days, most the internet, most the web, most the world, runs on open-source software and they're pretty well meshed together. But I had a reminder of that old moment. On Monday, I took a graffiti and street art tour here in Berlin and if you have an extra day here, I highly recommend the alternative Berlin tour. It was really fun. And when we got to this statue, this was made out of metal and it was about this tall, it was huge. It's been sitting there for three years and the cops haven't removed it yet. And the tour guide said, when I get to this point in the tour, somebody always asks me, why did they do it for free? Like why did they create this artwork and put it in the street for free? And I was like, I have heard that before. So I think we're beyond that point, but street art's still getting there. I wanted to point out another way that street art is similar to open-source software. So you can't see it, but this is a political piece of street art. It turns out, how many people know Trump is running for president in the United States? His original name was Drumpf. He was German. And so it actually says Drumpf on the street art and then it has a stick figure that's supposed to represent Trump and he's running into a street poll with some sensitive anatomy first. But the derivative work part is the face, the mask, on the top right corner there. This is an artist who makes these molds of his face and he goes around and he puts them on other street art and paints them to blend in. So he creates a derivative work. And the unspoken rule in street art is that you never paint over somebody else who is better than you. So somehow, everyone kind of knows who's the better artist and who's not and you don't put your mark over anybody who's better than you. In the same way I think in open-source software we have unspoken ways of working. It used to be like if it didn't happen on the mailing list it didn't happen. So if you had a conversation you had to go record it in the mailing list. These days that culture is not there anymore. Now a lot of things happen on phone calls or maybe they are recorded on the wiki instead of the mailing list. So I just want to make sure that we're thinking about these things consciously so we create our community together. One more slide about the past. I think I won't say how long ago it was probably about a decade ago, no five years ago. I gave this keynote talk at a number of conferences that I called would you do it again for free. And at the time I was focused on helping companies get involved in open-source software and I got really worried one day and I thought what if these people are doing something for free because they love it and then they get their dream job and they're getting paid to do it. If the company stops paying them will they stop doing it? Now you can go watch the keynotes and you can read all the studies on my blog but the the short end of the story is no they'll probably stop working on that project because that project won't seem as important anymore because it's no longer worth getting paid for but they'll probably stay in open-source software. So I want to talk about some of the ways I realized in this talk I focused on the ways companies influence open-source software. I think all of us also influence the companies we work for and the companies we interact. So it is a two-way cultural exchange but one of the main things that companies have done is provide careers in open-source software. I'm curious how many people in the room have a paid job to work on open-source software in some way shape or form? A good portion of you. And how many people started in open-source software as a volunteer? So you didn't have a paid job? Awesome, so good like a third. It's a little hard to tell from here but good portion of people. I think with those paid jobs so we're not getting paid to work on open-source software we can invest a lot more of our time into the projects so you now have 40 hours a week or maybe more and not just the time you could squeeze in between the kids going to bed and you going to bed. So it's it's helped open-source software grow and help many more people get involved. Along with getting more people involved it has also brought us more diversity. So I think when companies companies not perfect either the technology industry as a whole is not super diverse but in general companies tend to have a more diverse population than open-source software and so when they pay people to work they bring that entire cohort with them. So anecdotally I know quite a few women just one aspect of diversity that have started their careers on a paid job and gotten involved in open-source software that way. So I for example did that. I didn't meet the open-source community in my free time I didn't meet them as a volunteer I met them as part of my job at HP. So how many people started open-source? Well I asked the volunteer one so I'll skip them. The other thing that companies have changed and this is not good or bad it's actually a little bit of both but I think it's something to think about as we start new projects or we invite new people to participate in our project and that we need to make sure that we're not leaving anybody out of that invitation. So the thing they've changed is barriers to entry. So on one hand companies have made it a lot easier for some people to participate in open-source software. They're willing to pay them 40 hours a week to learn the project. They're willing to give them training a couple months to get ramped up. We're starting to see a new type of person get involved kind of got assigned to it and