Video download link | md5sum 7d777a6535bcafb6984260cd8b1e6ec8
Sirius Treats Staff as Lacking Basic Rights
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0

Summary: Sirius ‘Open Source’ failed to accomplish what its mission statement said, but it wasn’t the fault of Free software (or “Open Source”); it was the fault of management that does not understand Free software, rejects Free software, and cracks down on staff that advocates Software Freedom

THIS series has thus far shown that in 2019 things took a turn for the worse, perhaps coincidentally around the very same time the Gates Foundation secretly paid under an NDA. Within weeks at least 2 “managers” conspired to send not only me but also my wife to humiliating disciplinary action (we were fully acquitted by an external HR firm, but the bullying management was never held accountable).

Back then we realised (several different aggrieved employees) that had workers set up a union, even managers would be held accountable. But Sirius was already run by vicious people, who would never tolerate a union and would likely ‘hunt down’ any perceived union ‘leaders’.

So we ended up in a crooked, dishonest, lousy company, where technical staff collectively suffered the wrath/”big ego” of the “Big Shot” management (it’s always right and it knows everything; even when it’s wrong it will never admit it). The management disregarded Free software, failed to make payments to providers (we’ve shown examples), and basically rode the “brand” of company already (by that time) over 20 years old. Opportunists and charlatans.

The video above explains the last straw. It was all about me chatting with a close friend about what I was experiencing at the company, only after the company had failed to act as I expressed those same grievances internally. What I did wasn’t wrong. First of all, what I said was accurate; it’s all true. Second, nobody is mentioned. Third, it’s informal and management should not spy on staff outside work. Fourth, Rianne had nothing to do with the informal chats and wasn’t even aware of them. They’re not “publication” but mere act of fast, informal, typos-riddled chatting in a command line about very legitimate issues brought forth internally first (the culprits want to keep it secret because the truth is embarrassing).

If you work for ogres, don’t wait for them to start a witch-hunt. Quit proactively and explain to the world what happened. If you worry about what future employers might think, worry not. Clever employers with real integrity can value honesty and can identify innocent victims of utterly mad companies, governed by ruthless control freaks.

Summary: Today we take a closer look at what Sirius ‘Open Source’ management said about unions. We have plenty left to say about Sirius ‘Open Source’ (many posts already; about 200!), so we expect this series to go on until next month. We’ll show a lot more examples and evidence of scandals.

FOUR years ago I seriously considered leaving Sirius in light of the abuse suffered due to management being liars and manipulative bullies. The abuse started only weeks after the Gates Foundation had gotten involved, according to our records (we re-checked the dates recently). Earlier this winter or in autumn I had already made up my mind, having tentatively decided to do that around 12 months ago (leaving the company), but Rianne is another story. Rianne did not want to leave. My own motivations were explained in blog posts last year. Ethics were a key part of it, instrumental in the decision-making. The company ceased to be ethical.

Earlier this month we showed that a boss had picked on my wife using non-evidence and non-facts. It was a total disaster (we previously showed Rianne’s resignation letter and Rianne’s departure message at tuxmachines.org). A boss who hoped to prove that Rianne had done something wrong ended up doing many wrong things himself. For more information see Anatomy of a Corporate Witch-Hunt, especially parts like these, which reveal the full chain of correspondence. People can assess that for themselves. Readers can form their own opinions.

Here at Techrights we’ve been covering many union-related activities, especially at the EPO (since 2014, i.e. nearly a decade already). So we’ve spent more time studying this situation at Sirius, striving to accurately explain that “fluke”. The gist of the story is, on November 18^th a letter was sent to Rianne, probably before the company was getting legal advice and before Rianne herself could seek legal advice. Rianne insisted that she should be given time to speak to a lawyer.

Then, on November 28^th, an entirely different letter was sent. Ever so suddenly the tone of the letter and content changed because the boss and the sidekick apparently spoke to actual HR people for the first time. They checked the law and realised they had left something out. These gross omissions — and more generally the unprofessional management style — were consistent with what had been criticised for years already. This merely reinforced the legitimacy of the criticism.

“My lawyer says I can be accompanied not only by a trade union person,” Rianne wrote to the bully. “Sirius doesn’t have a union.”

The response came about a day later (after the revised letter):

Dear Rianne,

Thanks for your message.

As per our letter, you are entitled to be accompanied by either a work colleague or by a Trades Union representative.

Just to be clear, it is not Sirius’ responsibility to run or operate a Union. Trades Unions are independent bodies that operate separately to employers so that they can work for the benefit of their members.

