Re: FSF in the advisory board
On Fri, 2021-03-26 at 15:26 +, Neil McGovern wrote: > On Fri, 2021-03-26 at 11:11 -0300, Germán Poo-Caamaño wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The Gnome Foundation signed the letter calling the board of the > > Free > > Software Foundation to step down and for Richard Stallman to be > > removed > > from all leadership position. The same letter that also asks to > > stop > > supporting the FSF. > > > > Is the board considering removing the FSF from the advisory board? > > > > For consistency, I think we should do it temporarily. > > > > I can't speak for the board, but my view is that we should wait until > the FSF has had time for a fuller response before formally making any > changes to the advisory board. In the mean time though, I've hidden > the FSF logo from our website in case that is seen as an endorsement. Thanks Neil, This sounds like a reasonable course of action. Best, -- Germán Poo-Caamaño https://calcifer.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
FSF in the advisory board
Hi, The Gnome Foundation signed the letter calling the board of the Free Software Foundation to step down and for Richard Stallman to be removed from all leadership position. The same letter that also asks to stop supporting the FSF. Is the board considering removing the FSF from the advisory board? For consistency, I think we should do it temporarily. Best, -- Germán Poo-Caamaño https://calcifer.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: revolving doors and the Molly question
On Sun, 2019-07-28 at 14:26 +, Debian GNOME relationship via foundation-list wrote: > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Sunday, July 28, 2019 2:19 PM, Philip Withnall < > phi...@tecnocode.co.uk> wrote: > > > On Sun, 2019-07-28 at 11:53 +, Debian GNOME relationship via > > foundation-list wrote: > > > > > Dear Neil, excuse us for posting drive-by style but nobody wants > > > to > > > be first to ask and everybody wants to know. We've seen the > > > retaliations against people asking questions in Debian. > > > > Please abide by the code of conduct for our mailing lists. > > > > https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct > > > > The code of conduct doesn't prohibit us asking legitimate questions > about the integrity of hiring decisions. This is nothing about > Molly's gender or appearance. We would ask the same thing if Neil > hired Lamby's brother. The Code of Conduct pointed out says nothing about gender or appearance, and bringing that makes me suspect that: 1. You did not read the CoC, and 2. It is about gender and/or appearance. -- Germán Poo-Caamaño https://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Travel assistance applications to attend to Libre Application Summit (LAS)
Dear hackers, The Travel Committee is receiving applications for travel sponsorship requests for the next Libre Application Summit (LAS by GNOME) which will be held in Denver, Colorado, USA. The deadline is July 27, 2018 at 23:59 AOT (Anywhere On Earth). However, we will try rolling approvals, if you submit and get your talk accepted before than July 27, we should get an answer for your sponsorship request more or less at the same time. The sponsorship is aimed for GNOME Foundation members or contributors in the way to become a member. Read carefully the instructions and the process' explanation at http://live.gnome.org/Travel Cordially, -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 1st May
On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 12:54 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > Germán Poo-Caamaño wrote: > ... > > FWIW, processing times for events like GUADEC are not usually > > processed before the talks have been accepted. They cannot, as the > > speakers have preference, and budget is limited. > > That's a good point. Maybe we could look into how the budgets are > allocated for this. I do not follow. I would expect to have the CfP and the results earlier. That said, there has been coordination between the Travel Committee, and the Papers Committee before, to save some days. The issue usually is: budget for GUADEC sponsorship used to be $30,000 for many years, and the amount requested was always over $40,000 or $50,000. So, you have to decide how to allocate it. > > There is a guideline for looking for reasonable prices. In my past > > experience at the TC, among all people applying few of them > > actually did their homework. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Travel Committee guideline > just say "find the cheapest option"? Maybe "policy" was not the proper word. However, the instructions says what the Travel Committee uses to verify airfares: https://wiki.gnome.org/Travel/Request ' * Find the best fares for tickets and accommodation: look at various airlines and routes, try to avoid agencies since they usually charge 10% or 20% extra. * The travel committee use http://kayak.com to verify flight prices.' > The question the board was discussing is how to balance economy and > convenience (in other words, what counts as "reasonable"). For > example, do you have to take the cheapest flight, even if it takes > twice as long? The Foundation's staff travel policy [1] covers this. > For example, it says that it's acceptable to spend $100 extra on a > flight if it saves you 3 hours. In my experience, it is not always the cheapest option the one that the Travel Committee considers. "Twice as long" might depend on the context. If the flight usually takes 1 hour, an extra hour is twice the time but not the end of the world. But for a flight that usually takes 8 to 10 hours, 16 to 20 hours may be way too much, or a connecting flight that require to stay overnight in an airport... unless there is no other reasonable option. > Regarding applicants not doing their homework, the Foundation staff > travel policy also specifies that the traveller should do a price > comparison search and save the results. Maybe this could be a way to > check whether the homework has been done or not... Usually it is easy to spot them (it is just like any bug report :-) That just add burden to the Travel Committee. The less precise the information entered, the more communication is needed. -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 1st May