they're working on maybe the Linux kernel full-time and they're not yet a contributor. That used to be a really unusual situation. It's an awesome way to get people involved especially people who might not have been able to before. At the same time it changes the barrier to entry for others. If most of the people starting on the project are working 40 hours a week and you're trying to start on your weekends there's a much bigger barrier to entry to getting started. Or if you're a maintainer of a project and you're doing it in your free time and a company is using it and they're expecting you to respond Wednesday at 10 a.m. when you're doing your other job that's hard. Companies have also brought different ways of working. We all are here for example during a work week. It used to be open-source software conferences were always on weekends. Who remembers going to a conference on a weekend either because you held it then so that everybody could make it. It also meant that more families came along to open-source software projects because they were often on weekends or people had to take vacation to come and it's really hard to say that you're going to Guatic and the Canary Islands and not take your family along with you. They get kind of upset. On the other hand my 10-year-old is very happy to be here with me missing school. He thinks that's great. It's also bringing different oh on the work styles I think other things that are changing and if you have others that you can think of please tweet them out please talk to people. These are not good or bad. These are things that we should be making conscious decisions on and if for example we switch from having all conversations on IRC to having all conversations in a weekly meeting on the phone does that leave somebody out? Is there a process we could add to keep those people in? Did we make a conscious choice to move? For example when I was at Mozilla we did a lot of video calls which I love video calls. It's like the next best thing to being in person but it was really hard for some of our members in developing countries to get the bandwidth they needed to participate in a video call. Another thing, another way of working, this is actually a picture of two real life Cloud Foundry developers and Cloud Foundry develops everything in pair programming models so two people sit next to each other and write the same code and the developers love it. Like when we did a survey of the community it's super popular and to start out in Cloud Foundry it has a very explicit model. There's no guessing if you're going to be a Cloud Foundry committer, there's no submitting 25 pull requests and hoping somebody pays attention. You actually take a test, when you pass the test you go to a dojo, you actually physically go to a dojo for your first six weeks and you sit there and you pair with somebody. So that's a new model for open source that we need to realize that we're adopting and see what's good about it. If you know someone, I think Cornelius is actually here at the conference and he's gone through it, people usually really love the model. And then after they do the six weeks in person you can remote pair so there's companies like IBM that are coming in and helping fix the remote situation. It also added geographical barriers to entry that they're startling with actual physical presence thanks to the companies that are part of the project. So for example this is a brand new dojo that opened this week here in Germany by SAP, so there's a Cloud Foundry dojo in Germany so that people can get started here in Germany. Other than ways of working, the other ways that companies have changed open source software, and this one I'll actually think, I think it's mostly for the better, is they've changed the way we approach legal matters and rights. They pay a lot more attention to them than your average individual software developer. So they might have done some controversial things like a lot of companies promote CLA's, contributor licensing agreements that a lot of developers don't like, but at the same time they are going through the code very rigorously and making sure that everything is licensed appropriately and has a license and the person has the right to submit it. And having been on the side of trying to clean up a bunch of old code that nobody knew where it came from or who had given the rights to it, that's a huge advantage. Companies have also brought the resources to bear that open source software projects had a really hard time getting before. So it used to be in open source software projects you had primarily people who coded, whether they were software developers or not, most of what happened in an open source software project was code and writing code. Companies have enabled us to have a lot more resources, not just technical writers, but product managers. They bring in user research. They have technical marketing, which I'm sure we never used to have, product marketing. So they brought in a lot of additional resources that complete the software ecosystem and make it easier for the people writing the code to know what users really want, because before you'd have to grab your buddy and hope they actually use your software and ask them what they thought. Now you actually get real data from customers and our users and also the ability to get the word out about open source software. On the flip side, as most of us got paychecks at companies, we lost a unifying enemy and there are some benefits to having a unifying enemy. So I started an open source software. Microsoft was the enemy. Everyone hated Microsoft. And because we all