Re: foundation application..

[Magdalen Berns <m berns thismagpie com>]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Germán Poo-Caamaño <gpoo gnome org> wrote:

On Fri, 2015-02-13 at 09:46 +0000, Magdalen Berns wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Germán Poo-Caamaño <gpoo gnome org> 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 earn if you contribute
> > > > "enough", but hints to a deeper involvement with the community inner
> > > > workings.
> > > > I argue that a 3-months contribution from someone fresh to the project
> > > > might or might not be enough to grant membership regardless of how
> > > > they have been involved with the project, and I'm curious whether the
> > > > case you are bringing up is theoretical or if there have been cases of
> > > > interns interested in foundation membership dismissed solely on the
> > > > supposed "intern clause". Of course I do support any initiative that
> > > > aims to make the foundation a more welcoming place!
> > >
> > > I think the point here is that if our current bylaws claim one thing, we
> > > should adhere to that for the time being. If we don't agree with the
> > > bylaws, then they should be altered, which is a different process.
> >
> > The foundation bylaws predates any outreach program (including bounties,
> > that predates outreach programs) by many years.  Therefore, hardly can
> > address this special case.
> >
>
> > Back then there was no program where we were proactively seeking
> > contributors by offering them money. Back then, if anybody applied after
> > contributing for a period of time, then it was kind-of-clear(TM) they
> > were to continue in the project.
> >
>
> I am talking about both GSoC and Outreach Program interns and this is
> factually incorrect either way: GSoC has been going for 10 years and
> Outreach Program seems to have been going since 2010. The bylaws were last
> updated in 2012. Moreover though, it's worth pointing out again that
> sponsored contributors are not a new thing for GNOME the question of the
> value of their contributions is covered in the bylaws which 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".

As you say, the bylaws were updated, not rewritten.  The updates, though
important were minor.

 

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. someone who has made a non-trivial contribution to GNOME). The practice of telling all successful interns not to apply, misleads the community about what the rules on membership eligibility are and (assuming we are all agreed that at least some interns do make a nontrivial contribution over their 3 month sponsored period of internship) it misleads them about what the definition of a non-trivial contribution is, too. If any member wishes to make amendments to the bylaws then there is a process for that which is laid out in the "amendments" section of bylaws.

"Any member can propose the adoption, amendment or repealing of the Bylaws. In the event of such a proposal, the following procedures shall be implemented:

1. The members shall be provided with the reasonable means to comment upon and/or object to any such proposal for twenty one (21) days

2. The proposal shall be sent to the membership and shall be posted on //foundation.gnome.org http: by the Board

3. In the event that five percent or more of the members object to the proposal, a special meeting of the members shall be convened in accordance with the provisions of Article VII, and the proposal shall be voted upon

4. In the event that five percent or more of the members do not object to the proposal, then the proposal shall be adopted by the Board to the extent

permitted by CNPBCL Section 5150(a)."

Where CNPBCL is the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law.

Magdalen