Re: Mission Statement
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] 1. Please get yourself a mailer that doesn't mangle Máirín's name, there are plenty of "Free Software" ones It sounds like you think you have seen some sort of problem. I use GNU Emacs for reading and sending mail. Like any nontrivial program, it has bugs. Perhaps you have found one. If you have come across a bug in some GNU program, the constructive response is to report it so it can get fixed. Please report bugs in GNU Emacs to bug-gnu-em...@gnu.org. 2. If the extent of your involvement in the GNOME Foundation's life is going to be something that a bot can replace, can we please have the bot instead? I've been campaigning for computer users' freedom for 30 years. The GNU/Linux system comes out of that campaign. GNOME in particular does, too; it was started specifically to provide a free software way to avoid running the then-proprietary Qt library. People who hold open source views would not have considered this necessary. If someone can design a bot smart enough to find and express new specific ethical points, such as highlighting the similarity in values between the free software movement and OPW, I would be glad to let the bot take over from me. I have a lot of other work to do. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 10:16 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote: > No one said that in as many words, no. But when it is essentially being > said that (1) it is able to operate at this time due to support from > GNOME that GNOME cannot afford AND (2) it should be split off from > GNOME, then the end result is splitting something off that cannot > operate on its own. This is equivalent to killing it unless I am missing > something. (3) GNOME isn't particularly good at being a fiscal sponsor. Other organizations that are better at it might actually make OPW more successful. [I don't mean this to put down the hard work of Rosanna or the board members or any of our past directors. It's just not something we're set up to do well.] -- Shaun ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On 08/07/2014 03:23 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: Ditto for the flyer at https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen as well as the similarly worded "origins" section. I'm happy to redesign the poster as needed. If anybody wants to help me in reviewing the edits, let me know off-list. ~m ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 15:13 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote:
>
> On 08/07/2014 03:02 PM, Allan Day wrote:
> > While the interpretation isn't quite right, that blog post talks about
> > GNOME and does so positively. It's giving us good exposure.
>
> Maybe GNOME's logo should appear under sponsors on gnome.org/opw too.
GNOME appearing under the Sponsors and/or Partners sections would help,
so would emphasizing GNOME's role in the About section. ("The GNOME
Foundation started the Outreach Program for Women[...]. It was inspired
by [...]").
Ditto for the flyer at https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen as
well as the similarly worded "origins" section.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On 08/07/2014 03:02 PM, Allan Day wrote: While the interpretation isn't quite right, that blog post talks about GNOME and does so positively. It's giving us good exposure. Maybe GNOME's logo should appear under sponsors on gnome.org/opw too. ~m ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
Bastien Nocera wrote: >> Second, OPW has been beneficial for GNOME. It has raised our profile >> and further established our role as leaders in the Free Software >> world. Our sponsors are enthusiastic about OPW (conversely, moving OPW >> out of GNOME would give them one less reason to support us). > > While that was true when it was limited to participation in GNOME > itself, that's not the case anymore. All of the branding is now > "FossOPW": > https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen I'm pretty sure that our Ad Board members know that we administer the programme. We also do our own marketing, such as the latest Annual Report, which had a section on OPW, and was distributed to Ad Board members. > And reading a blog post like this: > http://sarah.thesharps.us/2013/05/23/%EF%BB%BF%EF%BB%BFopw-update/ > it feels like it wasn't people in GNOME that came up with programme, but > that GNOME was just the first organisation to benefit from it (see "What > is the FOSS Outreach Program for Women"). While the interpretation isn't quite right, that blog post talks about GNOME and does so positively. It's giving us good exposure. Allan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 14:24 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > Do you understand that the many -isms that negatively impact GNOME and > open source in general > > If you want to talk about the larger practice that GNOME is part of, > please speak of "free software". 1. Please get yourself a mailer that doesn't mangle Máirín's name, there are plenty of "Free Software" ones 2. If the extent of your involvement in the GNOME Foundation's life is going to be something that a bot can replace, can we please have the bot instead? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] Do you understand that the many -isms that negatively impact GNOME and open source in general If you want to talk about the larger practice that GNOME is part of, please speak of "free software". The free software movement campaigns for a particular aspect of human rights, in the field of computing. OPW campaings for a different aspect of human rights, but is based on the same attitude that human rights are important. The slogan "open source" was launched so as to reject that attitude. It's not a good fit for OPW or for GNOME. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 18:34 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > Second, OPW has been beneficial for GNOME. It has raised our profile > and further established our role as leaders in the Free Software > world. Our sponsors are enthusiastic about OPW (conversely, moving OPW > out of GNOME would give them one less reason to support us). While that was true when it was limited to participation in GNOME itself, that's not the case anymore. All of the branding is now "FossOPW": https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen And reading a blog post like this: http://sarah.thesharps.us/2013/05/23/%EF%BB%BF%EF%BB%BFopw-update/ it feels like it wasn't people in GNOME that came up with programme, but that GNOME was just the first organisation to benefit from it (see "What is the FOSS Outreach Program for Women"). ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
