> > Further to that, on looking at some of the recent membership data
> > gathered so far with specific regard to the interns, I have to say, it
> > does seem like a few interns have been significantly undervaluing
> > their own contributions by waiting much longer to apply than seems
> > appropria
On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 21:15 +, Magdalen Berns wrote:
[...]
> Further to that, on looking at some of the recent membership data
> gathered so far with specific regard to the interns, I have to say, it
> does seem like a few interns have been significantly undervaluing
> their own contributions
>
> > 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
2015-02-22 14:08 GMT+01:00 Magdalen Berns :
> 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 democra
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
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Alexandre Franke
> > wrote:
> >> The membership can correct me if I'm wrong, but one thing that's not
> >> been
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Magdalen Berns wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Alexandre Franke
> 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. S
> > 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 contribut
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:33:19AM +0100, Alexandre Franke wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Luciana Fujii 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 p
>
> > 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
Hi;
On 22 February 2015 at 13:08, Magdalen Berns 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.
> > 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, b
>
> > 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
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
> wrote:
> > - What is the impact of having people joining the Foundation and
> > vanishing later?
>
> They gain voting ability when they shouldn't. The board
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Luciana Fujii 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
On 19/02/15 15:39, Germán Poo-Caamaño wrote:
> 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
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 repre
I feel like everything about this has been stated twice, can we please stop
with that thread?
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Magdalen Berns
wrote:
>
> > >
>> > >
>> > > > [...]
>> > > > It seems proportionate to try to seek compelling evidence to
>> support the
>> > > > hypothesis that this is
> > >
> > >
> > > > [...]
> > > > 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 ev
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.
> >
>
>
>
> > [...]
> > 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 goin
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 ev
>
> > This is something I believe could happen if an amendment were to be
> > proposed with compelling evidence to support it so we are able to take an
> > informed vote on it. At the moment the issue is that a decision which
> > overrides the bylaws has already been made in the establishment of th
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:44:19PM +, Magdalen Berns wrote:
> This is something I believe could happen if an amendment were to be
> proposed with compelling evidence to support it so we are able to take an
> informed vote on it. At the moment the issue is that a decision which
> overrides the b
>
> > > > If you have a concrete reason why it does help to continue to ignore
> > > bylaws
> > > > that are inconvenient for whatever is more convenient, then you are
> free
> > > to
> > > > make a case for that. California law probably would probably override
> > > that
> > > > idea, though.
> >
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Magdalen Berns
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
> inclusivenes
>
> >> One of the main requirements of gaining
> >> Foundation Membership is being active within the community for a
> >> little while *after* the internship has ended to demonstrate the fact
> >> there's a real interest staying around and contributing to the
> >> Project.
> >
> >
> > This is a pra
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 06:30:51PM +, Magdalen Berns wrote:
> > > If you have a concrete reason why it does help to continue to ignore
> > bylaws
> > > that are inconvenient for whatever is more convenient, then you are free
> > to
> > > make a case for that. California law probably would proba
>
> >> What you are suggesting would be accepting every single intern
> >> regardless of this person being really interested and passionate about
> >> joining the Foundation. That will probably lead to a wider membership
> >> base for sure but how long these people are going to really stay
> >> aro
2015-02-15 16:17 GMT+01:00 Marina Zhurakhinskaya :
> This policy came about after I encouraged interns who were 2/3rd of the way
> through their internship in 2012 to apply for the Foundation membership. The
> membership
> committee preferred that interns have a chance to figure out their level
2015-02-13 2:45 GMT+01:00 meg ford :
> Hi Andrea,
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Andrea Veri wrote:
>>
>> What you are suggesting would be accepting every single intern
>> regardless of this person being really interested and passionate about
>> joining the Foundation. That will probably lead
2015-02-12 21:34 GMT+01:00 Magdalen Berns :
>> One of the main requirements of gaining
>> Foundation Membership is being active within the community for a
>> little while *after* the internship has ended to demonstrate the fact
>> there's a real interest staying around and contributing to the
>> P
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > As Meg seems to have pointed out already in her question, the same could
> be
> > said for any sponsored contributor. The bylaws are explicit in not
> > discriminating against sponsored/paid contributors compared with any
> other
> > kind o
>
> This policy came about after I encouraged interns who were 2/3rd of the
> way through their internship in 2012 to apply for the Foundation
> membership. The membership committee preferred that interns have a chance
> to figure out their level of participation in GNOME after the internship
> bef
- Original Message -
> From: "Magdalen Berns"
> To: "Tobias Mueller"
> Cc: "GNOME Foundation"
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 8:35:17 AM
> Subject: Re: foundation application..