It is also not Sirius’ responsibility to nominate a suitable Trades Union. It is a right under UK law for each employee to make an individual decision to choose whether or not they wish to join a Union. Sirius is an equal opportunity employer and makes no distinction at all between those who are members of a Trade Union and those who are not.

Kind regards,

There’s a lot wrong with that response and an upcoming video will elaborate some more. Rianne responded by stating that it was a false dichotomy and moreover the boss admitted that he would “tinker” with the witness prior to any meeting and be in a position to even deny the request. This means that any impartial or sympathetic (to Rianne) witness is deemed disqualified or subject to judgement (or warning) from the accuser. Cushioning a ‘kangaroo court’ with more kangaroos does not improve things — it merely gives the illusion of balance even where none exists. It’s like those notorious compositions in internal appeals at the EPO — compositions that were repeatedly deemed inadequate by the ILOAT.

Rianne never bothered with that stupid ‘kangaroo court’. She had already suffered enough for 4 years. She wasn’t planning to waste any more time in such a corrupt company. On Friday at 4PM a PDF was sent and on Saturday morning she formally resigned, having explained how she felt about the whole thing (see links in the relevant wiki for contents of the PDF).

Our current plan is to explain these matters and in the coming fortnight or so we’ll be publishing many more blog posts (they’re semi-drafted already) — with many more later, according to any further issues that arise (like the company trying to silence us). We cross-post, add to wiki etc. in order to better preserve access to all this information. We won’t allow that to be censored. The long report, followed by a PDF version, was already seen by the company a very long time ago. They knew what was coming. They didn’t know what to do. All the writing was done only after the bullying. In recent weeks we had to check with pension providers if the company was trying to ‘punish’ us through pensions. This is still under investigation (the pension provider opened a ticket for this and keeps updating us). This series has not been easy to publish as the company attempted to prevent access to our own E-mails! The company failed at it, so we still have access to evidence that vindicates us. We have some long articles on the way and maybe then some more blog posts (remaining notes, more embarrassing examples). We’ve meanwhile learned about the impact on the company. It can pretend all it wants that it doesn’t care, but it hurts really badly. That’s karma. Think before you shoot. Check the law before you leap to conclusions.

In the next part we’ll take a look at Carbon Accounting, which is where Sirius claims to be based. As we showed before, not only the company Sirius but also its CEO use their accountants to pretend to have an office. Sirius is a very fake company. It’s run by phonies who lie to the staff and to clients.

Video download link | md5sum 93ed07dde58f9f18674c2d75a0c2a72c
Management That Dislikes Geeks
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0

Summary: Sirius ‘Open Source’ has devolved into a kakistocracy that lies to staff and gaslights technical workers. This is how companies perish.

TODAY’S COVERAGE of Sirius focused on how the company was treating valuable geeks, whom the company should thank and be grateful to even have. It can barely hire any more; those who come leave very quickly.

A deficit of technical knowledge has long doomed the company. A deficit of technical staff is even worse. Treating them like “crap” only makes things worse, leading to dissent, protest, and resignations. The video above covers the latest meme and article. Tomorrow we’ll talk about unions.

My wife Rianne never appreciated these insulting analogies (calling NOC staff “monkeys” and treating them accordingly)

5 Little Monkeys Swinging In The Tree

Summary: As per Rianne’s departure message about Sirius ‘Open Source’ (tuxmachines.org post), the abuse endured since 2019 did a lot of damage and false accusations were the last straw; the role was created by people who called folks who would occupy it “monkeys”; that’s how some would view the staff

THE staff will always remember what happened. The staff does not forget bullying. Witch-hunts are also impossible to forget. While Rianne strongly suspects that Matthew Garrett ‘doxxed’ her to her employer as part of his efforts to silence me, the more plausible explanation is that Sirius management was looking for excuses to quell technical dissent and moral defense. I’ve been arguing against many of the company’s decisions for a long time (internally).

I wasn’t alone though; other staff also felt unhappy and some found the courage to speak about it, not just to peers but also to management. We’ve already shown a bunch letters after videos on grievances and there might be a letter-ripping video after explaining and showing the chain of events.

Adding insult to injury, in Rianne’s case her love of animals and regular donations to animal charities were sort of weaponised, hence the image below:

The company relied on truly ‘flimsy’ ‘evidence’. The management said, without any evidence, that I had uttered something “defamatory”; it took two weeks to actually show something and what they then showed was some side IRC channel (that nobody reads) stating perfectly factual information about my experiences, without naming people or the company. It was a chat between just two people and didn’t reveal anybody’s identity. It was factual and necessary; it was moral to object to bad ideas. Blind obedience and unquestionable docility should not be seen as a merit.