On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 10:53 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > = Foundation Board Minutes for Tuesday, May 1st 2018, 18:00 UTC = > > Next meeting date Tuesday, May 8th 2018, 18:00 UTC > > == Attending == > > * MegFord > * AllanDay > * DidierRoche > * CosimoCecchi > * NeilMcGovern > * RosannaYuen > > == Regrets == > > * NuritziSanchez > * AlexandreFranke > * CarlosSoriano > > == Missing == > > == Agenda == > > * Feedback from Travel Committee (Didier) >https://gitlab.gnome.org/Community/Board/issues/49 > * Map tile access (Meg) > * OpenMindsClub (Meg) > > Deferred: > > * Events code of conduct (Allan) > * Engagement Committee (Nuritzi) > * Vote for charter and propose members > * https://gitlab.gnome.org/Community/Board/issues/16 > > == Minutes == > > * Feedback from Travel Committee (Didier) > * Didier has met with David from the travel committee, and shared > his notes - https://gitlab.gnome.org/Community/Board/issues/49 > * David is generally happy. > * Didier raised some points with David: > * Possibility of inviting specific individuals to events, > potentially non-Foundation members. David is OK with this, but we'd > need to decide how it will be handled in practice - who approves each > invitation? > * Neil - we have done this in the past. It can come out of a > conference budget. It doesn't necessarily have to be through the > travel committee. > * Allan - how do we make this facility available to other > Foundation members, so they can request invitations? We ought to have > guidelines or documentation so people know that this facility is > available. > * Didier - David was keen for the board to handle this - didn't > want to be handling decisions for this. > * It sounds like this is up to the board to resolve. > * Providing an option for people to have their sponsorship paid > prior to travel - David agreed to this in principle. He doesn't want > to push it too hard, and it could involve additional bureaucracy for > the committee. > * Allowing more intercontinental travel - for example, to allow > more people from the US travelling to GUADEC. David's view - it's > just > a question of cost and budget, and people planning far enough ahead > to > allow this kind of travel. Seems that this is a responsibility for > event organisers. > * Prices going up while waiting for sponsorship approval - > hackfests need to be announced further in advance. David has agreed > to > change the wording of the policy, to make it a bit friendlier, not > proposing policy changes at the moment though. Applications should > get > a response within a week. Delays often result from incomplete > applications. > * Meg - sponsorship requests can open late for GUADEC. Being > able > to book further in advance would be good. There can also be back and > forth with the committee if their travel suggestion is impractical. > * Neil - our staff travel policy provides some detail on what > constitutes a reasonable travel option - this might be useful for the > committee. > * Allan - the issue with prices going up would be reduced if > processing times were faster. Perhaps the process could be > streamlined, to speed things up? One option - applicants suggest a > flight based on guidelines for what's reasonable, then the TC just > checks it over and approves/refuses. FWIW, processing times for events like GUADEC are not usually processed before the talks have been accepted. They cannot, as the speakers have preference, and budget is limited. There is a guideline for looking for reasonable prices. In my past experience at the TC, among all people applying few of them actually did their homework. -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 13th March
On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 18:02 -0500, meg ford wrote: > Hi Germán, > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Germán Poo-Caamaño > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 10:00 +, Allan Day wrote: > > > = Foundation Board Minutes for Tue, March 13th 2018, 18:00 UTC = > > > [...] > > > * Moderation of public mailing lists (Carlos) > > > * There have been some complaints that mailing lists aren't > > > being > > > properly moderated - primarily unpleasant/toxic emails being > > > ignored > > > * There's no escalation process - what can people do if they > > > feel > > > they've been mistreated? > > > * There's no process for becoming a moderator or joining a > > > moderators team > > > * Questions: > > >* Would it be better to tackle this issue once we have a code > > > of > > > conduct? > > >* Is it the moderator's role to police behaviour, or is it > > > more of > > > an admin role? > > > * Rosanna - some moderators have taken a more active role in > > > the > > > past. > > > > FWIW, I am the administrator of the gtk-list, and my role has > > always > > been checking the queue of pending messages to the list. Some eons > > ago > > I requested to pass the list to the moderators team, with no > > response > > (AFAIU). > > > > When I stepped in, I think that was the role it was always expected > > for > > the list's "moderator". > > > > The thing is, I could barely moderate the behaviour in the list if > > I > > unsubscribed myself of such list several years ago (more than 5 or > > 6, > > for sure). Whenever I need to figure out something, I read (or > > search) > > the archives. > > > > My understanding is that many in the moderator team (or as it was > > originally proposed) did not need to be subscribed. Even more, it > > was a > > way for newcomers to get involved. > > > > During the board meeting no one mentioned the existence of a > moderator team. I don't think the current Board knows anything about > it. Can you point us to information about it (if any exists), or give > us some background (if there's no documentation)? Hi Meg, The Moderator Team started on January 2005, it seems the idea came from Ross Golder (IIRC, an active member of the Sysadmin Team back then): https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-infrastructure/2005-January/msg00 015.html It was announced to all mailing list owners: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/meld-list/2005-January/msg7.html And, as I said before, the idea also involved getting newcomers involved: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-love/2005-August/msg00017.html The team is listed among all other teams: https://wiki.gnome.org/Teams And the latest information available from the team is from 2010: https://wiki.gnome.org/ModeratorTeam I hope this helps. -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 13th March
