Re: foundation application..



On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Magdalen Berns <m berns thismagpie com> wrote:
As regards comments on Outreachy internships (which seem to have clearly been cited a lot more in defence of this new practice, than GSoC); this is an internship specifically developed to address an identified problem of inclusiveness for under-represented minorities in FOSS and it is heavily associated with GNOME so, it's worth emphasising that one of the barriers which women are particularly likely to face in general, is that they are more likely to be told that their work has less value than someone else's, when that is not actually the case.  A number of members here have indicated that interns are actually making non-trivial contributions, so on that basis would you not agree with the principle that applying a less favourable membership illegibility criteria for these interns in particular than for everybody else, sends out a somewhat contradictory message to the community about GNOME's commitment to equality? Moreover, if it is actually the case that this idea was a response to the applications from Outreachy (formally OPW) internships (as the comments on this thread are beginning to suggest), then we really do have problem.

Regarding this, I think it's fair to mention that there are very few women who have full-time employment working on GNOME. This is an area where (imo) we have not made significant headway as a group. OPW was established as a paid opportunity partly because women face financial barriers when contributing to FOSS. So you should be aware that you are asking people who have a significantly lower chance of being hired to work on GNOME professionally to work for free for an extra period of time, with none of the benefits associated with foundation membership.




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]