Three points! First, it's been suggested that OPW falls outside the Foundation charter, and therefore falls outside of GNOME's general mission. The fact that the charter doesn't reflect GNOME's current mission is entirely unsurprising - it is an ancient, largely historical document (last updated 14 years ago!) More than that, the charter invokes a simplistic definition of GNOME's mission. The only thing it says on the matter is "to create a computing platform for use by the general public that is completely free software." GNOME is much more than this. It *has* to be much more than this. Being a Free Software desktop is hardly a unique claim and, if we can't say why we are different, and why we matter, we might as well shut up shop. Thankfully, our project does have a unique and compelling mission. We do more than simply create a Free Desktop, in two significant ways: 1. We create our software as part of an independent and diverse community, and we create it for everyone. We don't just create free software - we do it in a way that reflects our ambition to make the world a better place. 2. We are deeply interconnected with, and embedded in, the wider Free Software ecosystem. We don't draw a line at git.gnome.org, and decide that's all we're interested in. GNOME is an integrating and progressive force within Free Software. We played a major role in establishing freedesktop.org. We are leading the way in a variety of projects, such as Wayland and (I hope) application sandboxing. Yes, the charter says nothing about these things (largely because it says very little about GNOME's mission in general), but they are a key part of how we define ourselves, and OPW is consistent with them. Again, as a member of the Engagement Team, OPW has been extremely positive in enabling us to tell a compelling story about the GNOME project. Second, OPW has been beneficial for GNOME. It has raised our profile and further established our role as leaders in the Free Software world. Our sponsors are enthusiastic about OPW (conversely, moving OPW out of GNOME would give them one less reason to support us). Third, OPW will need to stand on its own two feet irrespective of which organisation hosts it. Assuming that OPW can do this - and I think we probably all want it to - then what do we gain by moving it out to another organisation? All that would happen is that that organisation would get the benefits that we have been enjoying. Allan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
Hi Ryan, On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014, at 11:18, meg ford wrote: > > I don't think it's relevant. GSoC is also outside of the mission > > statement, > > though as I said before I think there are allusions to outreach in the > > Charter. I think the discussion should focus on what is relevant, which > > is > > how the Foundation should deal with the financial and administrative > > aspects of the program. Otherwise we can also lump in any other outreach > > we > > do to new contributors, which I think would be odd, since FOSS does rely > > on > > contributors and internship programs are a good way to recruit them. > > I certainly agree that attracting new contributors is an absolutely > essential part of ensuring the survival of any free software project, > and I even believe that in terms of how the program is structured, OPW's > format is more effective at creating long-term community members than is > GSoC (due to the more 'internship' nature rather than the 'complete a > project' nature of GSoC). > > I think there are two fundamental differences between GNOME's > involvement in GSoC and GNOME's administration of OPW, which make all > the difference: > > The first is that we are not handling the sending of payments to > students in GSoC, so the amount of work we do here is much smaller. > I agree, I was just pointing out that the discussion should focus on how to balance the workload and finances of OPW so that it is manageable, since we are involved in outreach, even if it isn't explicitly mentioned in our mission statement. The difference is a matter of scale, and I think it makes sense for us to discuss how to adjust the program's administration so it isn't a burden. It might be that Oliver's suggestion that it move to the Software Freedom Conservancy is the best way forward. I think it deserves consideration. There might also be other ways, and if there are then hopefully we can discuss those as well. > > The second (and more important) is that our participation with GSoC is > limited to interaction with students who are all directly contributing > to furthering our own goals of creating GNOME: people who will > (hopefully) become members of our community. > Also a fine point, and I think the community is doing a good job of having a balanced discussion of how we can improve our relationship to OPW. > > Cheers > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
hi meg, On Thu, Aug 7, 2014, at 11:18, meg ford wrote: > I don't think it's relevant. GSoC is also outside of the mission > statement, > though as I said before I think there are allusions to outreach in the > Charter. I think the discussion should focus on what is relevant, which > is > how the Foundation should deal with the financial and administrative > aspects of the program. Otherwise we can also lump in any other outreach > we > do to new contributors, which I think would be odd, since FOSS does rely > on > contributors and internship programs are a good way to recruit them. I certainly agree that attracting new contributors is an absolutely essential part of ensuring the survival of any free software project, and I even believe that in terms of how the program is structured, OPW's format is more effective at creating long-term community members than is GSoC (due to the more 'internship' nature rather than the 'complete a project' nature of GSoC). I think there are two fundamental differences between GNOME's involvement in GSoC and GNOME's administration of OPW, which make all the difference: The first is that we are not handling the sending of payments to students in GSoC, so the amount of work we do here is much smaller. The second (and more important) is that our participation with GSoC is limited to interaction with students who are all directly contributing to furthering our own goals of creating GNOME: people who will (hopefully) become members of our community. Cheers ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
