On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 17:05 +0000, Magdalen Berns wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > It seems proportionate to try to seek compelling evidence to support > > the > > > > > hypothesis that this is a problem but also that the suggested > > solution > > > > will > > > > > address that problem in a representative way. > > > > > > > > Please, go ahead, collect the evidence and present it here. > > > > > > I am going to need cooperation with getting access to all the relevant > > > data, but I am happy to proceed on the basis that I get that. This can be > > > taken forward, as far as I am concerned. > > > > What is the relevant data that is not already public? > > > The list of interns is interns is public, the same as the period of > > internships, commit logs, bug reports, mailing list discussions. > > > People who stayed involved should have activity after their internship > > finished it. > > Looking at that alone would bias the result. Off the top of my head, these > data would need to be compared to the data of sponsored/paid employees > contributing to GNOME since 2005 and that data assessed against how > foundation applications have been handled each year and member engagement > post acceptance/rejection of foundation memberships too. Taking all the > associated errors into account and doing this should help give a fairly > comprehensive overview of the situation and help us determine whether our > assumptions on perceived differences between the motivations of those who > are paid for shorter period of time than those who are paid for longer > periods of time, are justified.
Keep it simple. The point is to check whether asking for 2 extra months of involvement to internship is based on solid ground, no only perception or anecdotes, as you claimed it is done. The archives with the decisions are public as well. -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