list moderator is the one misbehaving? (other than talk to them) In practical terms, Code of conducts are guidelines, it shows what a community aims; but Code of conducts are hard to enforce. The exception could be a gathering or conference. There is no balance in power. To put it simple: it is easy to ban a random troll, but banning a troll with power is a different thing without paying a high toll (like discarding a project). FWIW, I have been trying to find records where a CoC has been enforced (other than node.js), no luck so far. Perhaps there has been no need. Pointers are welcomed :-) -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of September, 26th, 2017
On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 00:37 +, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:32 AM Allan Day wrote: > > > Hi Benjamin, > > > > Benjamin Berg wrote: > > ... > > > I have noticed that the lack of board minutes has not been > > > resolved so > > > far and I am hoping that the community can get a quick action > > > from the > > > board with regard to this matter. Can every board member please > > > work on > > > publishing the minutes at their respective earliest convenience? > > > > ... > > > > Thanks for raising this issue again. I agree that it needs to be > > resolved and we discussed it during a board call this week. We'll > > do > > our best to get the minutes published and update the list once it's > > happened. > > > > Why not just ask an ex-director or board member to join the call and > take > notes for everyone. :-) > > They can always drop out if there are sensitive topics. In the past, there was an Etherpad instance running during the meeting, where every board edited the text during the meeting. Sometimes, some members did the heavy writing, while other edited the text, tagged properly, added references, and so on. Thus, the heavy work was done during the meeting, sharing the workload. Once the meeting was over, the content of the Etherpad instance was copied to the private section of wiki. After a week, if no objections were raised, they were considered approved. That meant, moving the content from private to public. That way, there was a time when the minutes were available promptly. Timing matters. When did this method stop being useful? -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Travel committee disfunctional?
On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 17:57 -0400, Jeff F. T. wrote: > Indeed the issue, as far as I know, is that the Travel Committee is > has finite human resources. IMHO the only way to alleviate this is to > have additional trusted Foundation members join that team to share > the workload. The delay may be explained by several factors. One thing is checking that everything is in order to approve the reimbursement. A different thing is to proceed with the actual payment. The second one means giving access to GNOME's bank and PayPal accounts, plus coordination to avoid reimburse twice, avoid mistakes that make the transfer going to the wrong place, and so on. My understanding is that PayPal transfers are straightforward. However, bank transfer require to call to the bank, provide some access code, plus the information to proceed. Yet, that cannot be done from any place. For that reason, reimbursements are processed in batches (or at least we tried to do that when I was there). What is the workload you want to share? (the second one is tricky). -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Free software streaming
On Sun, 2016-01-10 at 10:41 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Sat, 2016-01-09 at 15:46 +0100, Mathieu Duponchelle wrote: > > Hey, you did not react to Nicolas Dufresne's suggestion of using > > webrtc ? > > Services like appear.in do not require installing extra software, > > as > > most > > of the heavy lifting is already done by modern browsers ( I'm sure > > someone > > will implement support in emacs at some point :) ). > > I agree, WebRTC is clearly the winning technology and the way to go > in > the future. > > It's not true that all modern browsers support it, though, so I don't > think it's fair to start using it quite yet. The implementation in > WebKit, for example, is still buggy and disabled in both WebKitGTK+ > and > Safari. That needs fixed before we start using it for GNOME events, > else people won't be able to participate with the GNOME web > browser.... That is the spirit! Although, we had extensions that did not work on the GNOME Web browser either. -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Builder] Developer experience (DX) hackfest 2016
On Tue, 2015-12-29 at 12:56 +, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > The problem is that we already have an existing method that uses non > free software that is easy and does not require expert help to host > or join. What we were asking for is an alternative free software > service that provides a similar setup experience to the non free > solution. > > Telling us that you have experts who can help set it up does not > instill confidence in your solution. > > If there is no free solution that has a similar easy setup experience > , perhaps the GNU project should invest in building such a service. Jangouts might be something worth to give a try and keep an eye on it. It is a self-hosted solution that uses WebRTC and JavaScript. It has a MIT license. https://github.com/jangouts/jangouts -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Board Meeting of November, 3rd, 2015
On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 12:03 -0500, Jeff Fortin Tam wrote: > Le mardi 10 novembre 2015 à 09:07 +, Debarshi Ray a écrit : > > On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 04:38:56PM +0100, Andrea Veri wrote: > > > Deferred: > > > * Instagram filters in GNOME: see email thread by the same name > > > > Where is this thread? > > > This was referring to the one on the board's mailing list (we often > refer to the precise titles of relevant mail threads, so board > members > can, in advance, find them in the mountain of emails on that list :) It would be great if you can provide some contextual information or nothing. Otherwise it leave a taste that we (or at least I) don't belong. -- 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 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 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..