hated Microsoft, it was easy for us to make decisions. We had a common enemy. We had a common cause. We could come together. The parameters were clear. Without that unifying enemy, you have to have a much clearer vision of where your project is going and you might actually have a lot of different visions, especially if you represent a lot of different types of people or a lot of different companies. So I think having a process for how the vision is defined is an important cultural trait and it varies by project. And then one way that companies affect open source software, which I'm sure you're all familiar with. I'm going to walk through four different ways of support. They help support open source software. Obviously a lot of projects are still supported by volunteers. So you wrote a piece of code. You put it out there. You think it's awesome. Somebody else uses it. They have a question or a problem. They ping you an IRC or they submit a bug request and you help them. And that works great most of the time. How many people recognize this logo? Yeah, this is Heartbleed. Open SSL, which is used probably by most of the world and part of the backbone of many of the things you do every day, had a bug called Heartbleed. And it surfaced. The whole world was pretty alarmed at it or the whole world that was aware of software. And it turned out there was one person who was working full time on Open SSL and he was a volunteer. I mean, he didn't get paid to work on it. And I haven't asked him, but I have to imagine that that was super stressful. Like the whole world is using your piece of software which has a very critical bug and you have to fix it. So in that case, the Linux Foundation stepped up. So the Linux Foundation went to their members, raised some money, and I think they have four full-time people working on Open SSL now so that the software that we depend on to run our entire infrastructure has people that are paid to support it. So some people can go on vacation while others are working and they can rotate. The Linux Foundation is a nonprofit that supports about 50 projects, 50 plus projects at the moment. I don't think that, I think we need to do more of that. So this is a great paper. I highly recommend you go read it. It's a really long paper though. So if you're not into like 150 pages, there's a bunch of blog posts that summarize it. But it was written by Nadia Ekbal. And I had my first conversation with her about a year ago and she was a venture capitalist and she said she was looking for what industry needs venture capital money that's not getting it yet and how could I help them. And she had stumbled across open-source software and so she was interviewing a bunch of people about open-source software and what did it mean and did it need venture capital money. And what she came up with was open-source software is kind of like a fundamental part of our society and we really need to be supporting it like we support our roads and our bridges and our schools. So there needs to be a support infrastructure for this software that pays people to work on it either from the government or from companies or from a tax or something. So it's a really good read. The other way that companies support open-source software and you're looking at the slide and you're saying those aren't companies and these are all nonprofits that I have worked at. But they all got donations or funding from companies in some shape or form. So they're different than the Linux Foundation and that they're focused on one project whereas the Linux Foundation is now helping many projects. The other, the third model I said I give four, the third model is companies that create a for-profit business a rounded single open-source software project. So for example, Red Hat, as you say, others support Linux and other open-source software projects as well. Sugar CRM does databases, Acquia does Drupal kind of blocking content creation software. So these are companies, the last two examples, the Linux Foundation and then Mozilla Cloud Foundry and those were nonprofits and these are for-profit companies that provide infrastructure and support and I think the cultures of those communities probably vary some. They vary even within these organizations. And then the fourth way that companies help support open-source software is through employee paychecks. So a large number of you say that you work at a company and you get a paycheck from them. Especially if you're like one of three people on your company that work on the Linux kernel, you're being paid to support the Linux project. So the company is not supporting it in full. They may or may not be also donating to a nonprofit but they are paying you to participate in that project. And so I just wanted to leave this with, I think this is the, I don't have all the answers here. I highly encourage you to tweet now if you have other things that I've left out but the way that we interact with the companies and the individuals around us shapes our culture and every time we interact and every time we make a decision about whether we're going to do it in a meeting on the phone or we're going to do it on a mailing list, the conversations that we decide to have over beer, all of those are shaping the culture and the society that we're creating and we are the backbone of society right now. So I think it's really important that we create a culture that is open as open as our projects. And I think we're doing a tremendous job and I'd just like to make sure that the conversation stays, that we keep it at a conscious level. So please tweet, please talk and I'll see you next time.