Based on a two-person chat, however, the company started breaching protocols and making up processes, as we shall show at a later date. The procedures set forth were disregarded and extreme measures taken for no good reason, so we resigned. It was done with immediate effect, as per the law; and “you are unlikely, in most circumstances, to need to continue the process,” say the rules. So we’re free to speak about what happened. We shall soon talk about labour union aspects as well. It’s something I’ve spoken about with friends for almost 4 years already.

In a company where some technical workers are compared to “monkeys” and there are about as many “managers” as non-managers, something has truly gone wrong. We had a moral duty or felt an urgent need to explain what had gone wrong. We now have a wiki that maintains several sections, including: memes, videos, report, key facts in a nutshell…

We’ve published about 45 videos with good titles (explaining in short the issues at hand), cases of clients (without naming them), openwashing, clown-washing etc.

As a reminder, we talk about a company that despite opposition from its own technical staff basically outsourced almost everything (Sirius also used to host for clients, on its very own premises). It used to self-host even the VoIP and file storage, but now, with no actual office, Sirius is just some account in another company’s server.

As we’ve said before, the company stands no chance of surviving. It’s deep in debt and it doesn’t know what it’s doing. Even its own clients began accusing it of “incompetence” (direct quote). When I joined the company in 2011 the staff had extensive media contacts in the wiki (for outreach, promotion, advocacy). It deteriorated over time as management was dismissing people without informing staff what actually happened (not safe to rely on hearsay and misinformation). Then, in Freenode, there was already an outlet for staff to discuss issues. Tackling a tradition of secrecy (dishonest management, but not quiet management), the IRC channel about the company insisted that “management wasn’t always right”, hence the need for a space in which bosses could be scrutinised. Now we do this in Techrights. The “monkeys” speak out.

Video download link | md5sum 517c825e6b2b4ff488a8c7557ed7b5ce
Management Always Right
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0

Summary: Sirius ‘Open Source’ has a seemingly very common problem; managers cannot be held accountable and even when shown that they failed at something, instead of apologising or taking actions against themselves they resort to accusing/blaming the reporter

TWELVE years ago the management at Sirius was a lot better. I was there. I saw it. Managers were typically technical people (like programmers and sysadmins). Things have changed though.

In recent years managers were just self-styled ‘managers’ or “professional managers” with experience in babysitting (literally).

As noted here a few hours ago, bringing a concrete example to the table, managers had made bad technical decisions and then refused to admit that. The evidence does not matter! It’s all about one’s pride. It’s about protecting brands^*.

Moreover, in that same example, it should be clear that staff wasn’t properly informed or trained; then, a falsified timeline was constructed for post hoc-type cover-up.

This example is about a year old, so in relative terms it is recent. If you work in a company that behaves in this way, consider leaving. Things won’t improve as this sort of attitude repels geeks.
_______
^* At Sirius, Google and AWS/Amazon were stubbornly defended no matter what (also Slack and Clownflare to a lesser degree). Readers of Techrights would likely be going one step ahead, correctly guessing some companies (not Sirius!) or even universities/governments (public sector, accountable to their citizens) which made a move to Microsoft would be ‘religiously’ defending bad decisions/choices (bribes often play a role, as Microsoft whistleblowers have repeatedly demonstrated in the recent past).

And whenever things fail, as always happens (Microsoft products are even defective by design), Microsoft just pushes them more Microsoft as the supposed solution. More sales! The culprits who brought Microsoft to the business/government want to “prove” it’ll work; so they pay Microsoft some more, albeit not at a personal expense. It’s a vicious cycle. Everyone loses, except Microsoft. And if only everything ran on Microsoft, they insist, things would be ‘optimal’ (until the next ransomware attack).

As an associate put it (to paraphrase), the problem is always that there wasn’t sufficient faith in Microsoft and that is always solved by buying TheNextVersion(tm) and MORE of it. For decades the cycle has been the same, namely it’d work if only they could achieve 100% Microsoft integration. Once that happens, the target goal posts move, and it would work if only they could purchase TheNextVersion, and if that happens before they run out of money, then the goals posts move again. At that point it becomes, it’d work if only they had the right Microsoft training. Then by that time, the $TheNextVersion has become $ThePreviousVersion and that part of the cycle starts again. And yet they still blame outright collapses on “Linux people” and your average worker agrees to believe that excuse. The problem is not new, it as it goes back to the 1990s. But for a recent example look at Aaron Swartz’s blog post about Conde Nast and why he had no choice but to walk out the door and not look back.

