Re: foundation application..
Further to that, on looking at some of the recent membership data gathered so far with specific regard to the interns, I have to say, it does seem like a few interns have been significantly undervaluing their own contributions by waiting much longer to apply than seems appropriate for active contributors to be doing with some seeming to have waited as long as two years actually, which is of course, absolutely ridiculous. Why would you think this is ridiculous, or has anything to do with undervaluing ones contributions ? What else do you think would prevent someone who is actively contributing for two years, from applying to formally become part of the community? To be perfectly frank, granting commit access to GNOME revision control repositories is already a huge token of trust, it normally takes at least some months (reasonable number anywhere between 3 to 6 months after the initial encounter ?) before a project maintainer can vouch for someone to be a committer in full confidence. I had commit access and my own shell account before considering becoming a foundation member - not being a foundation member was not a 'bad thing', it's not like I had no right to discuss the direction of the project on d-d-l with many other contributors and maintainers, before becoming a foundation member. You are not a 'less valuable' contributor for not being a foundation member. Becoming a foundation member was just where I drew the line between being a project contributer and maintainer, and decided that I wanted to have some kind of a say in how the foundation itself was run (and even this is IMO still of much lesser importance than having a voice in the direction and development of the projects housed in the GNOME umbrella, for which, again, a foundation membership is not required). In any case, you may think that 2 years is a long time, I certainly think that 2 months is an extremely short time - my personal view on the thing is that the foundation should be comprised of those who actually really give a damn, I find it hard to conceive how the MC could possibly judge the commitment of such a short term contributor. Behold! The Charter (Principles of the GNOME Foundation): https://wiki.gnome.org/action/show/FoundationBoard/Resources/Charter?action=showredirect=Foundation%2FCharter ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
2015-02-22 14:08 GMT+01:00 Magdalen Berns m.be...@thismagpie.com: Again, a brilliant question. On the face of it this seems to be purely about reducing paper work for the membership committee (i.e. fewer applications means less work for them). However there are clearly some implications which affect our democratic processes. The question of whether we have a justifiable reason to take steps like this to deny this group of people a vote or not on the basis we worry they might not use it, is an important one because that does not objectively make sense. Clearly, the extra paper work shouldn't be a factor in decisions like this. The Membership Committee actions are unequivocally oriented to the benefit of the GNOME Foundation. I've been chairing the Committee since five years now and this is honestly the first time ever someone arises a controversial point on the policy and procedures we follow when processing new or renewal applications. The following thread started by Sriram with the pure scope of enhancing the membership application experience it diverged into a crescendum of accusations to the Membership Committee which clearly state the fact you are missing the point of being a GNOME Foundation Member. From your point of view being a Foundation member strictly relates to having made a non-trivial amount of contributions (which is totally correct as per Bylaws) but there's one more action the applicant should perform in order for the application to be processed. This action juridically speaking is an act of will. The person by browsing [1] and filling in all the fields acknowledge its intent to apply for Foundation Membership. Applying for membership is not an obligation of any kind and you aren't required to submit an application if you don't have a real interest in doing so. The following announcement [2] (which seems to have caused so much confusion between interns) is misleading in many ways and seems to suggest interns they should apply - not because they believe in the GNOME Foundation and the values it pursues - but for the mere reason to keep a blog aggregated to Planet GNOME. If I was an intern myself reading such an announcement and without having a knowledge of what Foundation membership is about I could definitely started seeing the membership itself as a way for my blog to stay aggregated on Planet GNOME. There's no single reference of what Foundation membership is about, what the duties are and what we are trying to accomplish in terms of building a membership base made of people who really believe in our mission, participate to the community discussions, vote on the yearly elections. Many interns probably applied for Membership after reading that announcement having in mind the fact having keeping their public visibility through their blog was only possible if they requested membership. This totally goes against what Foundation membership is about. Our mission - as the Membership Committee - is to make sure a strong and consistent membership base is created in terms of contributors who want to step forward and join the Foundation because they believe doing so can definitely strengthen their relationship with the project and bring it to the next level. As stated on my previous e-mail [3] we've seen a lot of interns dropping their contributions to zero right after the internship ended so while they contributed in a non-trivial way to the Foundation why would they even decide to apply afterwards? they are NOT obliged to apply for membership and they probably wouldn't apply if they knew that being a member is not only receiving a bunch of benefits but also being an active part of the community participating to discussions and voting at every year's elections. The rationale behind an extended period for interns isn't there because we don't believe interns have contributed enough or because of their gender (yeah, you even managed to accuse the Committee to apply blanket rules depending on the gender of the applicant [4]) but just to find out whether there was a strong and real interest in joining the GNOME Foundation going beyond having a blog aggregated on Planet GNOME. While this thread (not how it started but how it diverged) is full of accusations I don't recall hearing a single intern reaching out the Committee complaining about her application being rejected. Not a single case out of hundreds I personally processed since 2009. We value our members and we always make sure to use our discretionary power to further the goals of the GNOME Foundation, this in many ways: 1. by introducing Emeritus [5] 2. by supporting former members who have decreased the number of contributions to re-apply and be accepted trying to encourage them keeping up their valuable contributions over the project without leaving We aren't scared about having more paper work in place and we never neglected to call for help in case we needed it. [6] [7] The Membership Committee - as I see it - is here to
Re: foundation application..
Again, a brilliant question. On the face of it this seems to be purely about reducing paper work for the membership committee (i.e. fewer applications means less work for them). However there are clearly some implications which affect our democratic processes. The question of whether we have a justifiable reason to take steps like this to deny this group of people a vote or not on the basis we worry they might not use it, is an important one because that does not objectively make sense. Clearly, the extra paper work shouldn't be a factor in decisions like this. The Membership Committee actions are unequivocally oriented to the benefit of the GNOME Foundation. I've been chairing the Committee since five years now and this is honestly the first time ever someone arises a controversial point on the policy and procedures we follow when processing new or renewal applications. The following thread started by Sriram with the pure scope of enhancing the membership application experience it diverged into a crescendum of accusations to the Membership Committee which clearly state the fact you are missing the point of being a GNOME Foundation Member. If you scroll back you'll see that several people who either supported the decision or seemed to remain neutral about it, stated it was the membership committee's decision. Those critical of the decision were not actually the ones who accused the membership committee of taking it. The reality is some of us had no idea where the decision had come from until it came out on this thread, because it does not seem to have been publicly stated anywhere before it was made or leading up to now either. Once the news had come out on this thread, that the decision was the membership committee's idea then this naturally meant that those critical of the decision, in turn had to be critical of the membership committee for taking it. Ultimately, it's the decision that's the problem (but more the way it's been communicated and carried out, from my perspective to be honest). Besides all that though, let's get this into perspective a bit: Nobody's actually talking about overthrowing the membership committee or anything like it, here. It's possible to value the work of others and still fundamentally disagree on something like this. Members are not obliged to grant absolute, unconditional, unquestioning support and agreement to all decisions, (including the ones we don't know out about until after they are made) and it does not seem reasonable that should be seen as controversial, or anything else other than what it actually is: a bunch of perfectly valid questions and concerns. From your point of view being a Foundation member strictly relates to having made a non-trivial amount of contributions (which is totally correct as per Bylaws) but there's one more action the applicant should perform in order for the application to be processed. This action juridically speaking is an act of will. The person by browsing [1] and filling in all the fields acknowledge its intent to apply for Foundation Membership. Applying for membership is not an obligation of any kind and you aren't required to submit an application if you don't have a real interest in doing so. The following announcement [2] (which seems to have caused so much confusion between interns) is misleading in many ways and seems to suggest interns they should apply - not because they believe in the GNOME Foundation and the values it pursues - but for the mere reason to keep a blog aggregated to Planet GNOME. If I was an intern myself reading such an announcement and without having a knowledge of what Foundation membership is about I could definitely started seeing the membership itself as a way for my blog to stay aggregated on Planet GNOME. This seems like an unlikely scenario. As far as I am aware, nobody actually sifts through planet feeds removing the feeds of interns. Besides, isn't our whole vibe meant to be about assuming good intentions? ;-). There's no single reference of what Foundation membership is about, what the duties are and what we are trying to accomplish in terms of building a membership base made of people who really believe in our mission, participate to the community discussions, vote on the yearly elections. Well, there are the foundation webpages. In this case though, the application process could be sufficient in weeding this sort of thing out, couldn't it? It's not totally clear why making a blanket rule would make this any easier, anyway but that's been said. One thing which has not really been mentioned in all of this (possibly because it doesn't apply to all the interns, just the summer ones) is the point that, many of the interns get invited to GUADEC and find out what foundation membership is about through their experience there. Do you not think it might send out a confused message to interns for us to go round inviting them along to GUADEC,
Re: foundation application..