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 Fri, 2015-02-13 at 09:46 +, Magdalen Berns wrote: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Germán Poo-Caamaño 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 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: Call for OPW project ideas
[only foundation-list] On Sat, 2014-09-27 at 13:13 -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "Germán Poo-Caamaño" > > On Sat, 2014-09-27 at 11:45 -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: "Germán Poo-Caamaño" > > > > To: "Marina Zhurakhinskaya" > > > > Cc: "GNOME Foundation" , "desktop-devel-list" > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 11:23:34 AM > > > > Subject: Re: Call for OPW project ideas > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2014-09-26 at 23:48 -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: > > > > > Dear Foundation, > > > > > > > > > > The application process for the new round of Outreach Program for > > > > > Women internships has recently started, and we are looking for people > > > > > willing to mentor GNOME projects in this round. Because we only > > > > > usually have a few participants in OPW, this round we would only like > > > > > to offer projects that are most strategic for GNOME. These include, > > > > > but are not limited to, projects in the area of privacy [1], developer > > > > > experience, GTK+ [2], core experience, core applications [3], and web > > > > > infrastructure. We would also like people to think ahead of time how > > > > > they will be able to provide excellent mentorship to the interns > > > > > before, during, and after the internship, and whether there is a > > > > > larger project team the intern will be able to receive support from. > > > > > Matthias Clasen, Allan Day, and Sriram Ramkrishna have kindly agreed > > > > > to be a part of a cross-team triage committee for proposed project > > > > > ideas. Please add ideas you are willing to mentor to the wiki page for > > > > > the round [4] by early next week. > > > > > > > > Hi Marina, > > > > > > > > Will the mentors still be required to sign a document that makes them > > > > legally liable? > > > > > > Hi Germán, > > > > > > Yes. The legal liability is only for gross negligence, recklessness or > > > intentional wrongdoing. This is covered on > > > https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen#Contracts > > > > > > This is not unique to OPW. GSoC has similar terms mentors have to > > > agree to, which are much more broad - > > > http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2014/org_admin_agreement > > > . > > > > The difference is that the GSoC agreement is between the organization > > and Google, no mentor becomes legally liable (though, IANAL). > > By having agreements directly with mentors, we recognize that free > software organizations that participate might only have a limited > control over the mentors who participate. Is there other venues to address a possible issue? For example, requiring the organization to look for an alternate mentor in case of problem. Making legally liable a volunteer who is giving time and work for free is asymmetrical, where the volunteer has nothing to win, but a lot to lose. -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Call for OPW project ideas
On Sat, 2014-09-27 at 11:45 -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "Germán Poo-Caamaño" > > To: "Marina Zhurakhinskaya" > > Cc: "GNOME Foundation" , "desktop-devel-list" > > > > Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 11:23:34 AM > > Subject: Re: Call for OPW project ideas > > > > On Fri, 2014-09-26 at 23:48 -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: > > > Dear Foundation, > > > > > > The application process for the new round of Outreach Program for > > > Women internships has recently started, and we are looking for people > > > willing to mentor GNOME projects in this round. Because we only > > > usually have a few participants in OPW, this round we would only like > > > to offer projects that are most strategic for GNOME. These include, > > > but are not limited to, projects in the area of privacy [1], developer > > > experience, GTK+ [2], core experience, core applications [3], and web > > > infrastructure. We would also like people to think ahead of time how > > > they will be able to provide excellent mentorship to the interns > > > before, during, and after the internship, and whether there is a > > > larger project team the intern will be able to receive support from. > > > Matthias Clasen, Allan Day, and Sriram Ramkrishna have kindly agreed > > > to be a part of a cross-team triage committee for proposed project > > > ideas. Please add ideas you are willing to mentor to the wiki page for > > > the round [4] by early next week. > > > > Hi Marina, > > > > Will the mentors still be required to sign a document that makes them > > legally liable? > > Hi Germán, > > Yes. The legal liability is only for gross negligence, recklessness or > intentional wrongdoing. This is covered on > https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen#Contracts > > This is not unique to OPW. GSoC has similar terms mentors have to > agree to, which are much more broad - > http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2014/org_admin_agreement > . The difference is that the GSoC agreement is between the organization and Google, no mentor becomes legally liable (though, IANAL). In that sense, it would preferable to leave the OPW mentorship to people who work for companies that support their involvement in FOSS, so they would have a legal support from their companies. For 100% volunteers, it is just taking a risk for free. There is always a risk of a misunderstanding becoming a big pain, even if proven right in court. -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Call for OPW project ideas
On Fri, 2014-09-26 at 23:48 -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: > Dear Foundation, > > The application process for the new round of Outreach Program for > Women internships has recently started, and we are looking for people > willing to mentor GNOME projects in this round. Because we only > usually have a few participants in OPW, this round we would only like > to offer projects that are most strategic for GNOME. These include, > but are not limited to, projects in the area of privacy [1], developer > experience, GTK+ [2], core experience, core applications [3], and web > infrastructure. We would also like people to think ahead of time how > they will be able to provide excellent mentorship to the interns > before, during, and after the internship, and whether there is a > larger project team the intern will be able to receive support from. > Matthias Clasen, Allan Day, and Sriram Ramkrishna have kindly agreed > to be a part of a cross-team triage committee for proposed project > ideas. Please add ideas you are willing to mentor to the wiki page for > the round [4] by early next week. Hi Marina, Will the mentors still be required to sign a document that makes them legally liable? -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME, Bounties and paid development [Was: Re: OPW; Where does the 500$ for each GSoC goes?]