Clients chasing while managers chasing staff that works overnight, entrapping the staff for using faulty processes and faulty software (the management’s own fault)

Summary: Lately we’ve focused on nepotism and special treatment at Sirius ‘Open Source’; today we show how the “club” (or the clique, which is sometimes literally family members) avoids responsibility and liability

THIS series has inevitably become long because there’s plenty left to say and a lot to demonstrate with more practical examples (sans names of people and companies, especially clients).

We’ve already shared several examples of management passing blame to staff that did nothing wrong while failing to hold itself accountable for its own failures. A year ago there was one classic example of this when a message about a potential client resulted in disciplinary warnings; I joked that since we had received no instructions whatsoever I can at best say “hi, it’s Roy” when picking up the phone. To spare all the ‘gory’ details, here’s a message I sent back then:

I’ve just caught up with E-mail.

I remember the scenario very well. This was the first time ever that I received a call over Google Voice while connected (online).

The browser requested authorisation for microphone access and other things before I could pick up the call AND also be heard. This is inevitably what happens when there’s no thorough testing of such new protocols (Rianne did do some testing on her laptop).

It boils down to our instructions (which I have saved locally) coming late and without any training after that. Or even being able to test it “live” in my browser, which understandably limits what site site wants to do with my hardware.

I hope this clarify what happened and helps prevent future such scenario (browser settings have been changed accordingly).

Regards,

I got the following reply:

Hi Roy,

Many thanks for your reply with responses on the points raised.

I will check on the points you have noted and get back to you to see if there were any steps where there was an issue with the process and any areas that we could have improved on.

I think a key point though is that nothing should prevent us from answering any call with a professional greeting that sounds like a Service desk response. First impressions are vital for customer confidence of course. This is something that with your years of valuable experience should be well-practiced.

Thank you for resolving the browser settings though for future calls and engaging with this change.

And then me again:

Just to note (I’ve not yet read the other 5 messages), for a number of weeks we were on duty “in the blind”. We were given no instructions at all regarding:

- How to answer
- What to say
- Who might phone
- What to ask
- Where to enter information

In a sense, had we answered, it would possibly prove worse than not picking up at all.

A hypothetical call would be something like

“Oh, hello, who are you?”

“What do you want?”

“What are you? What am I? What am I even supposed to do?”

So I think that higher up (than me) someone failed to prepare us. I did not raise this concern at the time.

Regards,

Long story short, the company expected technical staff to carry out purely clerical work using defective products that many staff members had issues with (but could communicate with peers to affirm that pattern) trying to meet impossible demands like picking a call within 3 rings using defective stuff. Sometimes it would not phone or ring, sometimes it is a background process (not an actual phone!), sometimes there was insufficient memory.

At the end came a long document with a fabricated timeline of what had actually happened. Why? Because you can never assert that people above you blew it. Or that it’s their fault that faulty products are used and no instructions are available.

It’s not even clear if the above client was actually a paying client. The company was habitually announcing clients that later turned out to be ‘pre’ announcements or truly premature as nothing would ever come out of it. Giving false hopes to staff to discourage looking for other employment may seem fair, but it is still misleading. The managers were very eager to give a false impression (illusion) of getting business.

We previously shared some screenshots from the Internet Archive, demonstrating with the Wayback Machine the contents of old sites of Sirius, mentioning words like community and advertising more honestly (staff, clients etc.). Well, honesty is long gone at Sirius.

Sirius is now a minuscule company. At the moment it paints a misleading picture of who works in the company and who the company works for. We’re already in the second half of January and this still hasn’t been rectified. I happen to know that at least one client (telephony company) asked to be removed from the fake “clients” page. There were probably more, but I wasn’t a witness to that. Should Rianne and I keep asking them to remove our names from the site too? They’re not even removing our prior staff that left years ago; one of them changed jobs to work for our client.

Sirius is very fake.

Video download link | md5sum ae1efc68cafb1d4dec5a536eb6aaf511
Do Us a Favour, Stop Asking for Favours
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0

Summary: Employers must not ask staff to do jobs outside the remit and scope of their work contract; anything else should be strictly forbidden, based on my personal experience which I talk about today

THE video above speaks of Sirius ‘Open Source’ and the notion of coercion. Apparently this is done to volunteers in Debian as well (i.e. unpaid people). Being part of a project or a company does not constitute a master/slave relationship. Voluntary contributions outside one’s work are welcomed, but when subordinates cannot (easily) say “no” to those who pay their salaries or hired them…. that’s a potential problem.

Today I gave two personal examples where the company’s management asked me to do favours (gratis work) for their own friends. I use some analogies to exemplify the absurdity and I certainly hope other people, including employers, can learn something. There should be clearly expressed laws that forbid that. This should be illegal.