On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 21:15 +, Magdalen Berns wrote: [...] Further to that, on looking at some of the recent membership data gathered so far with specific regard to the interns, I have to say, it does seem like a few interns have been significantly undervaluing their own contributions by waiting much longer to apply than seems appropriate for active contributors to be doing with some seeming to have waited as long as two years actually, which is of course, absolutely ridiculous. Why would you think this is ridiculous, or has anything to do with undervaluing ones contributions ? To be perfectly frank, granting commit access to GNOME revision control repositories is already a huge token of trust, it normally takes at least some months (reasonable number anywhere between 3 to 6 months after the initial encounter ?) before a project maintainer can vouch for someone to be a committer in full confidence. I had commit access and my own shell account before considering becoming a foundation member - not being a foundation member was not a 'bad thing', it's not like I had no right to discuss the direction of the project on d-d-l with many other contributors and maintainers, before becoming a foundation member. You are not a 'less valuable' contributor for not being a foundation member. Becoming a foundation member was just where I drew the line between being a project contributer and maintainer, and decided that I wanted to have some kind of a say in how the foundation itself was run (and even this is IMO still of much lesser importance than having a voice in the direction and development of the projects housed in the GNOME umbrella, for which, again, a foundation membership is not required). In any case, you may think that 2 years is a long time, I certainly think that 2 months is an extremely short time - my personal view on the thing is that the foundation should be comprised of those who actually really give a damn, I find it hard to conceive how the MC could possibly judge the commitment of such a short term contributor. Best, -Tristan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
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. Sorry for prolonging this thread, but if we are trying to answer questions I would like to know if people have considerations about this: Firstly, neither you nor anyone else her should be made to feel like you need to apologise for exercising the privileges which are granted to all member on this list, equally. - What is the impact of having people joining the Foundation and vanishing later? - Do people that don't intend to continue contributing to GNOME actually apply to GNOME Foundation? If yes, why would they do that? This is a really good question. I've started looking at the membership list data now and although the information is not very forthcoming so it may take some time to compile, early results are beginning to indicate that a higher proportion of active contributors were previously interns at some time or another. One of the most notable differences which seems to become apparent early on between members who are past interns and other kinds of members is that the former group don't seem to show a tendency of becoming affiliated with any large sponsoring corporations very soon after their internships have ended i.e. a higher proportion of past interns seem to be unaffiliated volunteers. This could indicate there may be some conflict of interest in granting these people membership privileges including voting rights, but we'll have to wait and see until more of the data has been collected. I think those are important questions because if people vanish after the end of the internship but they don't apply at all, this probably doesn't require special handling from the membership committee. And if that happens sometimes, if it doesn't cause any issue, again, why bother with special ruling this and risking potential problems? Again, a brilliant question. On the face of it this seems to be purely about reducing paper work for the membership committee (i.e. fewer applications means less work for them). However there are clearly some implications which affect our democratic processes. The question of whether we have a justifiable reason to take steps like this to deny this group of people a vote or not on the basis we worry they might not use it, is an important one because that does not objectively make sense. Clearly, the extra paper work shouldn't be a factor in decisions like this. Thanks for your input. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
Hi; On 22 February 2015 at 13:08, Magdalen Berns m.be...@thismagpie.com wrote: On the face of it this seems to be purely about reducing paper work for the membership committee (i.e. fewer applications means less work for them). On the face of it, this statement is fairly offensive for the membership committee. You've read the email that Andrea sent about the reasons of the membership committee, and I'm sure there's no part of that email that says that the buffer period is there to reduce the committee's workload. I'm sure that's not your intention, but you should probably find a better way to word it. Ciao, Emmanuele. -- https://www.bassi.io [@] ebassi [@gmail.com] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On the face of it this seems to be purely about reducing paper work for the membership committee (i.e. fewer applications means less work for them). On the face of it, this statement is fairly offensive for the membership committee. You've read the email that Andrea sent about the reasons of the membership committee, and I'm sure there's no part of that email that says that the buffer period is there to reduce the committee's workload. I'm sure that's not your intention, but you should probably find a better way to word it. It is not my intention to cause offence and objectively that statement that seems a lot less controversial than any of the alternative theories for what else could motivates the committees decision which is one reason I figured it was worth pointing out. This could be as innocent as that. Personally do not believe that it is, but it could be... Had you considered how offensive the statement that committees decision makes itself, may be to the contributions that interns make before you decided that statement was offensive to the people imposing it? Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Luciana Fujii luci...@fujii.eti.br wrote: - What is the impact of having people joining the Foundation and vanishing later? They gain voting ability when they shouldn't. The board should be elected by people who are involved with the community. Members of the foundation should be members of the community. - Do people that don't intend to continue contributing to GNOME actually apply to GNOME Foundation? If yes, why would they do that? Interns are told at the end of the internship that becoming a member should be their aim. It should indeed be their aim, but this implies that they should do what's necessary to deserve this, i.e. becoming and staying involved. why bother with special ruling this and risking potential problems? The membership can correct me if I'm wrong, but one thing that's not been said so far is that the N months before accepting a member is not really special to interns. Sure it seems it's only written for them, but if someone were to apply after one month of involvement (with or without paid incentive) I'm pretty sure the membership committee (MC) would think it's too soon too. So I don't think is actually that we want to wait for interns, but rather that we clearly state a period for which we wait. It should be at the MC's discretion in all cases. -- Alexandre Franke ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Alexandre Franke alexandre.fra...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Luciana Fujii luci...@fujii.eti.br wrote: - What is the impact of having people joining the Foundation and vanishing later? They gain voting ability when they shouldn't. The board should be elected by people who are involved with the community. Members of the foundation should be members of the community. - Do people that don't intend to continue contributing to GNOME actually apply to GNOME Foundation? If yes, why would they do that? Interns are told at the end of the internship that becoming a member should be their aim. It should indeed be their aim, but this implies that they should do what's necessary to deserve this, i.e. becoming and staying involved. why bother with special ruling this and risking potential problems? The membership can correct me if I'm wrong, but one thing that's not been said so far is that the N months before accepting a member is not really special to interns. Sure it seems it's only written for them, but if someone were to apply after one month of involvement (with or without paid incentive) I'm pretty sure the membership committee (MC) would think it's too soon too. Who said anything about one month? An internship takes 3 months. An internship plus this waiting period is 5 months. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
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. Sorry for prolonging this thread, but if we are trying to answer questions I would like to know if people have considerations about this: Firstly, neither you nor anyone else her should be made to feel like you need to apologise for exercising the privileges which are granted to all member on this list, equally. - What is the impact of having people joining the Foundation and vanishing later? - Do people that don't intend to continue contributing to GNOME actually apply to GNOME Foundation? If yes, why would they do that? This is a really good question. I've started looking at the membership list data now and although the information is not very forthcoming so it may take some time to compile, early results are beginning to indicate that a higher proportion of active contributors were previously interns at some time or another. One of the most notable differences which seems to become apparent early on between members who are past interns and other kinds of members is that the former group don't seem to show a tendency of becoming affiliated with any large sponsoring corporations very soon after their internships have ended i.e. a higher proportion of past interns seem to be unaffiliated volunteers. Further to that point another notable difference between former interns which I should have mentioned (although this concern has already been raised earlier on in the thread) and other kinds of members seems to be gender which may be here relevant too. In the UK (and most of Europe, I believe) it is unlawful to apply blanket practices which could specifically cause greater detriment to those who have protected characteristics than anyone else (gender is of course, a protected characteristic in the eyes of UK law). I cannot say whether or not this is the case in the USA or not though. This could indicate there may be some conflict of interest in granting these people membership privileges including voting rights, but we'll have to wait and see until more of the data has been collected. I think those are important questions because if people vanish after the end of the internship but they don't apply at all, this probably doesn't require special handling from the membership committee. And if that happens sometimes, if it doesn't cause any issue, again, why bother with special ruling this and risking potential problems? Again, a brilliant question. On the face of it this seems to be purely about reducing paper work for the membership committee (i.e. fewer applications means less work for them). However there are clearly some implications which affect our democratic processes. The question of whether we have a justifiable reason to take steps like this to deny this group of people a vote or not on the basis we worry they might not use it, is an important one because that does not objectively make sense. Clearly, the extra paper work shouldn't be a factor in decisions like this. Thanks for your input. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:33:19AM +0100, Alexandre Franke wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Luciana Fujii luci...@fujii.eti.br wrote: - What is the impact of having people joining the Foundation and vanishing later? They gain voting ability when they shouldn't. The board should be elected by people who are involved with the community. Members of the foundation should be members of the community. Absolutely correct. why bother with special ruling this and risking potential problems? The membership can correct me if I'm wrong, but one thing that's not been said so far is that the N months before accepting a member is not really special to interns. Also correct. Cheers, Tobi ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
The membership can correct me if I'm wrong, but one thing that's not been said so far is that the N months before accepting a member is not really special to interns. Also correct. In that case, what is the period of time is considered acceptable for non-interns to have contributed for before they make an application, then? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Alexandre Franke alexandre.fra...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Magdalen Berns m.be...@thismagpie.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Alexandre Franke alexandre.fra...@gmail.com wrote: The membership can correct me if I'm wrong, but one thing that's not been said so far is that the N months before accepting a member is not really special to interns. Sure it seems it's only written for them, but if someone were to apply after one month of involvement (with or without paid incentive) I'm pretty sure the membership committee (MC) would think it's too soon too. Who said anything about one month? An internship takes 3 months. An internship plus this waiting period is 5 months. I did. I said one month, just as I could have said two, three, four, or even five months. My point was precisely that contribution on a short period don't constitute sufficient evidence of a person's involvement within the community. The membership can correct me if I'm wrong, but one thing that's not been said so far is that the N months before accepting a member is not really special to interns. Also correct. In that case, what is the period of time is considered acceptable for non-interns to have contributed for before they make an application, then? That's why I said that it should be at the MC's discretion. Setting a hard rule for this is silly. Saying that someone contributing for six months is not ok, but something contributing for six months and a day is ok is silly. The MC should use their good judgment for the period of time, just as they do with everything else. Well I can't disagree with the principle behind what you say, (that a hard rule for how long a person should wait to apply shouldn't be set) but the reality is that a hard rule is being set for interns and for nobody else (and now tobias suggests there's a general hard rule for determining appropriate length of time anyone should be contributing too, though he hasn't indicated what that might be - which is curious). Ultimately, the membership committee not going to be able to use their judgement if a whole group of people all get told not to apply until a specific period of time has elapsed, are they? On the basis you seem to agree with that idea and yet disagree with the principle of it, at the same time, I'm not really sure what your point is. Can you clarify? Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On 19/02/15 15:39, Germán Poo-Caamaño wrote: 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. Sorry for prolonging this thread, but if we are trying to answer questions I would like to know if people have considerations about this: - What is the impact of having people joining the Foundation and vanishing later? - Do people that don't intend to continue contributing to GNOME actually apply to GNOME Foundation? If yes, why would they do that? I think those are important questions because if people vanish after the end of the internship but they don't apply at all, this probably doesn't require special handling from the membership committee. And if that happens sometimes, if it doesn't cause any issue, again, why bother with special ruling this and risking potential problems? Regards, Luciana Fujii ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:44:19PM +, Magdalen Berns wrote: This is something I believe could happen if an amendment were to be proposed with compelling evidence to support it so we are able to take an informed vote on it. At the moment the issue is that a decision which overrides the bylaws has already been made in the establishment of this policy, which means members are put in a position where we have to defend the bylaws but that the policy decision somehow doesn't seem to have to be defended with compelling evidence - which is the wrong way round. I believe the bylaws are followed. As such, I don't think any amendment is needed. Further, it seems though there should be improvement, it is quite clear. Andrea showed the bit where bylaws state that actual discretion is for membership committee. For various things the foundation delegates responsibility to the various teams. These teams have then additional rules in place. That these are in the bylaws or not is not IMO unimportant. I think the rules per team (delegated area) should be clear. IMO if there's a valid concern then it really doesn't matter to spend so much time on if they're allowed or not. Therein lies the core difference in how we perceive this: I believe the concern may be valid enough to investigate, but I do not believe the problem has been quantified and therefore I do not believe the argument for this policy is substantiated and hence I do not believe it is a waste of time to spend so much time on if they're allowed to act on the assumptions that have been made about it. Moreover, we have no idea whether this approach is actually causing more harm than good. It could actually be making more interns unwelcome and unappreciated and deterring them from continuing to contribute to the project. We are generally acting on an awful lot of assumptions by taking action to address a perceived problem which we really haven't analysed concrete data for. The problem was highlighted many years ago on various occasions: Mentors spend a lot of time, to only have the person vanish after the period. This partly due to wrong perception. You're not going to have 100% of the people stay. IMO 1 in 5 is more realistic. I guess we should track these people. I forgot when GNOME started participating in GSoC. Wikipedia shows this started in 2005. The discussions around this are nothing new. In another message regarding this I noticed people are mostly talking about the outreach program. I know little about that. I'm mostly talking about GSoC. I have noticed way more people whose names I don't recognize at all, but doing cool things. Unfortunately no clue where they're from. Those following, might have noticed that this was done in the opening part of the discussion and it seemed to be generally agreed that some interns do make non-trivial contributions. At least, nobody seems to have disagreed with that idea, anyway. Most interns seem to vanish quite quickly after their internship is over. Maybe not true at all anymore, there are a few exceptions, but that has been a topic of discussion for various years. The question is not just about whether they most of them vanish, although I agree that's clearly part of it. We need to be able to compare their behaviour to other kinds of contributors statistically, accounting for all our sources of error, before we can begin to make any assumptions or predictions about this model. Let's see the raw data and analyse it first. For the various programs out there (I mostly followed GSoC) people not staying with GNOME is IMO something was clearly a problem. If it still is, no clue. Doing investigations, cool. But IMO there was enough concern regarding this. Anyway, this is too much theoretical talk so I'm going to switch to a proposal instead. Getting more concrete: I think in the guidelines for applying, there should be a mention that membership committee has seen that interns (GSoC, etc) often leave so it is highly preferred that the intern waits two months before applying. At the same time, it should clearly state that 1) the participation was already enough 2) it is not encouraged, but they can apply anyway. Above makes it clear that it is something soft. At the same time, you cannot guarantee that their membership would be accepted, but IMO it should state that it is highly likely it will. IMO this addresses all concerns: amount of participation needed, ability to become a member immediately for those who feel very strongly, avoiding impression of not being welcome, plus handling concern if people stay or not. There's still maybe that there is no concern at all anymore. I think that takes more time to figure out. If the people who have a concern here see my proposal as acceptable, we can get membership committee to agree, etc (one step at a time). -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list
Re: foundation application..