/20070208175703/http://www.gnome.org/bounties/Google.html This was before GSoC exists, but it starts to resemble it. There was even a wiki page to discuss lesson learn, in this case, mostly for GIMP bounties: https://wiki.gnome.org/Attic/BountiesDiscussion -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME, Bounties and paid development [Was: Re: OPW; Where does the 500$ for each GSoC goes?]
On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 15:43 -0500, meg ford wrote: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Tristan Van Berkom < > tris...@upstairslabs.com> wrote: > > > > I think perhaps, if we organized bounties which clearly and definitely > > improve software that industry is going to use, and not only for the > > singular purpose of the GNOME Desktop Environment, then perhaps we would > > be able to get some real backers in the industry to come together with > > us and put together a bounty that is worth bidding for. > > I think there are two ways to approach this: (1) the way you suggest above; > and (2) by having smaller bounties which do not require a bidding process > and can be picked up by contributors who would generally donate time, but > could use some extra money in order to afford to contribute their time. Either way, there is a high administrative overhead, as it was proven in the past when Novell (in communication with GNOME Foundation), and then GNOME Foundation with the help of Google tried bounties. All of them for GNOME. Before going to some details, the short story is: the outcome was what we know now as Google Summer of Code. Some of the administrative things you have to consider: * Determine the issues you want to fix, assess them and put them value. * Set the rules * Getting the maintainers involved to: (1) check if the fix is worth, (2) review the patches, (3) pushing them in master * People to track the patches, update status of bounties (to avoid double work for potential contributors) * All the dance to exclude people from certain places where GNOME Foundation cannot send money to, get bank information, wire money, track everything was good, and makes that everything goes well that IRS won't complain. * ... Also, what is the goal you want to pursue? Who would you expect to apply for? I quote an email of Nat (somehow forwarded to wikimedia foundation): [...] One quick point on numbers: only 11 bounties have been paid, but we've had patch submissions on >50% of the total bounties; release engineering timelines have made it hard for bounty submitters to get some of their patches accepted by module maintainers, and therefore paid, so that contributes to the small number of paid bounties you see. One thing that's surprising is that pretty much all of our bounty submissions came from first-world economies. Despite efforts to promote the bounties heavily in e.g. India. I think there's a need for a bounty administration infrastructure; some piece of software that can run these programs automatically, instead of the mostly hand-generated web pages I wrote. http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/797 Current board members can dig in the board-list archives from 2003-2006-ish, to get more details. I bet there are also here in this list, and in the board meeting minutes, for example, from 2004-08: Nat gave a summary of the current situation with the Bounties. We've reached the 1st round and so far give out $7460 for 10 bounties. It's currently stalled because of an Evolution code freeze - will launch again soon with a new deadline. The Bounties are proving to be effective in attracting new Evolution developers. Nat asked if it would be useful to have a general mechanism where anybody could put money against a bug item? Owen asked if it was more interesting maintaining a TODO list. Luis worried that making the TODO list the Bountie list was dangerous, because people might end up doing only the things people pay for. Have we already started down this slop already with company involvement? The first try was "Desktop Integration Bounty Hunt", funded by Novell but "lead" by GNOME Foundation: http://web.archive.org/web/20070210190246/http://www.gnome.org/bounties/ http://web.archive.org/web/20070208175703/http://www.gnome.org/bounties/Google.html -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: OPW; Where does the 500$ for each GSoC goes?
