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