If you have a concrete reason why it does help to continue to ignore bylaws that are inconvenient for whatever is more convenient, then you are free to make a case for that. California law probably would probably override that idea, though. I tried to nicest way to let you see a different point of view, taking into account the previous failure to have any discussion with you. It seems you're not open in understanding what I mean. This is not a complicated process, it is fairly clear and transparent (especially when compared with the alternative). What is the problem with using It? Yeah, just focus on whatever the bylaws might or not might take. Did you read my email? Did you make any effort to grasp what I'm trying to say? Your questions indicate you did not. The effort I made was to I ask what you were on about and that is still not very clear. I'll try in a different way: - there's apparently a different criteria being applied - you seem to focus on what the bylaws state This IMO skips an important part of trying to figure out why a different criteria is being applied. For instance, you mention that according to the bylaws it is not allowed to make a distinction. Yes. Most of the arguments for why this is not a big deal, are based around the assumption that the argument for applying a different criteria is strong - a no brainer, even. I imagine it would be hard to understand where I am coming from unless you are able to concede that the evidence to support the need to applying a different criteria is being applied, is actually very questionable. Further, it is not allowed by some court. I don't think you're right in asserting that. All organisations have to obey the law and bylaws are the laws which govern the organisation and I am right in asserting that. Would it ever actually go to court? Unlikely. Would we be able to defend our conduct in court? Unlikely and that's the point. So I am guessing you mean right in the ethical sense? I have actually never come across a non-profit organisation as loosely regulated as GNOME with so few rules and published policy, so personally I have to admit I find it a bit of a culture shock to see that following the relatively very few rules we have established is seen as such a great challenge to a few members. The handful of bylaws which have been established to ensure contributors are treated fairly and members have a democratic influence, have relevance to the how GNOME is run and its membership though. So, I think it's the right thing to do by the people who are adversely affected by this policy to ensure we treat them fairly by observing the membership and amendment bylaws and it's the right thing thing for the community as a whole to ensure GNOME is representative of it's contributing members by not making decisions like this, lightly. I believe it is ethical for us to observe our duty to honour the rules which regulate this organisation and part of that duty is proposing amendments to the rules to seek consent to modify those which which we collectively do not agree with. This process gives us an opportunity to ensure there is compelling evidence to support our proposals so we are not just basing our actions, which affect other people, on our own preconceived ideas about what motivates those people. I might totally agree with you that having the distinction is wrong, but regarding this point I don't see it the same way. Especially regarding assumptions on what a judge would rule and so on. There's more to it than just bylaws. IMO you have too much of a programmers view on this. You could be right there, however I think it comes back to the point about whether I/you/we are able to concede that the assumptions informing applying a different criteria are weak, or not. I am able to concede that they are weak which is why I have been keen we take this problem back to first principles. Could even be that standard practice trumps bylaws. I'm not sure what you mean here, could you clarify? IMO it is better to first focus on *why* a different criteria is applied and then figure out what to do, rather than ignoring the why and going for *if* they can do that. This is something I believe could happen if an amendment were to be proposed with compelling evidence to support it so we are able to take an informed vote on it. At the moment the issue is that a decision which overrides the bylaws has already been made in the establishment of this policy, which means members are put in a position where we have to defend the bylaws but that the policy decision somehow doesn't seem to have to be defended with compelling evidence - which is the wrong way round. IMO if there's a valid concern then it really doesn't matter to spend so much time on if they're allowed or not. Therein lies the core difference in how we perceive this: I believe the concern may be valid
Re: foundation application..
On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 15:13 +, 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. Saying the same over and over without anything actionable, and rejecting everything that everybody else says, does not conduct to anything. -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 16:20 +, 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. -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
[...] 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. Saying the same over and over without anything actionable, and rejecting everything that everybody else says, does not conduct to anything. There are plenty of comments on here which I have agreed with so who is everyone, to you? Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
I feel like everything about this has been stated twice, can we please stop with that thread? On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Magdalen Berns m.be...@thismagpie.com 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. At the moment we have no reason to assume that all volunteers and sponsored contributors alike will have a 100% commitment rate and there is certainly no reason to assume that any paid contributor is any more likely than any other paid contributor to stay committed to GNOME contributing once there is no financial incentive to do that, without evidence to support that theory. In other words, an early objective would be to determine whether interns are more likely to lose interest than other kinds of contributors when they are no longer being offered a financial incentive by comparing contribution behaviours between interns and other kinds of contributors. Magdalen ___ 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: foundation application..
This is something I believe could happen if an amendment were to be proposed with compelling evidence to support it so we are able to take an informed vote on it. At the moment the issue is that a decision which overrides the bylaws has already been made in the establishment of this policy, which means members are put in a position where we have to defend the bylaws but that the policy decision somehow doesn't seem to have to be defended with compelling evidence - which is the wrong way round. I believe the bylaws are followed. As such, I don't think any amendment is needed. Further, it seems though there should be improvement, it is quite clear. Andrea showed the bit where bylaws state that actual discretion is for membership committee. This only holds true if the membership committee are viewing applications on a case by case basis, it does not mean they can decide to apply a new blanket exception to a group of illegible contributors which excludes those people from applying in the first place. For various things the foundation delegates responsibility to the various teams. These teams have then additional rules in place. That these are in the bylaws or not is not IMO unimportant. I think the rules per team (delegated area) should be clear. Absolutely, but committee policies still should take steps to avoid overriding the bylaws otherwise the rules they make are unclear as well as being invalid. IMO if there's a valid concern then it really doesn't matter to spend so much time on if they're allowed or not. Therein lies the core difference in how we perceive this: I believe the concern may be valid enough to investigate, but I do not believe the problem has been quantified and therefore I do not believe the argument for this policy is substantiated and hence I do not believe it is a waste of time to spend so much time on if they're allowed to act on the assumptions that have been made about it. Moreover, we have no idea whether this approach is actually causing more harm than good. It could actually be making more interns unwelcome and unappreciated and deterring them from continuing to contribute to the project. We are generally acting on an awful lot of assumptions by taking action to address a perceived problem which we really haven't analysed concrete data for. The problem was highlighted many years ago on various occasions: Mentors spend a lot of time, to only have the person vanish after the period. This partly due to wrong perception. You're not going to have 100% of the people stay. IMO 1 in 5 is more realistic. I guess we should track these people. I forgot when GNOME started participating in GSoC. Wikipedia shows this started in 2005. The discussions around this are nothing new. In another message regarding this I noticed people are mostly talking about the outreach program. I know little about that. I'm mostly talking about GSoC. Yes, as mentioned this has raised some questions for me, too. Thanks for clarifying your own position. I have noticed way more people whose names I don't recognize at all, but doing cool things. Unfortunately no clue where they're from. This is another problem which arises from not assessing this quantitatively. We just don't get the full picture when we solely rely on anecdotes and our own myriad personal experiences which are different to one another's. Those following, might have noticed that this was done in the opening part of the discussion and it seemed to be generally agreed that some interns do make non-trivial contributions. At least, nobody seems to have disagreed with that idea, anyway. Most interns seem to vanish quite quickly after their internship is over. Maybe not true at all anymore, there are a few exceptions, but that has been a topic of discussion for various years. The question is not just about whether they most of them vanish, although I agree that's clearly part of it. We need to be able to compare their behaviour to other kinds of contributors statistically, accounting for all our sources of error, before we can begin to make any assumptions or predictions about this model. Let's see the raw data and analyse it first. For the various programs out there (I mostly followed GSoC) people not staying with GNOME is IMO something was clearly a problem. If it still is, no clue. As you indicate, this perceived problem has been discussed a lot over the years. It seems like that's another compelling reason to explore it scientifically and determine the merits of any proposed solutions using a strategic, evidenced-based and impartial approach. Doing investigations, cool. But IMO there was enough concern regarding this. As far as I can tell, the concern comes from the membership committee wanting to reduce applications from interns who may not end up using their membership and in any case, none of the concerns raised
Re: foundation application..
[...] 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. At the moment we have no reason to assume that all volunteers and sponsored contributors alike will have a 100% commitment rate and there is certainly no reason to assume that any paid contributor is any more likely than any other paid contributor to stay committed to GNOME contributing once there is no financial incentive to do that, without evidence to support that theory. In other words, an early objective would be to determine whether interns are more likely to lose interest than other kinds of contributors when they are no longer being offered a financial incentive by comparing contribution behaviours between interns and other kinds of contributors. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 17:05 +, 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
Re: foundation application..