On Sat, 2014-09-13 at 08:54 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 05:44:49PM +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 08:22:50AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > The list of sponsors is very public, where have you looked that you have > > > not seen it? > > > > Here: https://gnome.org/opw/#sponsors > > > > It is not explained which organizations sponsor which projects. Do all > > organizations sponsor all OPW interns, regardless of the project (GNOME, > > Linux, Mozilla etc)? > > I'm pretty sure groups get to say "I'd like to sponsor X number of > interns for this specific project", and there is a fee involved in that > for running the overall project, as well as some groups that just > sponsor the whole project and don't specify the use of their funds. > This was explained somewhere in a previous description of the project, > but I can't find it at the moment. Maybe from https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen/Admin/InfoForOrgs#Action -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GUADEC registration
On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 16:22 +0200, Andres G. Aragoneses wrote: > On 23/07/14 23:44, 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. ]]] > > > > Estimates of costs regarding audits come directly from accountants who > > could do the work and who have previously advised the Foundation > > employees that the best way to avoid being audited is to not do > > anything which may trigger an audit. > > > > Could you put me in touch with them? I would like to ask them > > why they think bitcoin use is likely to be one of them, and what > > evidence there is of this. > > > > I will also ask Karen. > > > > Richard, I'm curious if you got more information about this, and if yes, > could you share it? My guess is that this discussion is only academic. GNOME Foundation can receive donations through Bitcoin, and the web page was already enabled by when this "issue" was raised: http://www.gnome.org/friends/other-ways-to-donate/ If it were an actual issue, it would not be there. I guess. -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of August 15th, 2014
First at all, thanks for the minutes. A couple of questions: On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 22:20 +0200, Andrea Veri wrote: > = Minutes for Tuesday, August 15th, 2014, 16:00 UTC = > [...] > == Board meeting == > * Groupon > * Final wording checks for updated Travel Policy > * Discussed, approved with minor changes. > * ACTION: Marina to update travel policy > * Outstanding brand use requests > * need someone to take action/mail Carol Hanson re: "Permission request for > Personal use of Gnome foot" > * ACTION: Jeff to reply to her Was this reply positive or negative? Any rationale that could be shared? > == Completed Actions == > [...] > * Andreas to ask Karen and Pam how much we should disclose to the > community about the ongoing discussion with Groupon I guess "Pam" refers to Pamela Chestek. Is this right? BTW, What was the outcome? Shall we assume the outcome was to not disclose anything considering the last minutes only say "Groupon"? -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mission Statement
On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 20:19 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > hi; > > On 6 August 2014 19:49, Michael Hill wrote: > > >> "crippling weight" [citation needed]. > > > > "This hasn't only exposed us to substantial financial risks; it has > > caused actual financial problems for the project. This year, GNOME > > temporarily ceased funding of hackfests in order to recover from the > > cashflow problems caused by the size of OPW." -- Ryan Lortie > > > > Result: day to day operations of the Foundation disrupted. > > the disruption has been put in place to recover reserves that we > burned through; those reserves were burned through because of a > reduction in the cash flow of the Foundation in general — i.e. our > finances have been shrinking for the past few years. the OPW was an > expenditure to make up for invoices not being paid, but *any* > expenditure (hackfest, conferences, travel assistance) could have > caused the freeze. The order of magnitudes are different. For OPW (40 interns), GNOME has to allocate $220,000 to be able to pay the interns. For a hackfest, GNOME has to allocate between $1,000 to $15,000. For OPW there are contracts that states with an exact date of payment. For hackfests/travel assistance just good intentions on when (likely) there would be a reimbursement. From the advisory board, GF likely receives less than $200,000 a year on fees. Maybe less than $150,000. And possibly less if they don't pay on time. Therefore, I hardly see how a hackfest/travel assistance/conference could freeze GF funds. To increase the number of interns in OPW will depend on how good the GF's finances are to back it up, regardless of how many sponsor would be willing to pay... because it's a matter of cash flow. In that sense, the size GF can play against OPW itself. > in general, the freeze that has less to do with OPW and more with our > own issues in tracking payments and invoices, and handling our own > accounting. the whole issue could have just as easily happened if we > didn't have OPW, to be fair. in a way, the OPW growth and this whole > finance situation has forced the board to get a better handle on the > foundation's own funding and processes, to streamline them, document > them, and track them. This sounds too abstract to me. Who are the responsible to track invoices?(*) How long do they take to get paid? How is GF build reserves that don't affect running the project in the future? How long is it going to take to build that reserves? May GF do factoring? (that would solve the cash flow problem and chasing the organizations to pay). (*) I would not expect the treasurer to chase invoices. > now that things are tracked properly the remaining effect of the OPW > growth is the administrative burden on our own administrative > infrastructure; that still needs to be fixed, and it would be good to > have ideas on how to increase our volunteer base. Please, may you be more precise. Volunteers to do what in concrete? Regards, -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Can a foundation member have access to the sponsorship history?
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 08:51 +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > > > > >> > 3) Check if the values spent are okay > > >> > > >> Here I am unsure what you are asking for. I published summaries in the > > >> past regarding to GUADEC, for example (Sorry for my English, it was > > >> rustier than now): > > >> > > >> > > http://calcifer.org/notes/2009/05/status-of-guadecs-sponsorship-requests.html > > >> > > >> > > http://calcifer.org/notes/2010/04/guadec-status-of-travel-sponsorship-requests.html > > >> > > >> If you are asking for details of how much we have sponsored per every > > >> individual, it was decided at the very beginning to keep that > > >> information private. It was also part of the announcement (see the > > >> links below): > > >> > > >> "Any information you send the TC will be private" > > >> > > >> If we provide the names and numbers, there will be missing contextual > > >> information to explain some things. And this could refrain people of > > >> requesting sponsorship. So, there is a trade-off between transparency > > >> and privacy. > > > > > > > > > This is the thing that I don't understand. > > > Why people would not ask for sponsorship if the reasons are valid? I > > mean, > > > the transparency should not influence in these cases, right? > > > IIRC, GNOME Foundation already asks people to do a blog post saying that > > > they were sponsored by GNOME Foundation. So, what would be the problem to > > > have a list of names, describing if the person is member or not of the > > > Foundation and the motivation to help this person? (I'm not even talking > > > about expose how much money they got from Foundation). > > > > As I mentioned before, in some cultures, disclosing personal > > situations can be considered shameful. Asking sponsorship applicants > > to detail their personal financial situations publicly is very likely > > to discourage applications from some parts of the world. > > And what about have a list of sponsored people? I think a list of just sponsored could be done, maybe in the annual report. FWIW, when I replied, I supposed you were asking some data aggregated (like names and numbers). I was unsure what you were asking and I stated that. From the thread, it seems there is a confusion between secrecy and privacy. To make it clear: when you go to the washroom, everybody knows what you are going to do, and yet you close the door. That is privacy. When people apply, they sometimes add information that might not be secret, but still private. For example, when somebody gets or it is going to get unemployed, and still might want to participate in an event. Or if someone ask for a single room (which is more expensive) because of some disability. Or many other explanations. -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Can a foundation member have access to the sponsorship history?