> GSoC is also outside of the mission statement Why do you mention that? GSoC is organized by Google, not by GNOME. I think the discussion should focus on what is relevant I agree, but as I just said the subject of the thread is "GNOME's mission statement", not "financial and administrative aspects of the OPW program". On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 5:18 PM, meg ford wrote: > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Mathieu Duponchelle < > mduponchel...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It seems I'm far from being the only one to think OPW should be >> abstracted away from GNOME. The subject of this thread clearly is GNOME's >> mission statement, and I'm interested in further discussion / opinions on >> that subject. >> > > I don't think it's relevant. GSoC is also outside of the mission > statement, though as I said before I think there are allusions to outreach > in the Charter. I think the discussion should focus on what is relevant, > which is how the Foundation should deal with the financial and > administrative aspects of the program. Otherwise we can also lump in any > other outreach we do to new contributors, which I think would be odd, since > FOSS does rely on contributors and internship programs are a good way to > recruit them. > >> >> ___ >> foundation-list mailing list >> foundation-list@gnome.org >> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list >> >> > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Call for GNOME.Asia Summit 2015 Host Proposals
Call for GNOME.Asia Summit 2015 Host Proposals The GNOME.Asia Committee is inviting interested parties to submit proposals for hosting the GNOME.Asia during the 2nd quarter of 2015. The GNOME.Asia Summit is the featured annual GNOME Conference in Asia. The event focuses primarily on the GNOME desktop, but also covers applications and the development platform tools. It brings together the GNOME community in Asia to provide a forum for users, developers, foundation leaders, governments and businesses to discuss both the present technology and future developments. GNOME.Asia Summits have been held in Beijing, Ho-Chi-Minh City, Taipei, Bangalore, Hong Kong Seoul and Beijing respectively over the last seven years. The Summit’s preference is to find a new location each year in order to we spread GNOME throughout Asia and we are looking for local organizers to rise to the challenge of organizing an excellent GNOME event. The GNOME.Asia committee will assist in the process, but there is a definitive need for individuals to be actively involved and committed to the planning and execution of the event. You can learn more about GNOME.Asia Summit at our website: http://www.gnome.asia Interested parties are hereby invited to submit a formal proposal to the gnome-asia-committee-listgnome org . The deadline for the proposals is September 1, 2014. Please email your proposal to gnome-asia-committee-listgnome org. We might invite you to present your proposal in more details over our regular IRC meetings or send you additional questions and requests. Results will be announced by the third week of September, 2014. The conference will require availability of facilities for 3-5 days, including a weekend, during the 2nd quarter of 2015 (between March and June). Final event dates should avoid other key free software conferences or other events that may have conflict and will be confirmed together with other GNOME teams which might get involved. Key points which each proposals should consider and which will be taken into account when deciding among candidates, are: - Local community support for hosting the conference. - Venue details. Information about infrastructure and facilities to hold the conference should be provided. - Preliminary schedule with main program & different activities. - Information about how Internet connectivity will be managed. - Lodging choices ranging from affordable housing to nicer hotels, and information about distances between the venue and lodging options. - The availability of restaurants or the organization of catering on-site, cost of food/soft drinks/beer. - The availability and cost of travel from major Asian and European cities. - Local industries, universities and government support. - Please provide a reasonably detailed budget (sponsorships, expenses, etc). - Provide plans for local sponsorship’s Please refer to the official web site of GNOME.Asia [1]. Please also check the GNOME.Asia Summit check list [2], howtos [3] and the winning proposal for 2012 [4] when putting together a proposal. You are welcome to contact gnome-asia-committee-listgnome org if you have any questions. Please help to spread the word and we are looking forward to hearing from you soon! GNOME.Asia Committee [1] http://wiki.gnome.org/GnomeAsia [2] http://2011.gnome.asia/about/gnomeasia/event-organization-checklist [3] http://2011.gnome.asia/about/gnomeasia/summit-planning-howto [4] http://wiki.gnome.org/GnomeAsia/2012Summit/Bids?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=Proposal_of_HongKong_GNOME_Asia_Hackfest_2012_20120124.pdf ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Mathieu Duponchelle wrote: > It seems I'm far from being the only one to think OPW should be abstracted > away from GNOME. The subject of this thread clearly is GNOME's mission > statement, and I'm interested in further discussion / opinions on that > subject. > I don't think it's relevant. GSoC is also outside of the mission statement, though as I said before I think there are allusions to outreach in the Charter. I think the discussion should focus on what is relevant, which is how the Foundation should deal with the financial and administrative aspects of the program. Otherwise we can also lump in any other outreach we do to new contributors, which I think would be odd, since FOSS does rely on contributors and internship programs are a good way to recruit them. > > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Conservancy as potential home for OPW (was Re: Mission Statement)
[ I want to be clear that I'm here primarily as an individual member of the GNOME Foundation. However, this particular post is primarily on behalf on Conservancy -- since Oliver called out Conservancy explicitly as a possible home for OPW. I'm the President, on the Board of Directors, and an employee of Conservancy. ] Oliver Propst wrote at 05:58 (EDT): > I know an organization [1] that have administrative and legal > expertise, maybe they would be interested in govern the program? > > 1 https://sfconservancy.org/overview/ Conservancy would of course welcome an application by OPW to join Conservancy, and Oliver is correct that Conservancy's primary daily activities are handling the types of administrative tasks that GF has struggled to handle for OPW. OPW is somewhat different from our usual member project, which are primarily Free Software projects themselves. However, Conservancy has established in the past some projects that are primarily services to advance and/or protect the adoption of Free Software. Thus, an OPW application to Conservancy is not unprecedented. Conservancy's evaluation committee would need to consider OPW as an applicant to Conservancy and decide. (Conservancy's eval committee meets monthly.) However, one useful component of any application from a project with an existing affiliation to a Free Software 501(c)(3) non-profit is a definitive statement from the governing body of