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Magdalen Berns m.be...@thismagpie.com wrote: As regards comments on Outreachy internships (which seem to have clearly been cited a lot more in defence of this new practice, than GSoC); this is an internship specifically developed to address an identified problem of inclusiveness for under-represented minorities in FOSS and it is heavily associated with GNOME so, it's worth emphasising that one of the barriers which women are particularly likely to face in general, is that they are more likely to be told that their work has less value than someone else's, when that is not actually the case. A number of members here have indicated that interns are actually making non-trivial contributions, so on that basis would you not agree with the principle that applying a less favourable membership illegibility criteria for these interns in particular than for everybody else, sends out a somewhat contradictory message to the community about GNOME's commitment to equality? Moreover, if it is actually the case that this idea was a response to the applications from Outreachy (formally OPW) internships (as the comments on this thread are beginning to suggest), then we really do have problem. Regarding this, I think it's fair to mention that there are very few women who have full-time employment working on GNOME. This is an area where (imo) we have not made significant headway as a group. OPW was established as a paid opportunity partly because women face financial barriers when contributing to FOSS. So you should be aware that you are asking people who have a significantly lower chance of being hired to work on GNOME professionally to work for free for an extra period of time, with none of the benefits associated with foundation membership. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
One of the main requirements of gaining Foundation Membership is being active within the community for a little while *after* the internship has ended to demonstrate the fact there's a real interest staying around and contributing to the Project. This is a practice which completely contradicts the bylaws definition a contributor who is eligible for membership. * All contributors have made a significant contribution (BYLAW) * All contributors are eligible for membership (BYLAW) * Some interns have made a significant contribution over their internship * No interns are eligible for membership This does not make sense. As Germán correctly pointed out the Bylaws were written before any internship program ever started within the GNOME Project. And as I correctly pointed out ;-), this does not make any difference. The bylaws were last amended in 2012. Requesting an amendment to the bylaws takes 21 days to process once the BoD (or the person requesting it) have published the request on the foundation list so that the responses can be tallied. While the Bylaws define what the main requirements for gaining Foundation Membership are they also mention Membership will be determined on a case-by-case basis, at the sole discretion of the Board and Membership Committee (Article VI, section 6.1). So what we have here is a set of requirements the Bylaws strictly require the applicant to possess for the membership to be actually granted while leaving the Membership Committee the required discretion to process a certain application. This leaves me out with one main question: how far can the Committee go when reviewing a certain application? can the Committee introduce additional requirements (during one of its meetings and with a regular vote) for a membership to be accepted in absence of particular references on the Bylaws themselves (like in the case of interns or GSoC students for example)? It's clear the Bylaws probably need an update on this side and ideally part of the what to do in case the Bylaws do not mention how peculiar cases (such as interns) should be handled should be delegated to the Committee that should come up with a set of policy and guidelines widely accepted by the membership. I'll make sure the following item will be discussed on the next or future Board meetings. The rationale behind this decision is mainly related to the fact a good number of interns stopped contributing right after their internship ended and it was clear to us their intent wasn't sticking around the community nor they probably were passionate about our project to justify staying around some more. We found extending the contributions period (usually one or two months) for interns the best solution to build a membership base made of people who really love and care deeply about the project and the values it promotes. The bylaws do not say anything about a contribution period (and I had not heard of it before myself either, to be honest). However, they do explicitly state that individuals who should get credit for their contributions (not the corporations who pay them), the same as ordinary volunteers might. Either sponsored contributions are as valuable as ones that aren't sponsored, or they aren't: The bylaws say that they are... If there is an exception being made in the case of some interns then that seems quite significant. The bylaws do not say anything about what might motivate contributors to contribute, nor their level of commitment to GNOME, when it defines a contributor in terms of foundation membership but it does fairly clearly describe about what a contributor is. The main thing that is unclear in the bylaws is what defines a non-trivial contribution really and this becomes even more confusing because the practice is to state that all interns who make contribution from 40 hour weeks over a period of 3 months are not eligible until they contribute more stuff. Stating the fact interns contributions aren't enough for them to join the GNOME Foundation is out of discussion here. It's clear their contributions are non-trivial enough for the Membership Committee to grant the membership right after checking all the references listed on the application. When an internship comes to an end I can think of two possible natural consequences: one being the person applying for membership and the other being the intern leaving the project and moving to something else. The rationale behind choosing any of the above consequences is strictly subjective to the individual. There might be interns who never heard of what a FOSS project aimed to and what it was about before joining OPW and at the end of the journey the values of freedom we pursue were shared by the intern itself. Or there might be interns who weren't attracted by the FOSS movement, by GNOME or its eco-system and decided to step back and
Re: foundation application..
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 06:30:51PM +, Magdalen Berns wrote: If you have a concrete reason why it does help to continue to ignore bylaws that are inconvenient for whatever is more convenient, then you are free to make a case for that. California law probably would probably override that idea, though. I tried to nicest way to let you see a different point of view, taking into account the previous failure to have any discussion with you. It seems you're not open in understanding what I mean. This is not a complicated process, it is fairly clear and transparent (especially when compared with the alternative). What is the problem with using It? Yeah, just focus on whatever the bylaws might or not might take. Did you read my email? Did you make any effort to grasp what I'm trying to say? Your questions indicate you did not. The effort I made was to I ask what you were on about and that is still not very clear. I'll try in a different way: - there's apparently a different criteria being applied - you seem to focus on what the bylaws state This IMO skips an important part of trying to figure out why a different criteria is being applied. For instance, you mention that according to the bylaws it is not allowed to make a distinction. Further, it is not allowed by some court. I don't think you're right in asserting that. I might totally agree with you that having the distinction is wrong, but regarding this point I don't see it the same way. Especially regarding assumptions on what a judge would rule and so on. There's more to it than just bylaws. IMO you have too much of a programmers view on this. Could even be that standard practice trumps bylaws. IMO it is better to first focus on *why* a different criteria is applied and then figure out what to do, rather than ignoring the why and going for *if* they can do that. IMO if there's a valid concern then it really doesn't matter to spend so much time on if they're allowed or not. Those following, might have noticed that this was done in the opening part of the discussion and it seemed to be generally agreed that some interns do make non-trivial contributions. At least, nobody seems to have disagreed with that idea, anyway. Most interns seem to vanish quite quickly after their internship is over. Maybe not true at all anymore, there are a few exceptions, but that has been a topic of discussion for various years. I think more concretely specifying what membership committee expects is helpful. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
What you are suggesting would be accepting every single intern regardless of this person being really interested and passionate about joining the Foundation. That will probably lead to a wider membership base for sure but how long these people are going to really stay around if their interest of contributing to the project was only tracked by the stipend they received? I don't think that this is necessarily different from other paid contributors, except that other paid contributors are more likely to have long-term employment working on GNOME. So I don't know why this distinction is made. Can you explain the rationale a bit more? The question I originally made to Magdalen was there for me to find out whether an intern really had an interest in joining the Foundation besides from receiving a travel subsidy or participation to Planet GNOME. The rationale behind introducing a two months extended period for interns before applying for Foundation membership has been the unfortunately high number of interns dramatically reducing the number of their contributions after the final date of their internship. I can tell you that statistically this hasn't been the case for past employees of our corporate sponsors as many of them have decided to stick around (by reducing their involvement to IRC or mailing lists participation) or apply for the emeritus membership when they weren't able to contribute to the project anymore. The module I have been maintaining since last year (the ATK java wrapper), was funded by sun and got completely abandoned as soon as the funding got withdrawn in 2011 and this does not seem to be a totally unique occurrence, but either way this is just anecdotal evidence as much as that is. Personally, I would like to see statistics to see if they support either hypothesis, because at the moment I believe neither actually substantiated by concrete numbers. Without those, we really have no reason to suppose that an intern or a paid contributor have a different probabilities of cutting and running the instant that the money is gone to each other. As things are, all we know is that sponsored contributors are offered the same incentive to contribute to GNOME with their time (i.e. money and perhaps some possibilities of progression, in some cases). We really don't know whether being paid for 3 months means something different to being paid for a longer period of time. The only fair assumption we can make about this issue is that volunteers are not being motivated by money really and the rules in the bylaws prevent us from discriminating against those who are not volunteers on that basis already so that's out, at this point in time. Why don't we actually analyse the data since this is the only way to really determine with some degree of certainty whether the assumptions which have informed the decision to discriminate against interns are justified? I would be willing to could work with whoever else is interested in solving this problem publish a report of the findings, as long as we could access to the necessary information which would be needed to do that. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
2015-02-15 16:17 GMT+01:00 Marina Zhurakhinskaya mari...@redhat.com: This policy came about after I encouraged interns who were 2/3rd of the way through their internship in 2012 to apply for the Foundation membership. The membership committee preferred that interns have a chance to figure out their level of participation in GNOME after the internship before applying and, as a rule, wanted to see non-trivial contributions for a period longer than 6 months. The intention of having this statement in the internship wrap-up e-mail is to tell interns about the foundation membership and encourage them to apply at an appropriate point. I think some guidelines there are preferable to not mentioning the foundation membership to interns at all. I believe most interns make non-trivial contributions during their internship, but because the membership committee has further discretion about the expectations for the membership applications, we need to figure out how to communicate these in future e-mails in a way that is encouraging and relates the case-by-case provision of the bylaws. Interns do indeed make a non-trivial contribution to the project. What we expect is waiting *two* more months [1] after the internship ended for them to apply for the Membership Committee to make sure the individual has a true and real interest in being part of the GNOME community. We encourage interns to apply and we would love more of them to do so if they feel their contributions have been non-trivial enough and they would be willing to participate to Foundation's debates. Being a Foundation member grants many benefits [2] but also invites the member to actively participate to discussions made on foundation-list and voting on the yearly Board elections. Discussing important topics on foundation-list and voting who will be in charge of managing the GNOME Foundation requires a certain knowledge of how the organization and the community works behind the scenes, thus the need for the contributions to be non-trivial, durable and coming from an individual who strongly believes in the values and the mission we daily pursue as a project and community. [1] https://wiki.gnome.org/MembershipCommittee/ProcessingAnApplication [2] https://wiki.gnome.org/MembershipCommittee/MembershipBenefits -- Cheers, Andrea Debian Developer, Fedora / EPEL packager, GNOME Infrastructure Team Coordinator, GNOME Foundation Board of Directors Secretary, GNOME Foundation Membership Elections Committee Chairman Homepage: http://www.gnome.org/~av ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
- Original Message - From: Magdalen Berns m.be...@thismagpie.com To: Tobias Mueller mue...@cryptobitch.de Cc: GNOME Foundation foundation-list@gnome.org Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 8:35:17 AM Subject: Re: foundation application.. This is not a complicated process, it is fairly clear and transparent (especially when compared with the alternative). What is the problem with using It? There is none. At the moment we are talking about whether it is justifiable to tell all successful interns that they are not eligible for membership We're not. Problem solved. Next. Really? GNOME have no role in this statement which went out to the OP and GSoC intern lists in August of 2014?[1] Before denying this is a practice again, draw your attention to the last line which says If you only started contributing to GNOME after February 2014, we ask that you continue contributing for another half a year before applying http://www.gnome.org/foundation/membership/apply/ . The problem cannot be solved if this continues to be the message going out about GNOME membership eligibility. That message is not a true reflection of GNOME's actually rules on membership eligibility. [1] https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-soc-list/2014-August/msg0.html Hi, This policy came about after I encouraged interns who were 2/3rd of the way through their internship in 2012 to apply for the Foundation membership. The membership committee preferred that interns have a chance to figure out their level of participation in GNOME after the internship before applying and, as a rule, wanted to see non-trivial contributions for a period longer than 6 months. The intention of having this statement in the internship wrap-up e-mail is to tell interns about the foundation membership and encourage them to apply at an appropriate point. I think some guidelines there are preferable to not mentioning the foundation membership to interns at all. I believe most interns make non-trivial contributions during their internship, but because the membership committee has further discretion about the expectations for the membership applications, we need to figure out how to communicate these in future e-mails in a way that is encouraging and relates the case-by-ca se provision of the bylaws. Thanks, Marina ___ 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: foundation application..