>
>
>
> > This is not a complicated proc
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Tobias Mueller
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 02:02:48PM -0600, meg ford wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Tobias Mueller
> wrote:
> > > Right, but as I've said, it's not a general answer and applications are
> > > dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Hi.
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 02:02:48PM -0600, meg ford wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Tobias Mueller wrote:
> > Right, but as I've said, it's not a general answer and applications are
> > dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
> In that case, I suggest that we don't make general statement
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Tobias Mueller
wrote:
> Right, but as I've said, it's not a general answer and applications are
> dealt
> with on a case-by-case basis.
>
In that case, I suggest that we don't make general statements telling
interns to not apply, but instead tell them that it's c
> > If you have a concrete reason why it does help to continue to ignore
> bylaws
> > that are inconvenient for whatever is more convenient, then you are free
> to
> > make a case for that. California law probably would probably override
> that
> > idea, though.
>
> I tried to nicest way to let you
>
> >
> > > I don't read "all successful interns are not eligible for membership"
> > > there which is what you claimed.
> > >
> >
> > This is not what we were discussing in the thread.
> I was under the impression that Magdalen is. She claimed that we're
> telling
> "all succesful interns that th
Hi.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:00:29AM -0500, Dave Neary wrote:
> On 02/13/2015 09:07 AM, Tobias Mueller wrote:
> > There is no general answer. Applications are handled on a case-by-case
> > basis.
> > The number of objections to the decision of the membership committee I know
> > of is exactly
Hi,
On 02/13/2015 09:07 AM, Tobias Mueller wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 07:55:05AM -0600, meg ford wrote:
>> We were discussing the fact (as stated in the email Magdalen quoted) that
>> interns are not eligible for Foundation membership for six months after
>> their
>> internship has ended.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:52:32PM +, Magdalen Berns wrote:
> If you have a concrete reason why it does help to continue to ignore bylaws
> that are inconvenient for whatever is more convenient, then you are free to
> make a case for that. California law probably would probably override that
>
Hi.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 07:55:05AM -0600, meg ford wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Tobias Mueller
> wrote:
>
> > I don't read "all successful interns are not eligible for membership"
> > there which is what you claimed.
> >
>
> This is not what we were discussing in the thread.
I
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Tobias Mueller
wrote:
> I don't read "all successful interns are not eligible for membership"
> there which is what you claimed.
>
This is not what we were discussing in the thread. We were discussing the
fact (as stated in the email Magdalen quoted) that interns
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 01:35:17PM +, Magdalen Berns wrote:
> Really? GNOME have no role in this statement which went out to the OP and
> GSoC intern lists in August of 2014?
I don't know what exactly you mean by "GNOME" who has or does not have
"a role" in the statement.
> Before denying this
>
> > This is not a complicated process, it is fairly clear and transparent
> > (especially when compared with the alternative). What is the problem with
> > using It?
> There is none.
>
> > At the moment we are talking about whether it is justifiable to tell all
> > successful interns that they ar
Hi.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:52:32PM +, Magdalen Berns wrote:
> This is not a complicated process, it is fairly clear and transparent
> (especially when compared with the alternative). What is the problem with
> using It?
There is none.
> At the moment we are talking about whether it is jus
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:20:21AM +, Magdalen Berns wrote:
> > It doesn't make a difference. The bylaws are the rules which regulate the
> > GNOME Foundation. GNOME's bylaws state the rules on membership
> eligibility
> > by defining wh
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:20:21AM +, Magdalen Berns wrote:
> It doesn't make a difference. The bylaws are the rules which regulate the
> GNOME Foundation. GNOME's bylaws state the rules on membership eligibility
> by defining what a contributor is and who is illegible for membership (i.e.
