Re: Mission Statement

[Ekaterina Gerasimova <kittykat3756 gmail com>]

On 06/08/2014, Máirín Duffy <duffy fedoraproject org> wrote:
> On 08/06/2014 11:57 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> > I was disappointed (but not completely surprised) to learn that,
> > although OPW has expanded to many projects beyond GNOME, GNOME is left
> > handling all of the money for all participants at all organisations.
> > 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.
>
> I'm sensing a general lack of information in your post (which should
> absolutely be provided to you) about the program and its affect on GNOME
> and its finances, so I thought it would be worth pointing out that GNOME
> does charge a per-intern administrative fee to each non-GNOME project
> participating in OPW. So GNOME is far from taking on this extremely
> helpful and beneficial work without compensation.

GNOME incurs a large amount of banking fees associated with the
program and it takes up a considerable amount of our administrative
assistant's time, which is covered by the administrative fee.
Nonetheless, there is a limited amount of administrative time
available, which has meant that the board and other Foundation members
have had to take on unpaid administrative work to keep the Foundation
afloat. If this had not been done, I dread to think whether GUADEC
would have been the same.

Regardless, Ryan is correct that poor management of OPW finances has
resulted in financial difficulties for the Foundation. To expand on
what he wrote, funding for two separate events was outright rejected,
which resulted in one event being cancelled. Many Foundation members
also had their reimbursements delayed by over two months. Luckily,
those individuals were very supportive and were kind enough to work
with the board to ensure that those who needed reimbursements fastest
were the first to receive them.

> > I also came to appreciate during conversations at GUADEC the amount of
> > time which members of the engagement team, the board, and others are
> > spending fighting against harmful and distracting messaging from various
> > corners of the net, and how much OPW has become involved in some of the
> > stranger criticisms being leveled toward us.  It's no secret that OPW is
> > controversial, even within the project.  I feel at the very least, it is
> > a distraction from what should be our core goals.
>
> Do you understand that the many -isms that negatively impact GNOME and
> open source in general do not disappear when you sweep them under the
> rug? These are not problems that can just be washed away from
> disengaging OPW from GNOME.
>
> > I think that the time has come to split OPW out from the GNOME
> > foundation.
>
> I can't resist saying this:
>
> I think GNOME has a lot of problems, and OPW is most certainly NOT one
> of them.
>
> ~m
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list gnome org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list