This policy came about after I encouraged interns who were 2/3rd of the way through their internship in 2012 to apply for the Foundation membership. The membership committee preferred that interns have a chance to figure out their level of participation in GNOME after the internship before applying and, as a rule, wanted to see non-trivial contributions for a period longer than 6 months. The intention of having this statement in the internship wrap-up e-mail is to tell interns about the foundation membership and encourage them to apply at an appropriate point. Thanks for clarifying how the decision was arrived at. The issue in that defining an appropriate point essentially redefines membership illegibility, as the bylaws define it already. That is, unless it is generally agreed that all interns do make trivial contributions, (which I don't believe is the case here). I think some guidelines there are preferable to not mentioning the foundation membership to interns at all. Guidelines are helpful, but not those which could mislead contributors into believing they are not eligible for membership. In that case, it does seem preferable to not mention anything, at all. With that said, I don't think this has to be a case of having to choose between two evils. I believe most interns make non-trivial contributions during their internship, but because the membership committee has further discretion about the expectations for the membership applications, we need to figure out how to communicate these in future e-mails in a way that is encouraging and relates the case-by-case provision of the bylaws. Ideally everyone could be provided with easy access to clear guidance on the rules laid out by the bylaws on foundation membership illegibility, as well as information on how the process of applying works, which I believe is already covered on the foundation membership pages.[1] The information on those pages should be enough to help contributors decide whether to apply, if eligible contributors are still not applying enough (for whatever reason), then we'd probably need to either figure out how to improve the information by figuring out what is missing (e.g. could we be providing examples of what a typical accepted application might look like, or further information on when an eligible contributor stops being a eligible contributor?) or it may just be a case of improving how that information is delivered (i.e. whether it is accessible enough). A link to membership guidance could be provided to contributors to encourage them to explore the idea of applying for membership, for example. Thanks, Magdalen [1] http://www.gnome.org/foundation/membership/apply/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote: As Meg seems to have pointed out already in her question, the same could be said for any sponsored contributor. The bylaws are explicit in not discriminating against sponsored/paid contributors compared with any other kind of contributor. There is a concrete process for anyone who disagrees with bylaws to suggest an amendment to them. I've asked you to consider chasing the meaning of bylaws. Non-trivial effort is open to interpretation. I think it makes sense for members who volunteer for certain responsibilities to have the ability to make decisions. However, I think we as foundation members also need to be sensitive to the fact that newcomers (especially those who are minorities in the FOSS community) might see decisions based on interpretations (not strict following of clearly stated rules) as favoritism. So I think having clear information which is up to date and reflects how decisions are being made can be very important, especially if we are trying to be fair and clearly state our expectations to all potential members. I think this is also important if we want to retain minorities who have joined the community. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Tobias Mueller mue...@cryptobitch.de wrote: Right, but as I've said, it's not a general answer and applications are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. In that case, I suggest that we don't make general statements telling interns to not apply, but instead tell them that it's case-by-case. I know of only one case where a GSoC student was rejected with the justification of us only accepting GSoCers only after two months after the internship. In this case though, the student applied one week after the internship had started (i.e. not even ended yet). Previous contributions were not identified. I haven't sent the rejection letter myself, but I would have done the same, rather than saying that the contributions weren't non-trivial enough just yet. I agree that someone applying after one week (regardless of who they are) shouldn't be accepted. For reasons outlined in this thread, I think it's a good advise to not accept people who have just joined the community. I think that, in order to identify with GNOME, the GNOME community, and the GNOME Foundation, a few months should have passed. Of course, I wouldn't think of it as being set in stone, but rather a guidance. As Cosimo mentioned in his comment, I think that interns may or may not have become sufficiently involved in the community over the course of the first three months. As German mentioned, sometimes interns do not have any patches accepted (I didn't have any accepted during my first internship -- which made me seriously annoyed and motivated me to keep trying until I did succeed). In that case, asking the interns to stay on and continue to contribute before applying makes sense In every case I think. In the case of interns who have e.g. started to take on extra responsibility within the community during their internship period, I think that having wording which might discourage them from applying is a mistake. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Tobias Mueller mue...@cryptobitch.de wrote: On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 02:02:48PM -0600, meg ford wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Tobias Mueller mue...@cryptobitch.de wrote: Right, but as I've said, it's not a general answer and applications are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. In that case, I suggest that we don't make general statements telling interns to not apply, but instead tell them that it's case-by-case. Fair enough. Do you think Marina's mail, in which she asks interns to stay around before applying, is a general statement telling interns to not apply? I don't. That might be due to English not being my native language. The general statement I got from Marina's email is: GNOME has a rule which prohibits us from accepting interns for six months after they have completed their internships. Are there other instances of us (GNOME) making general statements which tell interns to not apply? As Dave Neary pointed out, the membership committee guidelines state: We currently do not process applications from GSoC and OPW interns until two months after their internship ended. After the two months, make sure the intern kept contributing after the end of the internship. Reply to the application using the template under Application from intern. and there is a form letter which states: We only accept applications from GSoC and OPW interns two months after their internship ended -- unless you already were a GNOME contributor before your internship started. Those statements both mean that interns can not be accepted until two months after their internship ends. If that is the case, then it would be discouraging to interns who have contributed above and beyond what they needed to do for internships by becoming really involved in the community. So I am suggesting that instead of having a waiting period, that we look at how much effort the intern has made, in the same way we would look at that for any other contributor who is applying. I hope that clarifies what I meant. I hope this clarifies things. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Germán Poo-Caamaño g...@gnome.org wrote: On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 20:54 -0800, Christian Hergert wrote: On 02/12/2015 07:33 PM, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: I think you bring up an interesting point, but I also like the idea that foundation membership is not a badge you earn if you contribute enough, but hints to a deeper involvement with the community inner workings. I argue that a 3-months contribution from someone fresh to the project might or might not be enough to grant membership regardless of how they have been involved with the project, and I'm curious whether the case you are bringing up is theoretical or if there have been cases of interns interested in foundation membership dismissed solely on the supposed intern clause. Of course I do support any initiative that aims to make the foundation a more welcoming place! I think the point here is that if our current bylaws claim one thing, we should adhere to that for the time being. If we don't agree with the bylaws, then they should be altered, which is a different process. The foundation bylaws predates any outreach program (including bounties, that predates outreach programs) by many years. Therefore, hardly can address this special case. Back then there was no program where we were proactively seeking contributors by offering them money. Back then, if anybody applied after contributing for a period of time, then it was kind-of-clear(TM) they were to continue in the project. I am talking about both GSoC and Outreach Program interns and this is factually incorrect either way: GSoC has been going for 10 years and Outreach Program seems to have been going since 2010. The bylaws were last updated in 2012. Moreover though, it's worth pointing out again that sponsored contributors are not a new thing for GNOME the question of the value of their contributions is covered in the bylaws which state, Contributions made in the course of employment will be considered and will be ascribed to the individuals involved, rather than accruing to all employees of a “contributing” corporation. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Fri, 2015-02-13 at 09:46 +, Magdalen Berns wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Germán Poo-Caamaño g...@gnome.org wrote: On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 20:54 -0800, Christian Hergert wrote: On 02/12/2015 07:33 PM, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: I think you bring up an interesting point, but I also like the idea that foundation membership is not a badge you earn if you contribute enough, but hints to a deeper involvement with the community inner workings. I argue that a 3-months contribution from someone fresh to the project might or might not be enough to grant membership regardless of how they have been involved with the project, and I'm curious whether the case you are bringing up is theoretical or if there have been cases of interns interested in foundation membership dismissed solely on the supposed intern clause. Of course I do support any initiative that aims to make the foundation a more welcoming place! I think the point here is that if our current bylaws claim one thing, we should adhere to that for the time being. If we don't agree with the bylaws, then they should be altered, which is a different process. The foundation bylaws predates any outreach program (including bounties, that predates outreach programs) by many years. Therefore, hardly can address this special case. Back then there was no program where we were proactively seeking contributors by offering them money. Back then, if anybody applied after contributing for a period of time, then it was kind-of-clear(TM) they were to continue in the project. I am talking about both GSoC and Outreach Program interns and this is factually incorrect either way: GSoC has been going for 10 years and Outreach Program seems to have been going since 2010. The bylaws were last updated in 2012. Moreover though, it's worth pointing out again that sponsored contributors are not a new thing for GNOME the question of the value of their contributions is covered in the bylaws which state, Contributions made in the course of employment will be considered and will be ascribed to the individuals involved, rather than accruing to all employees of a “contributing” corporation. As you say, the bylaws were updated, not rewritten. The updates, though important were minor. -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Germán Poo-Caamaño g...@gnome.org wrote: On Fri, 2015-02-13 at 09:46 +, Magdalen Berns wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Germán Poo-Caamaño g...@gnome.org wrote: On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 20:54 -0800, Christian Hergert wrote: On 02/12/2015 07:33 PM, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: I think you bring up an interesting point, but I also like the idea that foundation membership is not a badge you earn if you contribute enough, but hints to a deeper involvement with the community inner workings. I argue that a 3-months contribution from someone fresh to the project might or might not be enough to grant membership regardless of how they have been involved with the project, and I'm curious whether the case you are bringing up is theoretical or if there have been cases of interns interested in foundation membership dismissed solely on the supposed intern clause. Of course I do support any initiative that aims to make the foundation a more welcoming place! I think the point here is that if our current bylaws claim one thing, we should adhere to that for the time being. If we don't agree with the bylaws, then they should be altered, which is a different process. The foundation bylaws predates any outreach program (including bounties, that predates outreach programs) by many years. Therefore, hardly can address this special case. Back then there was no program where we were proactively seeking contributors by offering them money. Back then, if anybody applied after contributing for a period of time, then it was kind-of-clear(TM) they were to continue in the project. I am talking about both GSoC and Outreach Program interns and this is factually incorrect either way: GSoC has been going for 10 years and Outreach Program seems to have been going since 2010. The bylaws were last updated in 2012. Moreover though, it's worth pointing out again that sponsored contributors are not a new thing for GNOME the question of the value of their contributions is covered in the bylaws which state, Contributions made in the course of employment will be considered and will be ascribed to the individuals involved, rather than accruing to all employees of a “contributing” corporation. As you say, the bylaws were updated, not rewritten. The updates, though important were minor. It doesn't make a difference. The bylaws are the rules which regulate the GNOME Foundation. GNOME's bylaws state the rules on membership eligibility by defining what a contributor is and who is illegible for membership (i.e. someone who has made a non-trivial contribution to GNOME). The practice of telling all successful interns not to apply, misleads the community about what the rules on membership eligibility are and (assuming we are all agreed that at least some interns do make a nontrivial contribution over their 3 month sponsored period of internship) it misleads them about what the definition of a non-trivial contribution is, too. If any member wishes to make amendments to the bylaws then there is a process for that which is laid out in the amendments section of bylaws. Any member can propose the adoption, amendment or repealing of the Bylaws. In the event of such a proposal, the following procedures shall be implemented: 1. The members shall be provided with the reasonable means to comment upon and/or object to any such proposal for twenty one (21) days 2. The proposal shall be sent to the membership and shall be posted on // foundation.gnome.org http: by the Board 3. In the event that five percent or more of the members object to the proposal, a special meeting of the members shall be convened in accordance with the provisions of Article VII, and the proposal shall be voted upon 4. In the event that five percent or more of the members do not object to the proposal, then the proposal shall be adopted by the Board to the extent permitted by CNPBCL Section 5150(a). Where CNPBCL is the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