so organizing a workshop or hackfest? Or if they are
board candidates and must attend to the meetings?
So, many of them are solved in a case-by-case basis.
> 3) Check if the values spent are okay
Here I am unsure what you are asking for. I published summaries in the
past regarding to GUADEC, for example (Sorry for my English, it was
rustier than now):
http://calcifer.org/notes/2009/05/status-of-guadecs-sponsorship-requests.html
http://calcifer.org/notes/2010/04/guadec-status-of-travel-sponsorship-requests.html
If you are asking for details of how much we have sponsored per every
individual, it was decided at the very beginning to keep that
information private. It was also part of the announcement (see the
links below):
"Any information you send the TC will be private"
If we provide the names and numbers, there will be missing contextual
information to explain some things. And this could refrain people of
requesting sponsorship. So, there is a trade-off between transparency
and privacy.
And this is mostly the case for GUADEC and GNOME.Asia. For hackfests,
you still have the wiki page that has that information. Something that
might change once we start having a fixed amount for the hackfests
altogether.
> Although I'm not the one who would like to dig into these data, I'd feel
> really more comfortable knowing that I can do this, if I'd like to.
> Does it make sense? Am I asking too much?
> Please, as I told before, I'm kind-of new here. So, If this discussion
> already happened in the past, please, point me some links and I'll be happy
> reading them and trying to understand why this process is not transparent
> for all the Foundation members. (Seriously, I'm not trying to put my finger
> in anyone's face about how the money is or should be spend. Just would love
> to understand how the process works)
The Travel Committee was proposed and discussed in 2009. You can see the
original proposal in the following link:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-February/msg7.html
This was lengthly discussed, see for example the archives of February
2009:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-February/thread.html
And you can see a follow-up on March on a related topic ("Sponsoring
hackfests"):
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-March/thread.html
And the announcement in April:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-April/msg00012.html
> With my thoughts and my doubts, yesterday I approached the Treasurer (who
> is also member of the Travel Committee) and asked her about those things
> and I'd like to share my disappointment with the answers.
> [comments deleted]
> After that, I was told to raise it with the Foundation, and that's the
> motivation for my email :-)
I lack the context for the quotations here, but I assume people mean
well. If this started by asking for naming the people and the amount
funded, I explained it above.
Regardless, when we have taken a decision we try to explain it
-shortly-. And in the rare cases that people require more explanation of
a decision, we try to provide more.
All in all, before 2009, the number of people sponsored was lower for
the same amount of money (reasons likely explained in the links). And
hackfests were uncommon back then.