that non-profit (in this case, likely, from GF's Board) which indicates the existing org has no objection to the application. Particularly in this case, Conservancy has an excellent relationship with GF; thus, Conservancy would certainly seek a joint decision for a relocation of OPW to Conservancy. If this change is really something GF wants to pursue and Conservancy can make an impact here helping OPW flourish, I'm prepared personally to prioritize such a transition to make sure it's smooth and easy. Máirín Duffy wrote at 12:55 (EDT) on Wednesday: > > Red Hat and the Software Freedom Conservancy are funding Marina and > > Karen's time spent on administering it respectively Regardless of anything that happens about the issue raised above, Conservancy remains very supportive of OPW. Conservancy's employment policy in fact allows use of some resources to do some volunteer work for other charities. I use that to do volunteer work for the FSF myself, and Karen has done so to help OPW and GF, so I don't expect Karen will cease involvement with OPW in any event. (IIUC, Karen also volunteers further on nights/weekends for OPW and GF as well.) Finally, I personally remain very supportive of OPW. I've been urging existing Conservancy member projects for years to participate more in OPW. Sadly, I haven't been as successful as I'd like, but both Karen and I actively have been working on that since she came to work at Conservancy, and hopefully we'll see more Conservancy member projects sponsoring OPW slots in the future! -- Bradley M. Kuhn President & Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On 7 August 2014 15:16, Máirín Duffy wrote: > Hi, > > > On 08/07/2014 10:05 AM, Pascal Terjan wrote: >> >> I doesn't help. Do you think that because they could help this should >> be the permanent solution and there is no need to find a better one? >> Are you still using their hose? > > > Here is what I said in the email that you initially replied to: > > > "If there are financial concerns, let's continue to go through the actual > data and see if there is a way to solve them." > > I thought a house running from one neighbor's house to another was a clear > illustration of a *temporary* solution to help someone out before they were > solvent on their own. No, we are not still using the hose. We had to solve > the root problem of getting pipe repaired and securing the funds / > responsibility there before it could be disconnected though. How can you not > see how this relates? > > >> No one said we should drop it and ask that someone takes it over. >> It should be discussed with other participants and when a better >> solution is found it can be transitioned. > > > No one said that in as many words, no. But when it is essentially being said > that (1) it is able to operate at this time due to support from GNOME that > GNOME cannot afford AND (2) it should be split off from GNOME, then the end > result is splitting something off that cannot operate on its own. This is > equivalent to killing it unless I am missing something. The possibilities I have seen discussed so far were: - Get more funding to be able to employ someone - Create a spearate fundation but that seems hard and could have more problems than GNOME currently has - Get things administrated by one of the other bigger participating organizations I haven't felt anyone wanted to get rid of it just to get rid of it ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
Hi folks, The board discussed the future handling of OPW at length in a meeting on Wednesday, August 30 at GUADEC. Let's wait for the minutes of that meeting to be published before continuing the discussion, as they will inform it. Thanks, Marina ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
Hi, On 08/07/2014 10:05 AM, Pascal Terjan wrote: I doesn't help. Do you think that because they could help this should be the permanent solution and there is no need to find a better one? Are you still using their hose? Here is what I said in the email that you initially replied to: "If there are financial concerns, let's continue to go through the actual data and see if there is a way to solve them." I thought a house running from one neighbor's house to another was a clear illustration of a *temporary* solution to help someone out before they were solvent on their own. No, we are not still using the hose. We had to solve the root problem of getting pipe repaired and securing the funds / responsibility there before it could be disconnected though. How can you not see how this relates? No one said we should drop it and ask that someone takes it over. It should be discussed with other participants and when a better solution is found it can be transitioned. No one said that in as many words, no. But when it is essentially being said that (1) it is able to operate at this time due to support from GNOME that GNOME cannot afford AND (2) it should be split off from GNOME, then the end result is splitting something off that cannot operate on its own. This is equivalent to killing it unless I am missing something. ~m ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On 7 August 2014 15:02, Máirín Duffy wrote: > > > On 08/07/2014 09:50 AM, Pascal Terjan wrote: >> >> The discussion is not about the absence of OPW, but about not >> providing the service of managing OPW for other organisations. >> I haven't seen anyone saying GNOME shouldn'tparticipate in OPW. > > > Let me try to explain this another way... > > A couple of years ago my neighbor's house went on fire. As a result of the > fire, the copper pipes providing water to my house melted. My house had no > running water. > > Some other neighbors ended up running a hose into our house to provide us > with water from their home for 3 months while various city departments and > lawyers pointed fingers the other way to fix the pipes. > > My neighbors did not have to provide us water. But they knew if they took > the water away before we were able to address the various issues involved in > fixing the pipe, we would be without running water. It was not their > problem, but if they did not help in this way, they would have been leaving > a pregnant woman (me) without running water. > > Hope that further illustrates the point. I doesn't help. Do you think that because they could help this should be the permanent solution and there is no need to find a better one? Are you still using their hose? No one said we should drop it and ask that someone takes it over. It should be discussed with other participants and when a better solution is found it can be transitioned. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On 08/07/2014 09:50 AM, Pascal Terjan wrote: I don't see why it would negatively impact it. If the foundation is providing necessary financial handling as you say, having that help take away would negatively impact it. ~m ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On 08/07/2014 09:50 AM, Pascal Terjan wrote: The discussion is not about the absence of OPW, but about not providing the service of managing OPW for other organisations. I haven't seen anyone saying GNOME shouldn'tparticipate in OPW. Let me try to explain this another way... A couple of years ago my neighbor's house went on fire. As a result of the fire, the copper pipes providing water to my house melted. My house had no running water. Some other neighbors ended up running a hose into our house to provide us with water from their home for 3 months while various city departments and lawyers pointed fingers the other way to fix the pipes. My neighbors did not have to provide us water. But they knew if they took the water away before we were able to address the various issues involved in fixing the pipe, we would be without running water. It was not their problem, but if they did not help in this way, they would have been leaving a pregnant woman (me) without running water. Hope that further illustrates the point. ~m ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
It seems I'm far from being the only one to think OPW should be abstracted away from GNOME. The subject of this thread clearly is GNOME's mission statement, and I'm interested in further discussion / opinions on that subject. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On 7 August 2014 14:43, Máirín Duffy wrote: > > > On 08/07/2014 12:06 AM, Mathieu Duponchelle wrote: >> >> >> Women do represent a pretty significant portion of the general >> public, no? I think for men by men probably doesn't meet the >> "general public" qualifier there. >> >> >> "Standalone OPW" is different from "from men by men", I'm afraid I don't >> understand your argument here? > > > I am happy to clarify. Here is my argument: > > - There are financial concerns / problems. > - There are concerns about OPW's alignment with GNOME's mission statement > > If there are financial concerns, let's continue to go through the actual > data and see if there is a way to solve them. > > Let's not conflate whether or not OPW has anything to do with the mission > statement or not; if there was a problem with alignment to the mission > statement I would have expected that to be brought up quite some time ago, > and would hope it would be brought up without the added issue of financial > concerns if it was truly a sincere concern. > > In the absence of a program like OPW, sadly, it is for men by men, we have > historical figures to demonstrate this. The discussion is not about the absence of OPW, but about not providing the service of managing OPW for other organisations. I haven't seen anyone saying GNOME shouldn'tparticipate in OPW. > If you want to take a project that is successfully increasing the number of > female participants in GNOME and open source in general and disassociate it > from the project while, at the same time, talking about how there are > financial issues and not enough money to hire more help then you are > essentially killing the program. If the program cannot continue to operate > without the help from the GNOME foundation that it is currently getting > (whether or not that is sustainable long-term,) you are setting the program > back. > > You can not just say, let's take OPW out of this GNOME box and give it its > owm box and believe that it won't negatively impact the broader program and > its ability to continue its success while you are also bringing up financial > issues that would make the program impossible to run outside of GNOME's box. I don't see why it would negatively impact it. When looking at http://kernelnewbies.org/OPWIntro the only reference to GNOME is the IRC server. It already lives a life outside of GNOME, it's a matter of formalising that. GNOME could be a participant like others, withan organization with more human resources handling the shared part. > I hope this clarifies my point and I hope the discussion can continue to > focus around the financial issues and work through potential solutions to > those and put aside the 'mission statement' argument. I do not see any > conflict with the current mission statement, and changing the mission > statement appears to not solve the real issue at hand anyway. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote: > Let's not conflate whether or not OPW has anything to do with the mission > statement or not; if there was a problem with alignment to the mission > statement I would have expected that to be brought up quite some time ago, > and would hope it would be brought up without the added issue of financial > concerns if it was truly a sincere concern. Saying that because nobody raised concerns earlier there's no issue is a pretty poor argument. I see people raising concerns now, so why dismiss them by saying that they should have done so earlier? -- Alexandre Franke ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On 08/07/2014 12:06 AM, Mathieu Duponchelle wrote: Women do represent a pretty significant portion of the general public, no? I think for men by men probably doesn't meet the "general public" qualifier there. "Standalone OPW" is different from "from men by men", I'm afraid I don't understand your argument here? I am happy to clarify. Here is my argument: - There are financial concerns / problems. - There are concerns about OPW's alignment with GNOME's mission statement If there are financial concerns, let's continue to go through the actual data and see if there is a way to solve them. Let's not conflate whether or not OPW has anything to do with the mission statement or not; if there was a problem with alignment to the mission statement I would have expected that to be brought up quite some time ago, and would hope it would be brought up without the added issue of financial concerns if it was truly a sincere concern. In the absence of a program like OPW, sadly, it is for men by men, we have historical figures to demonstrate this. If you want to take a project that is successfully increasing the number of female participants in GNOME and open source in general and disassociate it from the project while, at the same time, talking about how there are financial issues and not enough money to hire more help then you are essentially killing the program. If the program cannot continue to operate without the help from the GNOME foundation that it is currently getting (whether or not that is sustainable long-term,) you are setting the program back. You can not just say, let's take OPW out of this GNOME box and give it its owm box and believe that it won't negatively impact the broader program and its ability to continue its success while you are also bringing up financial issues that would make the program impossible to run outside of GNOME's box. I hope this clarifies my point and I hope the discussion can continue to focus around the financial issues and work through