Hi. On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:52:32PM +, Magdalen Berns wrote: This is not a complicated process, it is fairly clear and transparent (especially when compared with the alternative). What is the problem with using It? There is none. At the moment we are talking about whether it is justifiable to tell all successful interns that they are not eligible for membership We're not. Problem solved. Next. Cheers, Tobi ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
This is not a complicated process, it is fairly clear and transparent (especially when compared with the alternative). What is the problem with using It? There is none. At the moment we are talking about whether it is justifiable to tell all successful interns that they are not eligible for membership We're not. Problem solved. Next. Really? GNOME have no role in this statement which went out to the OP and GSoC intern lists in August of 2014?[1] Before denying this is a practice again, draw your attention to the last line which says If you only started contributing to GNOME after February 2014, we ask that you continue contributing for another half a year before applying http://www.gnome.org/foundation/membership/apply/;. The problem cannot be solved if this continues to be the message going out about GNOME membership eligibility. That message is not a true reflection of GNOME's actually rules on membership eligibility. [1] https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-soc-list/2014-August/msg0.html ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:20:21AM +, Magdalen Berns wrote: It doesn't make a difference. The bylaws are the rules which regulate the GNOME Foundation. GNOME's bylaws state the rules on membership eligibility by defining what a contributor is and who is illegible for membership (i.e. IMO: It almost feels like GNOME is paying someone to become a member of the foundation. This is not a coherent statement. Can you clarify what you are talking about? Arguing a lot about what the current rules state will not help with the concerns people have raised. If you have a concrete reason why it does help to continue to ignore bylaws that are inconvenient for whatever is more convenient, then you are free to make a case for that. California law probably would probably override that idea, though. Let's focus on why there's any difference, see if can reach a conclusion on that. Because the rules state so leads IMO to too much nitpicking on the rules, instead of focussing on the concerns. If people want to focus on that then the procedure to follow is to suggest an amendment to the bylaws and make a case for that, it is not introduce practices by the back door which contradict the rules laid out by the most current bylaws . Again, if any member wishes to make amendments to the bylaws then there is a process for that which is laid out in the amendments section of bylaws. Any member can propose the adoption, amendment or repealing of the Bylaws. In the event of such a proposal, the following procedures shall be implemented: 1. The members shall be provided with the reasonable means to comment upon and/or object to any such proposal for twenty one (21) days 2. The proposal shall be sent to the membership and shall be posted on // foundation.gnome.org http: by the Board 3. In the event that five percent or more of the members object to the proposal, a special meeting of the members shall be convened in accordance with the provisions of Article VII, and the proposal shall be voted upon 4. In the event that five percent or more of the members do not object to the proposal, then the proposal shall be adopted by the Board to the extent permitted by CNPBCL Section 5150(a). This is not a complicated process, it is fairly clear and transparent (especially when compared with the alternative). What is the problem with using It? Various people have stayed after GSoC (+ anything similar). On other hand: some you don't hear about at all once they leave. For some internship, the person has a mentor assigned to them. That eases the stickyness vs someone who sends patches on his own. I'd wonder about why someone applies, is it real interest in GNOME and free software, or just good for resume and finding work? As Meg seems to have pointed out already in her question, the same could be said for any sponsored contributor. The bylaws are explicit in not discriminating against sponsored/paid contributors compared with any other kind of contributor. There is a concrete process for anyone who disagrees with bylaws to suggest an amendment to them. For foundation membership (IIRC) to have to specify a few people to vouch for you. I have never been a mentor. I'm wonder if the mentor could guess if the person would stay or not. I think detailing the expectations would help a lot. At the moment we are talking about whether it is justifiable to tell all successful interns that they are not eligible for membership not how the membership committee make their decisions. The bylaws give the membership committee the overriding decision but says all applications are to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
Hi. On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 07:55:05AM -0600, meg ford wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Tobias Mueller mue...@cryptobitch.de wrote: I don't read all successful interns are not eligible for membership there which is what you claimed. This is not what we were discussing in the thread. I was under the impression that Magdalen is. She claimed that we're telling all succesful interns that they's not eligible. We were discussing the fact (as stated in the email Magdalen quoted) that interns are not eligible for Foundation membership for six months after their internship has ended. Are you saying that this waiting period does not exist, or is not taken into account when the applications of former interns are reviewed? There is no general answer. Applications are handled on a case-by-case basis. The number of objections to the decision of the membership committee I know of is exactly 0. Of course, that number is biased towards the lower end as people might not have applied in first case. And it's hard to say how many people have not applied. We're quite transparent (that doesn't mean that there is no room for improvement, though). We have a list of approved applicants here: https://wiki.gnome.org/MembershipCommittee/ApprovedMembers With the RT number you can find the relevant application and all its email, because it is publicly archived. Given that some of you say they don't know what contributions will give you a membership, I guess we need to make those resources of information better known. It would be helpful if you answered that question, since that is what is being discussed. I'll try my best. Cheers, Tobi ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 01:35:17PM +, Magdalen Berns wrote: Really? GNOME have no role in this statement which went out to the OP and GSoC intern lists in August of 2014? I don't know what exactly you mean by GNOME who has or does not have a role in the statement. Before denying this is a practice again, draw your attention to the last line which says If you only started contributing to GNOME after February 2014, we ask that you continue contributing for another half a year before applying http://www.gnome.org/foundation/membership/apply/;. I don't read all successful interns are not eligible for membership there which is what you claimed. Cheers, Tobi ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:52:32PM +, Magdalen Berns wrote: If you have a concrete reason why it does help to continue to ignore bylaws that are inconvenient for whatever is more convenient, then you are free to make a case for that. California law probably would probably override that idea, though. I tried to nicest way to let you see a different point of view, taking into account the previous failure to have any discussion with you. It seems you're not open in understanding what I mean. This is not a complicated process, it is fairly clear and transparent (especially when compared with the alternative). What is the problem with using It? Yeah, just focus on whatever the bylaws might or not might take. Did you read my email? Did you make any effort to grasp what I'm trying to say? Your questions indicate you did not. Various people have stayed after GSoC (+ anything similar). On other hand: some you don't hear about at all once they leave. For some internship, the person has a mentor assigned to them. That eases the stickyness vs someone who sends patches on his own. I'd wonder about why someone applies, is it real interest in GNOME and free software, or just good for resume and finding work? As Meg seems to have pointed out already in her question, the same could be said for any sponsored contributor. The bylaws are explicit in not discriminating against sponsored/paid contributors compared with any other kind of contributor. There is a concrete process for anyone who disagrees with bylaws to suggest an amendment to them. I've asked you to consider chasing the meaning of bylaws. Non-trivial effort is open to interpretation. For foundation membership (IIRC) to have to specify a few people to vouch for you. I have never been a mentor. I'm wonder if the mentor could guess if the person would stay or not. I think detailing the expectations would help a lot. At the moment we are talking about whether it is justifiable to tell all successful interns that they are not eligible for membership not how the membership committee make their decisions. The bylaws give the membership committee the overriding decision but says all applications are to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The way you're holding discussions on foundation-list, you think you're doing the best for those members. That's great, but having some slight respect for comments from people who have been around for quite a while would be appreciated. -- Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
Hi. On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:00:29AM -0500, Dave Neary wrote: On 02/13/2015 09:07 AM, Tobias Mueller wrote: There is no general answer. Applications are handled on a case-by-case basis. The number of objections to the decision of the membership committee I know of is exactly 0. Of course, that number is biased towards the lower end as people might not have applied in first case. And it's hard to say how many people have not applied. The membership committee guidelines single out interns Right, but as I've said, it's not a general answer and applications are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I know of only one case where a GSoC student was rejected with the justification of us only accepting GSoCers only after two months after the internship. In this case though, the student applied one week after the internship had started (i.e. not even ended yet). Previous contributions were not identified. I haven't sent the rejection letter myself, but I would have done the same, rather than saying that the contributions weren't non-trivial enough just yet. For reasons outlined in this thread, I think it's a good advise to not accept people who have just joined the community. I think that, in order to identify with GNOME, the GNOME community, and the GNOME Foundation, a few months should have passed. Of course, I wouldn't think of it as being set in stone, but rather a guidance. It's good to challenge the status quo and I'm happy to hear more points of views. Cheers, Tobi ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:20:21AM +, Magdalen Berns wrote: It doesn't make a difference. The bylaws are the rules which regulate the GNOME Foundation. GNOME's bylaws state the rules on membership eligibility by defining what a contributor is and who is illegible for membership (i.e. IMO: It almost feels like GNOME is paying someone to become a member of the foundation. Arguing a lot about what the current rules state will not help with the concerns people have raised. Let's focus on why there's any difference, see if can reach a conclusion on that. Because the rules state so leads IMO to too much nitpicking on the rules, instead of focussing on the concerns. Various people have stayed after GSoC (+ anything similar). On other hand: some you don't hear about at all once they leave. For some internship, the person has a mentor assigned to them. That eases the stickyness vs someone who sends patches on his own. I'd wonder about why someone applies, is it real interest in GNOME and free software, or just good for resume and finding work? For foundation membership (IIRC) to have to specify a few people to vouch for you. I have never been a mentor. I'm wonder if the mentor could guess if the person would stay or not. I think detailing the expectations would help a lot. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
One thing I thought of would be to change the direction of the process to be an invitation rather than an application. If you see someone helping, instead of pushing him to apply you could fill in the form describing his contributions (and possibly the name of someone else who can support it) and if accepted he would get an invitation to join the foundation. On 12 February 2015 at 10:11, Daniel Mustieles García daniel.mustie...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Sriram, Maybe I could help you with this. How do you think we could do it? 2015-02-11 23:09 GMT+01:00 Sriram Ramkrishna s...@ramkrishna.me: On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna s...@ramkrishna.me wrote: On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Alexandre Franke alexandre.fra...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Luis Menina liberfo...@freeside.fr wrote: So yes, I still find it intimidating because it's hard to feel legitimate when you're a small contibutor. And that's part of the problem. This guy calls himself a small contributer, which he is not. Sure he's not a maintainer of one of our core libraries, or even the leader of one of our teams, but he's been sustainably active for quite a long time now. Yes, I've had other anecdotes where people relate the same thing. As I said, I'm intimidated too when go through it. Maybe if there are interested people we could work on it together? Who would be interested in working with me on this? This would be a nice easy task. Perhaps I will ask the Internet as well. sri sri -- Alexandre Franke ___ 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 ___ 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: foundation application..
