Re: foundation application..

[Magdalen Berns <m berns thismagpie com>]

 

>> >> 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 if accepted he would get an
>> >> invitation to join the foundation.
>> >
>> >
>> > That seems highly masonic.
>>
>> I think it would be good in addition to the current process, not
>> replacing it, for the many people who will never feel they do great
>> things, even if they do (see Imposter Syndrome).
>
>
> I don't have any problems with people suggesting to contributors that they
> should apply because this would may give a deserving contributor the
> confidence to go for it, but that does not seem to be what you are
> suggesting. What you seem to be suggesting is masonic. Perhaps you could
> clarify what you mean by this nomination system idea, in case I
> misunderstood what you mean in terms of its practical application.

My idea was to have someone else describe your accomplishments and
apply for you.
If the application is accepted we can inform the person that their
application done by "other person" was successful and they just have
to say if they are accepting to be a member of the foundation.
If it is rejected, I don't think we want to inform them.

Ok, that sounds a bit better. :-) I still don't get how it could be fair in practical terms though: People are only likely to pay attention to contributions which interest them unless they are dedicated to the task sorting through the myriad contributions databases available strategically for the purpose of determining eligible contributors. It could potentially become very difficult to ensure the process didn't become biased towards nominated members unless the system were to be specifically designed it to discourage that.

>> > The bylaws state the following[1]
>> >
>> > "Any contributor to GNOME shall be eligible for member-ship.
>> >
>> > A "contributor" shall be defined as any individual who has contributed
>> > to a
>> > non-trivial improvement of the GNOME Project, such as code,
>> > documentation,
>> > trans-
>> > lations, maintenance of project-wide resources, or other non-trivial
>> > activities which
>> > benefit the GNOME Project. Large amounts of advocacy or bug reporting
>> > may
>> > qual-
>> > ify one as a contributor, provided that such contributions are
>> > significantly
>> > above the
>> > level expected of an ordinary user. 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."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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 their 3
>> > month
>> > internship of 40 hours per week are trivial. It's no wonder contributors
>> > find the process of making a membership application intimidating
>> > considering
>> > that, isn't it? How could a volunteer compete with an someone who is
>> > being
>> > paid to work on GNOME full time (even if it is just for 3 months)?
>> >
>> > [1] http://www.gnome.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/bylaws.pdf
>>
>> Giving more examples would clearly help.
>> I believe the GSoC/OPW is special as they have incentive to contribute
>> which then finish and it's probably a matter to see if they continue
>> contributing. It doesn't mean that what they did was non-trivial.
>
>
> In practical terms it does and it certainly is not likely to help anyone's
> imposter syndrome to be told their work is trivial if it isn't, either.
> Let's review the facts:
>
> Bylaws state that all contributors (i.e. those who shall be defined as any
> individual who has contributed to a non-trivial improvement of the GNOME
> Project) are illegible for membership.
> Bylaws 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.
>
> Those are the rules. Therefore, if GNOME does not actually believe that all
> interns make trivial contributions, then GNOME effectively contradicts its
> own bylaws in stating that all interns should not apply for foundation
> membership on the strength of their contributions over 3 month period of 40
> hours of work a week (i.e. internship) alone.

Yes I definitely agree this is a problem, If we make an exception of
excluding non-trivial contributions done during an internship, it
should be part of the rules.

Absolutely. This seems like a massive oversight that ought to be corrected.

 

But I think this is a different problem unless some people have
interpreted it as needing to do something more important than what
they had done during their internship.

I don't think it's a different problem. It seems inevitable that people are going to confuse the interpretation of what a non-trivial contribution is, when they are all being told 3 month of contributions from a 40 hour week are trivial (regardless of whether or not they are an intern themselves, that is).

Magdalen