potential solutions to those and put aside the 'mission statement' argument. I do not see any conflict with the current mission statement, and changing the mission statement appears to not solve the real issue at hand anyway. ~m ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Olav Vitters wrote: > I think OPW is great. Having it ran by GNOME is great as well. Lack of > status update is bad. Having OPW funds under the same legal entity is > IMO questionable. I think it should be a separate legal entity. For as > it already caused risks, and I don't see how this is aligned with > mission statement. Meaning: A lot of money is being moved via GNOME. > GNOME has special status (the donate for free bit), IMO legal entity > would be needed. Very wise opinion. Speaking as a member of the Engagement team I think OPW is really really great but that don't necessarily means that GNOME should have the administrative responsibility as it apparently put extra pressure on GNOME's already strained resources (speaking here primarily about the board members time). One must also think one of take into take into account the exceptionally growth of the program, I do not think the original organizers could envision such sucess when the program was started but the questions is now how to best move the program forward. -- -mvh Oliver Propst ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 10:05:45PM -0700, Germán Poo-Caamaño wrote: > > The order of magnitudes are different. For OPW (40 interns), GNOME has > to allocate $220,000 to be able to pay the interns. For a hackfest, > GNOME has to allocate between $1,000 to $15,000. > > For OPW there are contracts that states with an exact date of payment. > For hackfests/travel assistance just good intentions on when (likely) > there would be a reimbursement. > > From the advisory board, GF likely receives less than $200,000 a year on > fees. Maybe less than $150,000. And possibly less if they don't pay on > time. Therefore, I hardly see how a hackfest/travel > assistance/conference could freeze GF funds. > > To increase the number of interns in OPW will depend on how good the > GF's finances are to back it up, regardless of how many sponsor would be > willing to pay... because it's a matter of cash flow. In that sense, > the size GF can play against OPW itself. IMO this a good summary why OPW should be in a different legal entity. Repeating: I'm all for OPW, I think it is great that GNOME foundation does this. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 06:15:22PM +0100, Allan Day wrote: > Again speaking as a member of the Engagement Team, I would say that > OPW has made it easier for us to talk about what GNOME does in a > coherent manner, rather than making it more difficult. The general consensus that I see is that GNOME is without funds due to OPW. A status update from the board would be welcome. During AGM it was mentioned that it was decided that no status update would be given atm. I think such a status update is overdue. I think OPW is great. Having it ran by GNOME is great as well. Lack of status update is bad. Having OPW funds under the same legal entity is IMO questionable. I think it should be a separate legal entity. For as it already caused risks, and I don't see how this is aligned with mission statement. Meaning: A lot of money is being moved via GNOME. GNOME has special status (the donate for free bit), IMO legal entity would be needed. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On 06/08/2014, Pascal Terjan wrote: > On 6 August 2014 17:05, Máirín Duffy wrote: >> On 08/06/2014 11:57 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote: >>> >>> I was disappointed (but not completely surprised) to learn that, >>> although OPW has expanded to many projects beyond GNOME, GNOME is left >>> handling all of the money for all participants at all organisations. >>> This hasn't only exposed us to substantial financial risks; it has >>> caused actual financial problems for the project. This year, GNOME >>> temporarily ceased funding of hackfests in order to recover from the >>> cashflow problems caused by the size of OPW. >> >> >> I'm sensing a general lack of information in your post (which should >> absolutely be provided to you) about the program and its affect on GNOME >> and >> its finances, so I thought it would be worth pointing out that GNOME does >> charge a per-intern administrative fee to each non-GNOME project >> participating in OPW. So GNOME is far from taking on this extremely >> helpful >> and beneficial work without compensation. > > I personnally have no problem with GNOME managing OPW but given that's > it getting bigger than GNOME itself it may make sense to have an > independant foundation. > Apart from that, regarding the time consumed, is the charge enough to > hire someone part time dedicated to it? Hi, this is something that the board has considered a number of times over the last half year… There are two main components to OPW which incur costs: banking fees and administration time. Banking fees are not difficult to estimate based on the number of payments sent. We cannot get a 100% accurate number up front as every time a payment is returned and has to be resent, we incur a fee, but some payments are free for us to send (checks in the US). Estimating the exact amount of administration time that is associated with OPW is considerably more difficult. The time is spent on a number of different areas, for example invoicing when instructed to do so (invoicing is not always a matter or producing a PDF and emailing it over; it can become very complex with some of the larger companies), setting up accounts with new sponsors (only applicable to large companies), chasing up invoices (this is currently being partially handled by the board and OPW companies, but this is not sustainable), collecting payment details from interns (this is currently being handled by OPW organisers), checking which interns can be paid (also OPW organisers now), sending out reimbursements, checking if any payments been returned, resending returned payments, tracking travel sponsorship funds, sending out travel sponsorship reimbursements and more. The OPW administrative fee (after taking off banking costs) is not enough to hire someone half time, but it is enough to hire someone for a few hours per week. A few hours per week is not enough time to cover all of the administrative load. The other issue with a few hours per week is that the person will need to be set up with access to all of the Foundation's accounts, infrastructure, accounts with suppliers (sponsors) and be trained to use our tools. This in itself is not a trivial task and it would be considerably more worthwhile to do these things for a half time employee than for someone only working a few hours per week. I personally don't think it is practical to hire someone right now. The situation would change if there were more administrative fees coming in from OPW, for example, enough to cover a half time employee and other costs associated with the program. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 00:23 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > On 7 August 2014 00:13, Andre Klapper wrote: > > Currently there seems to be a mismatch between GNOME's mission statement > > and OPW activities (doing program administration for other projects). > > if that were the case, then we ought to stop handling funds for all > the other projects for which we currently do handle funds: program administration != handling funds. andre -- Andre Klapper | ak...@gmx.net http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
