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