Hi Sriram, Maybe I could help you with this. How do you think we could do it? 2015-02-11 23:09 GMT+01:00 Sriram Ramkrishna s...@ramkrishna.me: On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna s...@ramkrishna.me wrote: On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Alexandre Franke alexandre.fra...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Luis Menina liberfo...@freeside.fr wrote: So yes, I still find it intimidating because it's hard to feel legitimate when you're a small contibutor. And that's part of the problem. This guy calls himself a small contributer, which he is not. Sure he's not a maintainer of one of our core libraries, or even the leader of one of our teams, but he's been sustainably active for quite a long time now. Yes, I've had other anecdotes where people relate the same thing. As I said, I'm intimidated too when go through it. Maybe if there are interested people we could work on it together? Who would be interested in working with me on this? This would be a nice easy task. Perhaps I will ask the Internet as well. sri sri -- Alexandre Franke ___ 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 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
I suggest we just make the rules much clearer to people on the outreach pages by clarifying what non-trivial actually means. GSoC/OPW interns are told to make more contributions after their 3 month internship before applying. That suggests that the contributions they make over their 3 month internship of 40 hours per week are trivial. It's no wonder contributors find the process of making a membership application intimidating considering that, isn't it? How could a volunteer compete with an someone who is being paid to work on GNOME full time (even if it is just for 3 months)? I can't find a single reference of anyone ever saying contributions made by interns during their internship are considered as trivial by the Membership Committee. If the contribution is non-trivial then the contributor is eligible for membership under the rules. I can find you a reference to demonstrate that interns are told project of an internship is not enough to allow successful interns apply for foundation membership, but you seem to be aware that this is a practice already so I will try to address some concerns you may have. One of the main requirements of gaining Foundation Membership is being active within the community for a little while *after* the internship has ended to demonstrate the fact there's a real interest staying around and contributing to the Project. This is a practice which completely contradicts the bylaws definition a contributor who is eligible for membership. * All contributors have made a significant contribution (BYLAW) * All contributors are eligible for membership (BYLAW) * Some interns have made a significant contribution over their internship * No interns are eligible for membership This does not make sense. The rationale behind this decision is mainly related to the fact a good number of interns stopped contributing right after their internship ended and it was clear to us their intent wasn't sticking around the community nor they probably were passionate about our project to justify staying around some more. We found extending the contributions period (usually one or two months) for interns the best solution to build a membership base made of people who really love and care deeply about the project and the values it promotes. The bylaws do not say anything about a contribution period (and I had not heard of it before myself either, to be honest). However, they do explicitly state that individuals who should get credit for their contributions (not the corporations who pay them), the same as ordinary volunteers might. Either sponsored contributions are as valuable as ones that aren't sponsored, or they aren't: The bylaws say that they are... If there is an exception being made in the case of some interns then that seems quite significant. The bylaws do not say anything about what might motivate contributors to contribute, nor their level of commitment to GNOME, when it defines a contributor in terms of foundation membership but it does fairly clearly describe about what a contributor is. The main thing that is unclear in the bylaws is what defines a non-trivial contribution really and this becomes even more confusing because the practice is to state that all interns who make contribution from 40 hour weeks over a period of 3 months are not eligible until they contribute more stuff. What you are suggesting would be accepting every single intern regardless of this person being really interested and passionate about joining the Foundation. That will probably lead to a wider membership base for sure but how long these people are going to really stay around if their interest of contributing to the project was only tracked by the stipend they received? I am assuming that many - if not, all of the interns who passed their internship make a non-trivial contribution to achieve that but with that said, I am not suggesting that doing an internship should grant automatic membership (and that idea is not in the bylaws either, so it's potentially just as problematic in the same sort of way). Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
Hi Magdalen, On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Magdalen Berns m.be...@thismagpie.com wrote: The bylaws do not say anything about what might motivate contributors to contribute, nor their level of commitment to GNOME, when it defines a contributor in terms of foundation membership but it does fairly clearly describe about what a contributor is. The main thing that is unclear in the bylaws is what defines a non-trivial contribution really and this becomes even more confusing because the practice is to state that all interns who make contribution from 40 hour weeks over a period of 3 months are not eligible until they contribute more stuff. I think you bring up an interesting point, but I also like the idea that foundation membership is not a badge you earn if you contribute enough, but hints to a deeper involvement with the community inner workings. I argue that a 3-months contribution from someone fresh to the project might or might not be enough to grant membership regardless of how they have been involved with the project, and I'm curious whether the case you are bringing up is theoretical or if there have been cases of interns interested in foundation membership dismissed solely on the supposed intern clause. Of course I do support any initiative that aims to make the foundation a more welcoming place! Cosimo ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On 02/12/2015 07:33 PM, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: I think you bring up an interesting point, but I also like the idea that foundation membership is not a badge you earn if you contribute enough, but hints to a deeper involvement with the community inner workings. I argue that a 3-months contribution from someone fresh to the project might or might not be enough to grant membership regardless of how they have been involved with the project, and I'm curious whether the case you are bringing up is theoretical or if there have been cases of interns interested in foundation membership dismissed solely on the supposed intern clause. Of course I do support any initiative that aims to make the foundation a more welcoming place! I think the point here is that if our current bylaws claim one thing, we should adhere to that for the time being. If we don't agree with the bylaws, then they should be altered, which is a different process. -- Christian ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 20:54 -0800, Christian Hergert wrote: On 02/12/2015 07:33 PM, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: I think you bring up an interesting point, but I also like the idea that foundation membership is not a badge you earn if you contribute enough, but hints to a deeper involvement with the community inner workings. I argue that a 3-months contribution from someone fresh to the project might or might not be enough to grant membership regardless of how they have been involved with the project, and I'm curious whether the case you are bringing up is theoretical or if there have been cases of interns interested in foundation membership dismissed solely on the supposed intern clause. Of course I do support any initiative that aims to make the foundation a more welcoming place! I think the point here is that if our current bylaws claim one thing, we should adhere to that for the time being. If we don't agree with the bylaws, then they should be altered, which is a different process. The foundation bylaws predates any outreach program (including bounties, that predates outreach programs) by many years. Therefore, hardly can address this special case. Back then there was no program where we were proactively seeking contributors by offering them money. Back then, if anybody applied after contributing for a period of time, then it was kind-of-clear(TM) they were to continue in the project. In addition, the membership process has never been strict (AFAIK). The idea is that it is better to have a false positive than a false negative. Two years later the membership has to be renewed after all. FWIW, the strictness (or lack of it) comes from all of us, in how many details we provide when we applied and renew a membership, and the details we provide when we vouch for somebody (if we provide them or just say +1). For some members it is fine to be lenient with the membership process. Give them as if they were candy I have heard more than once. But notice that for some people, we are also lenient with the outreach program interns. I think we all know interns whose patches were never committed and yet succeeded the program, because the process is what we consider important. Fine. As a consequence, succeeding an outreach program does not imply making non-trivial contributions. It does not even imply making actual contributions. We have become stricter in the application process, though. Yet, it varies from mentor to mentor, from intern to intern. These days I am ok to be lenient in both processes, but not simultaneously. That said, I do not think that if an intern applies for a membership would be rejected (show me I am wrong). However, if I were asked to vouch for somebody right after the program ends, I would say sure, but show me you can contribute on your own for a while. That is different, and the bylaws does not mandate me to vouch for somebody, it is voluntary. -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On 12 February 2015 at 13:42, Magdalen Berns m.be...@thismagpie.com wrote: One thing I thought of would be to change the direction of the process to be an invitation rather than an application. If you see someone helping, instead of pushing him to apply you could fill in the form describing his contributions (and possibly the name of someone else who can support it) and if accepted he would get an invitation to join the foundation. That seems highly masonic. I think it would be good in addition to the current process, not replacing it, for the many people who will never feel they do great things, even if they do (see Imposter Syndrome). The bylaws state the following[1] Any contributor to GNOME shall be eligible for member-ship. A contributor shall be defined as any individual who has contributed to a non-trivial improvement of the GNOME Project, such as code, documentation, trans- lations, maintenance of project-wide resources, or other non-trivial activities which benefit the GNOME Project. Large amounts of advocacy or bug reporting may qual- ify one as a contributor, provided that such contributions are significantly above the level expected of an ordinary user. Contributions made in the course of employment will be considered and will be ascribed to the individuals involved, rather than accruing to all employees of a contributing corporation. I suggest we just make the rules much clearer to people on the outreach pages by clarifying what non-trivial actually means. GSoC/OPW interns are told to make more contributions after their 3 month internship before applying. That suggests that the contributions they make over their 3 month internship of 40 hours per week are trivial. It's no wonder contributors find the process of making a membership application intimidating considering that, isn't it? How could a volunteer compete with an someone who is being paid to work on GNOME full time (even if it is just for 3 months)? [1] http://www.gnome.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/bylaws.pdf Giving more examples would clearly help. I believe the GSoC/OPW is special as they have incentive to contribute which then finish and it's probably a matter to see if they continue contributing. It doesn't mean that what they did was non-trivial. But I don't think a clearer definition will help people who don't feel they deserve it, especially because we can't be exhaustive so there will always be people who don't recognize themselves in what is listed. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
One thing I thought of would be to change the direction of the process to be an invitation rather than an application. If you see someone helping, instead of pushing him to apply you could fill in the form describing his contributions (and possibly the name of someone else who can support it) and if accepted he would get an invitation to join the foundation. That seems highly masonic. The bylaws state the following[1] Any contributor to GNOME shall be eligible for member-ship. A “contributor” shall be defined as any individual who has contributed to a non-trivial improvement of the GNOME Project, such as code, documentation, trans- lations, maintenance of project-wide resources, or other non-trivial activities which benefit the GNOME Project. Large amounts of advocacy or bug reporting may qual- ify one as a contributor, provided that such contributions are significantly above the level expected of an ordinary user. Contributions made in the course of employment will be considered and will be ascribed to the individuals involved, rather than accruing to all employees of a “contributing” corporation. I suggest we just make the rules much clearer to people on the outreach pages by clarifying what non-trivial actually means. GSoC/OPW interns are told to make more contributions after their 3 month internship before applying. That suggests that the contributions they make over their 3 month internship of 40 hours per week are trivial. It's no wonder contributors find the process of making a membership application intimidating considering that, isn't it? How could a volunteer compete with an someone who is being paid to work on GNOME full time (even if it is just for 3 months)? [1] http://www.gnome.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/bylaws.pdf ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On 12 February 2015 at 13:42, Magdalen Berns m.be...@thismagpie.com wrote: One thing I thought of would be to change the direction of the process to be an invitation rather than an application. If you see someone helping, instead of pushing him to apply you could fill in the form describing his contributions (and possibly the name of someone else who can support it) and if accepted he would get an invitation to join the foundation. That seems highly masonic. I think it would be good in addition to the current process, not replacing it, for the many people who will never feel they do great things, even if they do (see Imposter Syndrome). I don't have any problems with people suggesting to contributors that they should apply because this would may give a deserving contributor the confidence to go for it, but that does not seem to be what you are suggesting. What you seem to be suggesting is masonic. