Re: foundation application..

[Magdalen Berns <m berns thismagpie com>]

> 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.

I tried to nicest way to let you see a different point of view, taking
into account the previous failure to have any discussion with you.

It seems you're not open in understanding what I mean.

> 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?

Yeah, just focus on whatever the bylaws might or not might take. Did you
read my email? Did you make any effort to grasp what I'm trying to say?

Your questions indicate you did not.

The effort I made was to I ask what you were on about and that is still not very clear.

> 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.

I've asked you to consider chasing the meaning of bylaws. "Non-trivial
effort" is open to interpretation.

Those following, might have noticed that this was done in the opening part of the discussion and it seemed to be generally agreed that some interns do make non-trivial contributions. At least, nobody seems to have disagreed with that idea, anyway.

> 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.

The way you're holding discussions on foundation-list, you think you're
doing the best for those members. That's great, but having some slight
respect for comments from people who have been around for quite a while
would be appreciated.

I make it a policy to try to respect everyone by default no matter who they are, so I am not really sure what you are talking about. However, if you or anyone else, has a specific grievance about anything "disrespectful" I may have said towards their comments then feel free to email me to discuss the problem without derailing the discussion, which for the record, is not actually being held by me.

Magdalen