Re: Mission Statement
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote: I think OPW is great. Having it ran by GNOME is great as well. Lack of status update is bad. Having OPW funds under the same legal entity is IMO questionable. I think it should be a separate legal entity. For as it already caused risks, and I don't see how this is aligned with mission statement. Meaning: A lot of money is being moved via GNOME. GNOME has special status (the donate for free bit), IMO legal entity would be needed. Very wise opinion. Speaking as a member of the Engagement team I think OPW is really really great but that don't necessarily means that GNOME should have the administrative responsibility as it apparently put extra pressure on GNOME's already strained resources (speaking here primarily about the board members time). One must also think one of take into take into account the exceptionally growth of the program, I do not think the original organizers could envision such sucess when the program was started but the questions is now how to best move the program forward. -- -mvh Oliver Propst ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
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. 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 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. ~m ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Máirín Duffy du...@fedoraproject.org wrote: 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. Saying that because nobody raised concerns earlier there's no issue is a pretty poor argument. I see people raising concerns now, so why dismiss them by saying that they should have done so earlier? -- Alexandre Franke ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On 08/07/2014 09:50 AM, Pascal Terjan wrote: 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. Let me try to explain this another way... A couple of years ago my neighbor's house went on fire. As a result of the fire, the copper pipes providing water to my house melted. My house had no running water. Some other neighbors ended up running a hose into our house to provide us with water from their home for 3 months while various city departments and lawyers pointed fingers the other way to fix the pipes. My neighbors did not have to provide us water. But they knew if they took the water away before we were able to address the various issues involved in fixing the pipe, we would be without running water. It was not their problem, but if they did not help in this way, they would have been leaving a pregnant woman (me) without running water. Hope that further illustrates the point. ~m ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Mathieu Duponchelle mduponchel...@gmail.com wrote: It seems I'm far from being the only one to think OPW should be abstracted away from GNOME. The subject of this thread clearly is GNOME's mission statement, and I'm interested in further discussion / opinions on that subject. I don't think it's relevant. GSoC is also outside of the mission statement, though as I said before I think there are allusions to outreach in the Charter. I think the discussion should focus on what is relevant, which is how the Foundation should deal with the financial and administrative aspects of the program. Otherwise we can also lump in any other outreach we do to new contributors, which I think would be odd, since FOSS does rely on contributors and internship programs are a good way to recruit them. ___ 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: Mission Statement
GSoC is also outside of the mission statement Why do you mention that? GSoC is organized by Google, not by GNOME. I think the discussion should focus on what is relevant I agree, but as I just said the subject of the thread is GNOME's mission statement, not financial and administrative aspects of the OPW program. On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 5:18 PM, meg ford meg...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Mathieu Duponchelle mduponchel...@gmail.com wrote: It seems I'm far from being the only one to think OPW should be abstracted away from GNOME. The subject of this thread clearly is GNOME's mission statement, and I'm interested in further discussion / opinions on that subject. I don't think it's relevant. GSoC is also outside of the mission statement, though as I said before I think there are allusions to outreach in the Charter. I think the discussion should focus on what is relevant, which is how the Foundation should deal with the financial and administrative aspects of the program. Otherwise we can also lump in any other outreach we do to new contributors, which I think would be odd, since FOSS does rely on contributors and internship programs are a good way to recruit them. ___ 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: Mission Statement
hi meg, On Thu, Aug 7, 2014, at 11:18, meg ford wrote: I don't think it's relevant. GSoC is also outside of the mission statement, though as I said before I think there are allusions to outreach in the Charter. I think the discussion should focus on what is relevant, which is how the Foundation should deal with the financial and administrative aspects of the program. Otherwise we can also lump in any other outreach we do to new contributors, which I think would be odd, since FOSS does rely on contributors and internship programs are a good way to recruit them. I certainly agree that attracting new contributors is an absolutely essential part of ensuring the survival of any free software project, and I even believe that in terms of how the program is structured, OPW's format is more effective at creating long-term community members than is GSoC (due to the more 'internship' nature rather than the 'complete a project' nature of GSoC). I think there are two fundamental differences between GNOME's involvement in GSoC and GNOME's administration of OPW, which make all the difference: The first is that we are not handling the sending of payments to students in GSoC, so the amount of work we do here is much smaller. The second (and more important) is that our participation with GSoC is limited to interaction with students who are all directly contributing to furthering our own goals of creating GNOME: people who will (hopefully) become members of our community. Cheers ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