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by this nomination system idea, in case I misunderstood what you mean in terms of its practical application. The bylaws state the following[1] Any contributor to GNOME shall be eligible for member-ship. A contributor shall be defined as any individual who has contributed to a non-trivial improvement of the GNOME Project, such as code, documentation, trans- lations, maintenance of project-wide resources, or other non-trivial activities which benefit the GNOME Project. Large amounts of advocacy or bug reporting may qual- ify one as a contributor, provided that such contributions are significantly above the level expected of an ordinary user. Contributions made in the course of employment will be considered and will be ascribed to the individuals involved, rather than accruing to all employees of a contributing corporation. I suggest we just make the rules much clearer to people on the outreach pages by clarifying what non-trivial actually means. GSoC/OPW interns are told to make more contributions after their 3 month internship before applying. That suggests that the contributions they make over their 3 month internship of 40 hours per week are trivial. It's no wonder contributors find the process of making a membership application intimidating considering that, isn't it? How could a volunteer compete with an someone who is being paid to work on GNOME full time (even if it is just for 3 months)? [1] http://www.gnome.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/bylaws.pdf Giving more examples would clearly help. I believe the GSoC/OPW is special as they have incentive to contribute which then finish and it's probably a matter to see if they continue contributing. It doesn't mean that what they did was non-trivial. In practical terms it does and it certainly is not likely to help anyone's imposter syndrome to be told their work is trivial if it isn't, either. Let's review the facts: Bylaws state that all contributors (i.e. those who shall be defined as any individual who has contributed to a non-trivial improvement of the GNOME Project) are illegible for membership. Bylaws state Contributions made in the course of employment will be considered and will be ascribed to the individuals involved, rather than accruing to all employees of a “contributing” corporation. Those are the rules. Therefore, if GNOME does not actually believe that all interns make trivial contributions, then GNOME effectively contradicts its own bylaws in stating that all interns should not apply for foundation membership on the strength of their contributions over 3 month period of 40 hours of work a week (i.e. internship) alone. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On 12 February 2015 at 15:03, Magdalen Berns m.be...@thismagpie.com wrote: On 12 February 2015 at 13:42, Magdalen Berns m.be...@thismagpie.com wrote: One thing I thought of would be to change the direction of the process to be an invitation rather than an application. If you see someone helping, instead of pushing him to apply you could fill in the form describing his contributions (and possibly the name of someone else who can support it) and if accepted he would get an invitation to join the foundation. That seems highly masonic. I think it would be good in addition to the current process, not replacing it, for the many people who will never feel they do great things, even if they do (see Imposter Syndrome). I don't have any problems with people suggesting to contributors that they should apply because this would may give a deserving contributor the confidence to go for it, but that does not seem to be what you are suggesting. What you seem to be suggesting is masonic. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by this nomination system idea, in case I misunderstood what you mean in terms of its practical application. My idea was to have someone else describe your accomplishments and apply for you. If the application is accepted we can inform the person that their application done by other person was successful and they just have to say if they are accepting to be a member of the foundation. If it is rejected, I don't think we want to inform them. The bylaws state the following[1] Any contributor to GNOME shall be eligible for member-ship. A contributor shall be defined as any individual who has contributed to a non-trivial improvement of the GNOME Project, such as code, documentation, trans- lations, maintenance of project-wide resources, or other non-trivial activities which benefit the GNOME Project. Large amounts of advocacy or bug reporting may qual- ify one as a contributor, provided that such contributions are significantly above the level expected of an ordinary user. Contributions made in the course of employment will be considered and will be ascribed to the individuals involved, rather than accruing to all employees of a contributing corporation. I suggest we just make the rules much clearer to people on the outreach pages by clarifying what non-trivial actually means. GSoC/OPW interns are told to make more contributions after their 3 month internship before applying. That suggests that the contributions they make over their 3 month internship of 40 hours per week are trivial. It's no wonder contributors find the process of making a membership application intimidating considering that, isn't it? How could a volunteer compete with an someone who is being paid to work on GNOME full time (even if it is just for 3 months)? [1] http://www.gnome.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/bylaws.pdf Giving more examples would clearly help. I believe the GSoC/OPW is special as they have incentive to contribute which then finish and it's probably a matter to see if they continue contributing. It doesn't mean that what they did was non-trivial. In practical terms it does and it certainly is not likely to help anyone's imposter syndrome to be told their work is trivial if it isn't, either. Let's review the facts: Bylaws state that all contributors (i.e. those who shall be defined as any individual who has contributed to a non-trivial improvement of the GNOME Project) are illegible for membership. Bylaws state Contributions made in the course of employment will be considered and will be ascribed to the individuals involved, rather than accruing to all employees of a contributing corporation. Those are the rules. Therefore, if GNOME does not actually believe that all interns make trivial contributions, then GNOME effectively contradicts its own bylaws in stating that all interns should not apply for foundation membership on the strength of their contributions over 3 month period of 40 hours of work a week (i.e. internship) alone. Yes I definitely agree this is a problem, If we make an exception of excluding non-trivial contributions done during an internship, it should be part of the rules. But I think this is a different problem unless some people have interpreted it as needing to do something more important than what they had done during their internship. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
One thing I thought of would be to change the direction of the process to be an invitation rather than an application. If you see someone helping, instead of pushing him to apply you could fill in the form describing his contributions (and possibly the name of someone else who can support it) and if accepted he would get an invitation to join the foundation. That seems highly masonic. I think it would be good in addition to the current process, not replacing it, for the many people who will never feel they do great things, even if they do (see Imposter Syndrome). I don't have any problems with people suggesting to contributors that they should apply because this would may give a deserving contributor the confidence to go for it, but that does not seem to be what you are suggesting. What you seem to be suggesting is masonic. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by this nomination system idea, in case I misunderstood what you mean in terms of its practical application. My idea was to have someone else describe your accomplishments and apply for you. If the application is accepted we can inform the person that their application done by other person was successful and they just have to say if they are accepting to be a member of the foundation. If it is rejected, I don't think we want to inform them. Ok, that sounds a bit better. :-) I still don't get how it could be fair in practical terms though: People are only likely to pay attention to contributions which interest them unless they are dedicated to the task sorting through the myriad contributions databases available strategically for the purpose of determining eligible contributors. It could potentially become very difficult to ensure the process didn't become biased towards nominated members unless the system were to be specifically designed it to discourage that. The bylaws state the following[1] Any contributor to GNOME shall be eligible for member-ship. A contributor shall be defined as any individual who has contributed to a non-trivial improvement of the GNOME Project, such as code, documentation, trans- lations, maintenance of project-wide resources, or other non-trivial activities which benefit the GNOME Project. Large amounts of advocacy or bug reporting may qual- ify one as a contributor, provided that such contributions are significantly above the level expected of an ordinary user. Contributions made in the course of employment will be considered and will be ascribed to the individuals involved, rather than accruing to all employees of a contributing corporation. I suggest we just make the rules much clearer to people on the outreach pages by clarifying what non-trivial actually means. GSoC/OPW interns are told to make more contributions after their 3 month internship before applying. That suggests that the contributions they make over their 3 month internship of 40 hours per week are trivial. It's no wonder contributors find the process of making a membership application intimidating considering that, isn't it? How could a volunteer compete with an someone who is being paid to work on GNOME full time (even if it is just for 3 months)? [1] http://www.gnome.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/bylaws.pdf Giving more examples would clearly help. I believe the GSoC/OPW is special as they have incentive to contribute which then finish and it's probably a matter to see if they continue contributing. It doesn't mean that what they did was non-trivial. In practical terms it does and it certainly is not likely to help anyone's imposter syndrome to be told their work is trivial if it isn't, either. Let's review the facts: Bylaws state that all contributors (i.e. those who shall be defined as any individual who has contributed to a non-trivial improvement of the GNOME Project) are illegible for membership. Bylaws state Contributions made in the course of employment will be considered and will be ascribed to the individuals involved, rather than accruing to all employees of a contributing corporation. Those are the rules. Therefore, if GNOME does not actually believe that all interns make trivial contributions, then GNOME effectively contradicts its own bylaws in stating that all interns should not apply for foundation membership on the strength of their contributions over 3 month period of 40 hours of work a week (i.e. internship) alone. Yes I definitely agree this is a problem, If we make an exception of excluding non-trivial contributions done during an internship, it should be part of the rules. Absolutely. This seems like a massive oversight that ought to be corrected. But I think this is a different problem unless some people have interpreted it as needing to do something more important than what they had
Re: foundation application..
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna s...@ramkrishna.me wrote: On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Alexandre Franke alexandre.fra...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Luis Menina liberfo...@freeside.fr wrote: So yes, I still find it intimidating because it's hard to feel legitimate when you're a small contibutor. And that's part of the problem. This guy calls himself a small contributer, which he is not. Sure he's not a maintainer of one of our core libraries, or even the leader of one of our teams, but he's been sustainably active for quite a long time now. Yes, I've had other anecdotes where people relate the same thing. As I said, I'm intimidated too when go through it. Maybe if there are interested people we could work on it together? Who would be interested in working with me on this? This would be a nice easy task. Perhaps I will ask the Internet as well. sri sri -- Alexandre Franke ___ 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: foundation application..
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 05:01:42PM -0800, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: Yes, I've had other anecdotes where people relate the same thing. As I said, I'm intimidated too when go through it. Maybe if there are interested people we could work on it together? I sometimes just hand out bugzilla permissions and/or tell people to get git accounts without them asking for it. Often difficult to judge until you have the experience. I try to watch out for beginners + try to make it easier to join. E.g. a while ago Bugzilla permissions changed so that any developer can hand out editbugs+canconfirm. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Alexandre Franke alexandre.fra...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Luis Menina liberfo...@freeside.fr wrote: So yes, I still find it intimidating because it's hard to feel legitimate when you're a small contibutor. And that's part of the problem. This guy calls himself a small contributer, which he is not. Sure he's not a maintainer of one of our core libraries, or even the leader of one of our teams, but he's been sustainably active for quite a long time now. Yes, I've had other anecdotes where people relate the same thing. As I said, I'm intimidated too when go through it. Maybe if there are interested people we could work on it together? sri -- Alexandre Franke ___ 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: foundation application..
Le 09/02/2015 23:57, Sriram Ramkrishna a écrit : Do people find the application to the foundation to be intimidating? I've talked to a number of people and I get the feeling that unless I do coding or something that I'm not a valuable member. Even with all the stuff I do, I still feel inadequate when I renew... I was just curious if other people felt that way as well.. AS I told you at FODEM, Without Alexandre, I wouldn't have even applied :-p So yes, I still find it intimidating because it's hard to feel legitimate when you're a small contibutor. But the same way every detail matters, well, every contribution matters. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
foundation application..
Do people find the application to the foundation to be intimidating? I've talked to a number of people and I get the feeling that unless I do coding or something that I'm not a valuable member. Even with all the stuff I do, I still feel inadequate when I renew... I was just curious if other people felt that way as well.. sri ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna s...@ramkrishna.me wrote: Do people find the application to the foundation to be intimidating? I've talked to a number of people and I get the feeling that unless I do coding or something that I'm not a valuable member. Even with all the stuff I do, I still feel inadequate when I renew... I was just curious if other people felt that way as well.. Yes. -- Alexandre Franke ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Luis Menina liberfo...@freeside.fr wrote: So yes, I still find it intimidating because it's hard to feel legitimate when you're a small contibutor. And that's part of the problem. This guy calls himself a small contributer, which he is not. Sure he's not a maintainer of one of our core libraries, or even the leader of one of our teams, but he's been sustainably active for quite a long time now. -- Alexandre Franke ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
