On 7 August 2014 14:43, Máirín Duffy <du...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > On 08/07/2014 12:06 AM, Mathieu Duponchelle wrote: >> >> >> Women do represent a pretty significant portion of the general >> public, no? I think for men by men probably doesn't meet the >> "general public" qualifier there. >> >> >> "Standalone OPW" is different from "from men by men", I'm afraid I don't >> understand your argument here? > > > I am happy to clarify. Here is my argument: > > - There are financial concerns / problems. > - There are concerns about OPW's alignment with GNOME's mission statement > > If there are financial concerns, let's continue to go through the actual > data and see if there is a way to solve them. > > Let's not conflate whether or not OPW has anything to do with the mission > statement or not; if there was a problem with alignment to the mission > statement I would have expected that to be brought up quite some time ago, > and would hope it would be brought up without the added issue of financial > concerns if it was truly a sincere concern. > > In the absence of a program like OPW, sadly, it is for men by men, we have > historical figures to demonstrate this.
The discussion is not about the absence of OPW, but about not providing the service of managing OPW for other organisations. I haven't seen anyone saying GNOME shouldn'tparticipate in OPW. > If you want to take a project that is successfully increasing the number of > female participants in GNOME and open source in general and disassociate it > from the project while, at the same time, talking about how there are > financial issues and not enough money to hire more help then you are > essentially killing the program. If the program cannot continue to operate > without the help from the GNOME foundation that it is currently getting > (whether or not that is sustainable long-term,) you are setting the program > back. > > You can not just say, let's take OPW out of this GNOME box and give it its > owm box and believe that it won't negatively impact the broader program and > its ability to continue its success while you are also bringing up financial > issues that would make the program impossible to run outside of GNOME's box. I don't see why it would negatively impact it. When looking at http://kernelnewbies.org/OPWIntro the only reference to GNOME is the IRC server. It already lives a life outside of GNOME, it's a matter of formalising that. GNOME could be a participant like others, withan organization with more human resources handling the shared part. > I hope this clarifies my point and I hope the discussion can continue to > focus around the financial issues and work through potential solutions to > those and put aside the 'mission statement' argument. I do not see any > conflict with the current mission statement, and changing the mission > statement appears to not solve the real issue at hand anyway. _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