IMO
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Germán Poo-Caamaño wrote:
> 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 Cec
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
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 e
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 involveme
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 contributi
Hi Magdalen,
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Magdalen Berns
wrote:
> The bylaws do not say anything about what might motivate contributors to
> contribute, nor their level of commitment to GNOME, when it defines a
> "contributor" in terms of foundation membership but it does fairly clearly
> d
Hi Andrea,
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Andrea Veri wrote:
> What you are suggesting would be accepting every single intern
> regardless of this person being really interested and passionate about
> joining the Foundation. That will probably lead to a wider membership
> base for sure but how
>
> > I suggest we just make the rules much clearer to people on the outreach
> > pages by clarifying what "non-trivial" actually means. GSoC/OPW interns
> are
> > told to make more contributions after their 3 month internship before
> > applying. That suggests that the contributions they make over
On 12 February 2015 at 18:24, Andrea Veri wrote:
> 2015-02-12 14:42 GMT+01:00 Magdalen Berns :
>
>> I suggest we just make the rules much clearer to people on the outreach
>> pages by clarifying what "non-trivial" actually means. GSoC/OPW interns are
>> told to make more contributions after their
2015-02-12 14:42 GMT+01:00 Magdalen Berns :
> I suggest we just make the rules much clearer to people on the outreach
> pages by clarifying what "non-trivial" actually means. GSoC/OPW interns are
> told to make more contributions after their 3 month internship before
> applying. That suggests that
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Daniel Mustieles García
wrote:
> Hi Sriram,
>
> Maybe I could help you with this. How do you think we could do it?
>
Super! I'll send you some private mail with some key people and we
can figure out how to make it a little more welcome.
Pascal's idea seems like
> >> >> One thing I thought of would be to change the direction of the
> process
> >> >> to be an invitation rather than an application.
> >> >> If you see someone helping, instead of pushing him to apply you could
> >> >> fill in the form describing his contributions (and possibly the name
> >> >>
On 12 February 2015 at 15:03, Magdalen Berns wrote:
>
>> On 12 February 2015 at 13:42, Magdalen Berns
>> wrote:
>> >> One thing I thought of would be to change the direction of the process
>> >> to be an invitation rather than an application.
>> >> If you see someone helping, instead of pushing h
> On 12 February 2015 at 13:42, Magdalen Berns
> wrote:
> >> One thing I thought of would be to change the direction of the process
> >> to be an invitation rather than an application.
> >> If you see someone helping, instead of pushing him to apply you could
> >> fill in the form describing his c
On 12 February 2015 at 13:42, Magdalen Berns wrote:
>> One thing I thought of would be to change the direction of the process
>> to be an invitation rather than an application.
>> If you see someone helping, instead of pushing him to apply you could
>> fill in the form describing his contributions
>
> One thing I thought of would be to change the direction of the process
> to be an invitation rather than an application.
> If you see someone helping, instead of pushing him to apply you could
> fill in the form describing his contributions (and possibly the name
> of someone else who can suppo
One thing I thought of would be to change the direction of the process
to be an invitation rather than an application.
If you see someone helping, instead of pushing him to apply you could
fill in the form describing his contributions (and possibly the name
of someone else who can support it) and i
Hi Sriram,
Maybe I could help you with this. How do you think we could do it?
2015-02-11 23:09 GMT+01:00 Sriram Ramkrishna :
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Alexandre Franke
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Luis
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Alexandre Franke
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Luis Menina wrote:
>>> So yes, I still find it intimidating because it's hard to feel
>>> legitimate when you're a small contibutor.
>>
>> And
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 05:01:42PM -0800, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote:
> Yes, I've had other anecdotes where people relate the same thing. As
> I said, I'm intimidated too when go through it. Maybe if there are
> interested people we could work on it together?
I sometimes just hand out bugzilla perm
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Alexandre Franke
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Luis Menina wrote:
>> So yes, I still find it intimidating because it's hard to feel
>> legitimate when you're a small contibutor.
>
> And that's part of the problem. This guy calls himself a "small
> cont
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Luis Menina wrote:
> So yes, I still find it intimidating because it's hard to feel
> legitimate when you're a small contibutor.
And that's part of the problem. This guy calls himself a "small
contributer", which he is not. Sure he's not a maintainer of one of
ou
Le 09/02/2015 23:57, Sriram Ramkrishna a écrit :
> Do people find the application to the foundation to be intimidating?
> I've talked to a number of people and I get the feeling that unless I
> do coding or something that I'm not a valuable member.
>
> Even with all the stuff I do, I still feel in
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote:
> Do people find the application to the foundation to be intimidating?
> I've talked to a number of people and I get the feeling that unless I
> do coding or something that I'm not a valuable member.
>
> Even with all the stuff I do, I stil
Do people find the application to the foundation to be intimidating?
I've talked to a number of people and I get the feeling that unless I
do coding or something that I'm not a valuable member.
Even with all the stuff I do, I still feel inadequate when I renew...
I was just curious if other peopl
74 matches
Mail list logo