Regards,
--
Germán Poo-Caamaño
http://calcifer.org/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Last reminder: Travel assistance for GUADEC 2014
On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 23:58 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > Hey Germán, > > On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 14:00 -0700, Germán Poo-Caamaño wrote: > > This is a friendly reminder that the The deadline to apply for travel > > sponsorship for GUADEC 2014 is May 31st. > > > > For the instructions and full announcement, please refer to: > > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2014-May/msg00016.html > > Is there going to be an extension of this? We haven't received the > results of the CfP yet... Hi Bastien, For people who depend on their talks accepted to know whether they would need assistantship or not, they should state that in the application form, and we will follow up. We will communicate internally to cross check the list of accepted talks. Does this sound good for you? Regards, -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Last reminder: Travel assistance for GUADEC 2014
This is a friendly reminder that the The deadline to apply for travel sponsorship for GUADEC 2014 is May 31st. For the instructions and full announcement, please refer to: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2014-May/msg00016.html Regards, -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: volunteer! (was Re: Board of Directors Elections 2014 - Candidacy - Karen Sandler)
On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 14:05 -0400, Karen Sandler wrote: > On 2014-05-21 13:35, Jeff Fortin wrote: > > > Not to say that candidates shouldn't have a minimum commitment/know > > what > > the heck they're getting into, but at the same time, there's only so > > much people can do *in their spare time* with their daily life > > commitments. > > As has been mentioned many times, it's a heck of a lot of work to be a > GNOME board member and there are a lot of action items that get > generated, especially while we're in transition on ED. The work load is > just really high. On thing is saying it is a lot of work, a different one is to specify *what* are the activities that means a lot work. In other words, I bet not many people really knows what a board member does or should do. With luck, there might be a general idea, but not the details. I would say the lack of a clear idea of what a board member do makes it hard to new runners to propose something, other than wishful thinking. Furthermore, I don't even have a clear idea of what current board members (who are also candidates) did during the last year as part of their duties, how much time spent on each one, and which ones could have been done without them being on the board. Just two or three things, that apparently does not require a lot of time (besides the finances, where Ekaterina has been clear). I mean, anything besides the minutes. Because candidates don't even list the actions they took part in their candidacies. > [...] > Want to help? Sign up, and say if there are areas you're particularly > interested or experienced for (though anyone could be pinged for > anything). For example, I volunteer myself (in the case I am not > elected): > > Karen Sandler: legal or fundraising related things in particular In spite that I think is good to have such list, I would expect a board member has connection with the community and knows where to go for specific help or skill. The OWP or the travel committee were not born in a vacuum. There were directors that took contact with people who might run them, and empowered them (to some extent) to do so. -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Board of Directors Elections 2014 - Candidacy - Karen Sandler
On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 13:35 -0400, Jeff Fortin wrote: > Le mardi 20 mai 2014 à 21:17 +0100, Ekaterina Gerasimova a écrit : > > > I am glad that so many of the candidates did take the time to respond > > to this question. Going by the current responses, I honestly think > > that some of the candidates are underestimating the time that board > > duties take and that they may not be flexible enough to put in the > > hours in times of need (such as the current financial situation). > [...] > Not to say that candidates shouldn't have a minimum commitment/know what > the heck they're getting into, but at the same time, there's only so > much people can do *in their spare time* with their daily life > commitments. A board like this is advisory in nature, it happens to > advise employees whose role include the daily execution of the > foundation's operations - otherwise, you might as well say everyone is > an employee. Unlike other foundations, this board is *not* like an advisory one. Although many board directors have acted like this. *Somebody* has to do the work, *somebody* has to follow up what the employees do or don't do, set the priorities, etc. And all in all, it is not enough with the employees, so *somebody* has to do the rest of the work. The board could delegate some tasks, but *somebody* has follow them up, and communicate them, etc. So, the question at hand is "who are those *somebody*?". In my experience, at any given time only 2 or 3 directors do the work, the remaining ones participate in the meetings and give their opinions. But like in any project, talk is cheap. And some board members start to feel bad about it, like: "My personal experience in being a Board member is that I never have time to do all the little administrative things that are part of being a Board member, and I end up feeling terrible about myself." [1] And he has not been the only one. For me it is ok that 2 or 3 directors do the work in a given time, as long as the workload rotates among directors through the weeks. However, it is better when everybody is in the same boat. And it is way better when the boards communicates timely and delegates properly. Otherwise, the board would end-up concentrating more work and doing less things. So, I can understand where Ekaterina's thoughts come from, and I share her concerns. [1] https://people.gnome.org/~federico/news-2006-11.html#board-member-mini-howto -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Current state of Foundation finances
On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 19:44 -0500, meg ford wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Germán Poo-Caamaño wrote: > > > > I'll play devil's advocate here: > > > > > > Couldn't GNOME use funds from these various sponsors to fund activities > > > more directly beneficial to its future than OPW? > > I think a better approach might be: how can we motivate sponsors to fund > our other activities as well as OPW. > > Perhaps finding members who are as passionate and motivated about other > aspects of our project as the organizers of OPW are, and encouraging those > members to seek funding for initiatives, would be a reasonable place to > start. Hi Meg, Just to clarify: the words you are quoting here are not mine, although they you attribute them to me. Regards, -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Current state of Foundation finances
On Sat, 2014-04-12 at 01:45 +0200, Mathieu Duponchelle wrote: > I'll play devil's advocate here: > > Couldn't GNOME use funds from these various sponsors to fund activities > more directly beneficial to its future than OPW? No, for two reasons: 1. My understanding after reading the FAQ is that GNOME Foundation handles the payment for every intern in OPW (not only gnomers), but we are not getting the funds from the sponsors and other organizations timely. So, these are not transferible funds to other activities. 2. I think embracing diversity is one of GNOME strengths as a project, not only in gender equality, but also in other areas, like accessibility and non-English speakers. Diversity enriches a community by bringing multiple mindsets that in the long term pays off in the software produced. Dropping OPW not only would stop bringing new blood to the project, but it could be also a discouraging factor to the current developers. > The question I'm asking here is really: would these sponsors be ready to > help on other fronts, and isn't there a situation where certain sponsors > already help for OPW, and can't consider funding GNOME for other activities > as they already sponsor OPW? They are sponsoring OPW, so they are interested in that. The problem is the GNOME Foundation has not following up with them to cash the promised funds on a timely manner. -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
