Re: Mission Statement

[Pascal Terjan <pterjan gmail com>]

On 7 August 2014 14:43, Máirín Duffy <duffy fedoraproject org> wrote:
> On 08/07/2014 12:06 AM, Mathieu Duponchelle wrote:
> >     Women do represent a pretty significant portion of the general
> >     public, no? I think for men by men probably doesn't meet the
> >     "general public" qualifier there.
> >
> >
> > "Standalone OPW" is different from "from men by men", I'm afraid I don't
> > understand your argument here?
>
>
> I am happy to clarify. Here is my argument:
>
> - There are financial concerns / problems.
> - There are concerns about OPW's alignment with GNOME's mission statement
>
> If there are financial concerns, let's continue to go through the actual
> data and see if there is a way to solve them.
>
> Let's not conflate whether or not OPW has anything to do with the mission
> statement or not; if there was a problem with alignment to the mission
> statement I would have expected that to be brought up quite some time ago,
> and would hope it would be brought up without the added issue of financial
> concerns if it was truly a sincere concern.
>
> In the absence of a program like OPW, sadly, it is for men by men, we have
> historical figures to demonstrate this.

The discussion is not about the absence of OPW, but about not
providing the service of managing OPW for other organisations.
I haven't seen anyone saying GNOME shouldn'tparticipate in OPW.

> If you want to take a project that is successfully increasing the number of
> female participants in GNOME and open source in general and disassociate it
> from the project while, at the same time, talking about how there are
> financial issues and not enough money to hire more help then you are
> essentially killing the program. If the program cannot continue to operate
> without the help from the GNOME foundation that it is currently getting
> (whether or not that is sustainable long-term,) you are setting the program
> back.
>
> You can not just say, let's take OPW out of this GNOME box and give it its
> owm box and believe that it won't negatively impact the broader program and
> its ability to continue its success while you are also bringing up financial
> issues that would make the program impossible to run outside of GNOME's box.

I don't see why it would negatively impact it.
When looking at http://kernelnewbies.org/OPWIntro the only reference
to GNOME is the IRC server.
It already lives a life outside of GNOME, it's a matter of formalising that.
GNOME could be a participant like others, withan organization with
more human resources handling the shared part.

> I hope this clarifies my point and I hope the discussion can continue to
> focus around the financial issues and work through potential solutions to
> those and put aside the 'mission statement' argument. I do not see any
> conflict with the current mission statement, and changing the mission
> statement appears to not solve the real issue at hand anyway.