Hi Ryan, On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Ryan Lortie de...@desrt.ca wrote: On Thu, Aug 7, 2014, at 11:18, meg ford wrote: I don't think it's relevant. GSoC is also outside of the mission statement, though as I said before I think there are allusions to outreach in the Charter. I think the discussion should focus on what is relevant, which is how the Foundation should deal with the financial and administrative aspects of the program. Otherwise we can also lump in any other outreach we do to new contributors, which I think would be odd, since FOSS does rely on contributors and internship programs are a good way to recruit them. I certainly agree that attracting new contributors is an absolutely essential part of ensuring the survival of any free software project, and I even believe that in terms of how the program is structured, OPW's format is more effective at creating long-term community members than is GSoC (due to the more 'internship' nature rather than the 'complete a project' nature of GSoC). I think there are two fundamental differences between GNOME's involvement in GSoC and GNOME's administration of OPW, which make all the difference: The first is that we are not handling the sending of payments to students in GSoC, so the amount of work we do here is much smaller. I agree, I was just pointing out that the discussion should focus on how to balance the workload and finances of OPW so that it is manageable, since we are involved in outreach, even if it isn't explicitly mentioned in our mission statement. The difference is a matter of scale, and I think it makes sense for us to discuss how to adjust the program's administration so it isn't a burden. It might be that Oliver's suggestion that it move to the Software Freedom Conservancy is the best way forward. I think it deserves consideration. There might also be other ways, and if there are then hopefully we can discuss those as well. The second (and more important) is that our participation with GSoC is limited to interaction with students who are all directly contributing to furthering our own goals of creating GNOME: people who will (hopefully) become members of our community. Also a fine point, and I think the community is doing a good job of having a balanced discussion of how we can improve our relationship to OPW. Cheers ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 18:34 +0100, Allan Day wrote: Second, OPW has been beneficial for GNOME. It has raised our profile and further established our role as leaders in the Free Software world. Our sponsors are enthusiastic about OPW (conversely, moving OPW out of GNOME would give them one less reason to support us). While that was true when it was limited to participation in GNOME itself, that's not the case anymore. All of the branding is now FossOPW: https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen And reading a blog post like this: http://sarah.thesharps.us/2013/05/23/%EF%BB%BF%EF%BB%BFopw-update/ it feels like it wasn't people in GNOME that came up with programme, but that GNOME was just the first organisation to benefit from it (see What is the FOSS Outreach Program for Women). ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] Do you understand that the many -isms that negatively impact GNOME and open source in general If you want to talk about the larger practice that GNOME is part of, please speak of free software. The free software movement campaigns for a particular aspect of human rights, in the field of computing. OPW campaings for a different aspect of human rights, but is based on the same attitude that human rights are important. The slogan open source was launched so as to reject that attitude. It's not a good fit for OPW or for GNOME. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 14:24 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] Do you understand that the many -isms that negatively impact GNOME and open source in general If you want to talk about the larger practice that GNOME is part of, please speak of free software. 1. Please get yourself a mailer that doesn't mangle Máirín's name, there are plenty of Free Software ones 2. If the extent of your involvement in the GNOME Foundation's life is going to be something that a bot can replace, can we please have the bot instead? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
Bastien Nocera had...@hadess.net wrote: Second, OPW has been beneficial for GNOME. It has raised our profile and further established our role as leaders in the Free Software world. Our sponsors are enthusiastic about OPW (conversely, moving OPW out of GNOME would give them one less reason to support us). While that was true when it was limited to participation in GNOME itself, that's not the case anymore. All of the branding is now FossOPW: https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen I'm pretty sure that our Ad Board members know that we administer the programme. We also do our own marketing, such as the latest Annual Report, which had a section on OPW, and was distributed to Ad Board members. And reading a blog post like this: http://sarah.thesharps.us/2013/05/23/%EF%BB%BF%EF%BB%BFopw-update/ it feels like it wasn't people in GNOME that came up with programme, but that GNOME was just the first organisation to benefit from it (see What is the FOSS Outreach Program for Women). While the interpretation isn't quite right, that blog post talks about GNOME and does so positively. It's giving us good exposure. Allan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On 08/07/2014 03:02 PM, Allan Day wrote: While the interpretation isn't quite right, that blog post talks about GNOME and does so positively. It's giving us good exposure. Maybe GNOME's logo should appear under sponsors on gnome.org/opw too. ~m ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 15:13 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote: On 08/07/2014 03:02 PM, Allan Day wrote: While the interpretation isn't quite right, that blog post talks about GNOME and does so positively. It's giving us good exposure. Maybe GNOME's logo should appear under sponsors on gnome.org/opw too. GNOME appearing under the Sponsors and/or Partners sections would help, so would emphasizing GNOME's role in the About section. (The GNOME Foundation started the Outreach Program for Women[...]. It was inspired by [...]). Ditto for the flyer at https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen as well as the similarly worded origins section. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On 08/07/2014 03:23 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: Ditto for the flyer at https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen as well as the similarly worded origins section. I'm happy to redesign the poster as needed. If anybody wants to help me in reviewing the edits, let me know off-list. ~m ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] 1. Please get yourself a mailer that doesn't mangle Máirín's name, there are plenty of Free Software ones It sounds like you think you have seen some sort of problem. I use GNU Emacs for reading and sending mail. Like any nontrivial program, it has bugs. Perhaps you have found one. If you have come across a bug in some GNU program, the constructive response is to report it so it can get fixed. Please report bugs in GNU Emacs to bug-gnu-em...@gnu.org. 2. If the extent of your involvement in the GNOME Foundation's life is going to be something that a bot can replace, can we please have the bot instead? I've been campaigning for computer users' freedom for 30 years. The GNU/Linux system comes out of that campaign. GNOME in particular does, too; it was started specifically to provide a free software way to avoid running the then-proprietary Qt library. People who hold open source views would not have considered this necessary. If someone can design a bot smart enough to find and express new specific ethical points, such as highlighting the similarity in values between the free software movement and OPW, I would be glad to let the bot take over from me. I have a lot of other work to do. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