Given the program really have outgrown into something that OPW is no longer GNOME specific and the administrative burden the program have become for the foundation I do think splinting out the program something that should be considered. I know an organization [1] that have administrative and legal expertise, maybe they would be interested in govern the program? 1 https://sfconservancy.org/overview/ On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Ekaterina Gerasimova wrote: > On 06/08/2014, Máirín Duffy wrote: >> >> On 08/06/2014 11:57 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote: >>> I was disappointed (but not completely surprised) to learn that, >>> although OPW has expanded to many projects beyond GNOME, GNOME is left >>> handling all of the money for all participants at all organisations. >>> This hasn't only exposed us to substantial financial risks; it has >>> caused actual financial problems for the project. This year, GNOME >>> temporarily ceased funding of hackfests in order to recover from the >>> cashflow problems caused by the size of OPW. >> >> I'm sensing a general lack of information in your post (which should >> absolutely be provided to you) about the program and its affect on GNOME >> and its finances, so I thought it would be worth pointing out that GNOME >> does charge a per-intern administrative fee to each non-GNOME project >> participating in OPW. So GNOME is far from taking on this extremely >> helpful and beneficial work without compensation. > > GNOME incurs a large amount of banking fees associated with the > program and it takes up a considerable amount of our administrative > assistant's time, which is covered by the administrative fee. > Nonetheless, there is a limited amount of administrative time > available, which has meant that the board and other Foundation members > have had to take on unpaid administrative work to keep the Foundation > afloat. If this had not been done, I dread to think whether GUADEC > would have been the same. > > Regardless, Ryan is correct that poor management of OPW finances has > resulted in financial difficulties for the Foundation. To expand on > what he wrote, funding for two separate events was outright rejected, > which resulted in one event being cancelled. Many Foundation members > also had their reimbursements delayed by over two months. Luckily, > those individuals were very supportive and were kind enough to work > with the board to ensure that those who needed reimbursements fastest > were the first to receive them. > >>> I also came to appreciate during conversations at GUADEC the amount of >>> time which members of the engagement team, the board, and others are >>> spending fighting against harmful and distracting messaging from various >>> corners of the net, and how much OPW has become involved in some of the >>> stranger criticisms being leveled toward us. It's no secret that OPW is >>> controversial, even within the project. I feel at the very least, it is >>> a distraction from what should be our core goals. >> >> Do you understand that the many -isms that negatively impact GNOME and >> open source in general do not disappear when you sweep them under the >> rug? These are not problems that can just be washed away from >> disengaging OPW from GNOME. >> >>> I think that the time has come to split OPW out from the GNOME >>> foundation. >> >> I can't resist saying this: >> >> I think GNOME has a lot of problems, and OPW is most certainly NOT one >> of them. >> >> ~m >> ___ >> foundation-list mailing list >> foundation-list@gnome.org >> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list >> > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- -mvh Oliver Propst ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On 06/08/2014, Máirín Duffy wrote: > > On 08/06/2014 11:57 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote: >> I was disappointed (but not completely surprised) to learn that, >> although OPW has expanded to many projects beyond GNOME, GNOME is left >> handling all of the money for all participants at all organisations. >> This hasn't only exposed us to substantial financial risks; it has >> caused actual financial problems for the project. This year, GNOME >> temporarily ceased funding of hackfests in order to recover from the >> cashflow problems caused by the size of OPW. > > I'm sensing a general lack of information in your post (which should > absolutely be provided to you) about the program and its affect on GNOME > and its finances, so I thought it would be worth pointing out that GNOME > does charge a per-intern administrative fee to each non-GNOME project > participating in OPW. So GNOME is far from taking on this extremely > helpful and beneficial work without compensation. GNOME incurs a large amount of banking fees associated with the program and it takes up a considerable amount of our administrative assistant's time, which is covered by the administrative fee. Nonetheless, there is a limited amount of administrative time available, which has meant that the board and other Foundation members have had to take on unpaid administrative work to keep the Foundation afloat. If this had not been done, I dread to think whether GUADEC would have been the same. Regardless, Ryan is correct that poor management of OPW finances has resulted in financial difficulties for the Foundation. To expand on what he wrote, funding for two separate events was outright rejected, which resulted in one event being cancelled. Many Foundation members also had their reimbursements delayed by over two months. Luckily, those individuals were very supportive and were kind enough to work with the board to ensure that those who needed reimbursements fastest were the first to receive them. >> I also came to appreciate during conversations at GUADEC the amount of >> time which members of the engagement team, the board, and others are >> spending fighting against harmful and distracting messaging from various >> corners of the net, and how much OPW has become involved in some of the >> stranger criticisms being leveled toward us. It's no secret that OPW is >> controversial, even within the project. I