Re: foundation application..

[Magdalen Berns <m berns thismagpie com>]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Olav Vitters <olav vitters nl> wrote:

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:20:21AM +0000, Magdalen Berns wrote:
> 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.

IMO: It almost feels like GNOME is paying someone to become a member of
the foundation.

This is not a coherent statement. Can you clarify what you are talking about?

Arguing a lot about what the current rules state will
not help with the concerns people have raised.

If you have a concrete reason why it does help to continue to ignore bylaws that are inconvenient for whatever is more convenient, then you are free to make a case for that. California law probably would probably override that idea, though.

Let's focus on why there's any difference, see if can reach a conclusion
on that. "Because the rules" state so leads IMO to too much nitpicking
on the rules, instead of focussing on the concerns.

If people want to focus on that then the procedure to follow is to suggest an amendment to the bylaws and make a case for that, it is not introduce practices by the back door which contradict the rules laid out by the most current bylaws . Again, 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)."

This is not a complicated process, it is fairly clear and transparent (especially when compared with the alternative). What is the problem with using It?

Various people have stayed after GSoC (+ anything similar). On other
hand: some you don't hear about at all once they leave. For some
internship, the person has a mentor assigned to them. That eases the
"stickyness" vs someone who sends patches on his own. I'd wonder about
why someone applies, is it real interest in GNOME and free software, or
just good for resume and finding work?

As Meg seems to have pointed out already in her question, the same could be said for any sponsored contributor. The bylaws are explicit in not discriminating against sponsored/paid contributors compared with any other kind of contributor. There is a concrete process for anyone who disagrees with bylaws to suggest an amendment to them.

For foundation membership (IIRC) to have to specify a few people to
vouch for you. I have never been a mentor. I'm wonder if the mentor
could guess if the person would stay or not.

I think detailing the expectations would help a lot.

At the moment we are talking about whether it is justifiable to tell all successful interns that they are not eligible for membership not how the membership committee make their decisions. The bylaws give the membership committee the overriding decision but says all applications are to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Magdalen