feel at the very least, it is >> a distraction from what should be our core goals. > > Do you understand that the many -isms that negatively impact GNOME and > open source in general do not disappear when you sweep them under the > rug? These are not problems that can just be washed away from > disengaging OPW from GNOME. > >> I think that the time has come to split OPW out from the GNOME >> foundation. > > I can't resist saying this: > > I think GNOME has a lot of problems, and OPW is most certainly NOT one > of them. > > ~m > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On 07/08/2014, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > hi Andre; > > On 7 August 2014 00:13, Andre Klapper wrote: >> Currently there seems to be a mismatch between GNOME's mission statement >> and OPW activities (doing program administration for other projects). > > if that were the case, then we ought to stop handling funds for all > the other projects for which we currently do handle funds: > > • Gimp > • GStreamer > • PulseAudio (for GSoC) > • PiTiVi (fund raising) > > so if we want to discuss this perceived discrepancy, then we should > frame it in a more general context than the mere OPW. Emmanuele, the GNOME Foundation does not do program administration for any of those projects. The Foundation only handles funds for those organisations. Handling funds involved first collecting cash on the organisation's behalf in some form or other (cash, invoices, other donations), then sending our reimbursements only up to the total value of the monies that we hold for that organisation. This was explicitly agreed last April when I made it clear to the board that we must not touch monies which belong to those projects and when the board unanimously agreed that they will not be affected by the freeze as the Foundation had no right to withhold those projects' monies. In other words, the only decision that the Foundation makes for those projects is "do we hold enough money to cover this reimbursement and is the reimbursement in line with our mission?". The contract that the Foundation put together for one of those projects last year states that any spending has to be in line with the GNOME Foundation's mission, so the Foundation does try to make sure that external projects are well aware of the requirements. With the exception of one project to which we no longer offer our services, projects for which GNOME handles money always have a positive balance. If you think that OPW should be treated same as the projects above, then you appear to be in favour of removing the program administration burden from the Foundation. I would also be in favour of this as it will free up a lot of time for the board to concentrate on other areas such as spending the funds raised through the privacy campaign and seeking out sponsors for upcoming hackfests. > ciao, > Emmanuele. > > -- > http://www.bassi.io > [@] ebassi [@gmail.com] > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
Hi On 2014-08-06 20:19, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: On 6 August 2014 19:49, Michael Hill wrote: "This hasn't only exposed us to substantial financial risks; it has caused actual financial problems for the project. This year, GNOME temporarily ceased funding of hackfests in order to recover from the cashflow problems caused by the size of OPW." -- Ryan Lortie Result: day to day operations of the Foundation disrupted. the disruption has been put in place to recover reserves that we burned through; those reserves were burned through because of a reduction in the cash flow of the Foundation in general — i.e. our finances have been shrinking for the past few years. the OPW was an expenditure to make up for invoices not being paid, but *any* expenditure (hackfest, conferences, travel assistance) could have caused the freeze. I sit on the travel committee, and witness a large part of the Foundation's expenditure on travel assistance and hackfests, as well as approving (together with other members of the committee) those expenses within boundaries set by the Foundation board. To my knowledge, the travel committee has not exceeded its event budgets since I have been a member. While it is possible for any expenditure to trigger an emergency situation (given a sufficiently large amount), it is probably better to concentrate on situations where spending limits have been exceeded, and to reduce the likelihood of those situations occurring in the future. in general, the freeze that has less to do with OPW and more with our own issues in tracking payments and invoices, and handling our own accounting. the whole issue could have just as easily happened if we didn't have OPW, to be fair. in a way, the OPW growth and this whole finance situation has forced the board to get a better handle on the foundation's own funding and processes, to streamline them, document them, and track them. According to the Foundation board's FAQ about the financial situation when it was first announced, the Foundation "had to front the costs of OPW": https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/CurrentBudgetFAQ#Why_had_this_happened.3F While the issue could have occurred without the OPW, in this case it happened because of the OPW, and the board put it rather unequivocally: "The GNOME Foundation had a temporary lack of reserves due to processing the funds for the Outreach Program for Women (OPW)." https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/CurrentBudgetFAQ#What_is_the_situation.3F now that things are tracked properly the remaining effect of the OPW growth is the administrative burden on our own administrative infrastructure; that still needs to be fixed, and it would be good to have ideas on how to increase our volunteer base. Does that mean that all the outstanding invoices for OPW have been paid? If not, there is a financial burden as well as an administrative one. we also still need to build up cash reserves, so that we can unfreeze the expenditures of the foundation. It seems reasonable to expect that OPW is subject to spending freezes just like the rest of the non-essential expenditure of the Foundation, including hackfests, travel and so on. However, there are very few minuted discussions of OPW payments from the board since the freeze. I can find no record of a decision for sending out the second part of the stipend for the current round of OPW: https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen/2014/MayAugust#Payments_Schedule I would have expected a decision some time before the 7th July stipend payment, but I can only see an inconclusive discussion and partial vote from the start of June: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-announce/2014-June/msg4.html As the payment date has now passed, did the board vote on the expense, and were the payments sent? -- http://amigadave.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
