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.

I'll try in a different way:
- there's apparently a different criteria being applied
- you seem to focus on what the bylaws state

This IMO skips an important part of trying to figure out why a different
criteria is being applied. For instance, you mention that according to
the bylaws it is not allowed to make a distinction.

Yes. Most of the arguments for why this is not a big deal, are based around the assumption that the argument for applying a different criteria is strong - a no brainer, even. I imagine it would be hard to understand where I am coming from unless you are able to concede that the evidence to support the need to applying a different criteria is being applied, is actually very questionable.

  

Further, it is not allowed by some court. I don't think you're right in asserting that.

All organisations have to obey the law and bylaws are the laws which govern the organisation and I am right in asserting that. Would it ever actually go to court? Unlikely. Would we be able to defend our conduct in court? Unlikely and that's the point. So I am guessing you mean "right" in the ethical sense?

I have actually never come across a non-profit organisation as loosely regulated as GNOME with so few rules and published policy, so personally I have to admit I find it a bit of a culture shock to see that following the relatively very few rules we have established is seen as such a great challenge to a few members. The handful of bylaws which have been established to ensure contributors are treated fairly and members have a democratic influence, have relevance to the how GNOME is run and its membership though. So, I think it's the right thing to do by the people who are adversely affected by this policy to ensure we treat them fairly by observing the membership and amendment bylaws and it's the right thing thing for the community as a whole to ensure GNOME is representative of it's contributing members by not making decisions like this, lightly. I believe it is ethical for us to observe our duty to honour the rules which regulate this organisation and part of that duty is proposing amendments to the rules to seek consent to modify those which which we collectively do not agree with. This process gives us an opportunity to ensure there is compelling evidence to support our proposals so we are not just basing our actions, which affect other people, on our own preconceived ideas about what motivates those people.

I might totally agree with you that having the distinction is wrong, but
regarding this point I don't see it the same way. Especially regarding
assumptions on what a judge would rule and so on. There's more to it
than just bylaws. IMO you have too much of a programmers view on this.

You could be right there, however I think it comes back to the point about whether I/you/we are able to concede that the assumptions informing applying a different criteria are weak, or not. I am able to concede that they are weak which is why I have been keen we take this problem back to first principles.

Could even be that standard practice trumps bylaws.

I'm not sure what you mean here, could you clarify? 

IMO it is better to first focus on *why* a different criteria is applied
and then figure out what to do, rather than ignoring the why and going
for *if* they can do that.

This is something I believe could happen if an amendment were to be proposed with compelling evidence to support it so we are able to take an informed vote on it. At the moment the issue is that a decision which overrides the bylaws has already been made in the establishment of this policy, which means members are put in a position where we have to defend the bylaws but that the policy decision somehow doesn't seem to have to be defended with compelling evidence - which is the wrong way round.

IMO if there's a valid concern then it really
doesn't matter to spend so much time on if they're allowed or not.

Therein lies the core difference in how we perceive this: I believe the concern may be valid enough to investigate, but I do not believe the "problem" has been quantified and therefore I do not believe the argument for this policy is substantiated and hence I do not believe it is a waste of time to spend so much time on if they're allowed to act on the assumptions that have been made about it. Moreover, we have no idea whether this approach is actually causing more harm than good. It could actually be making more interns unwelcome and unappreciated and deterring them from continuing to contribute to the project. We are generally acting on an awful lot of assumptions by taking action to address a perceived problem which we really haven't analysed concrete data for.

> 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.

Most interns seem to vanish quite quickly after their internship is
over. Maybe not true at all anymore, there are a few exceptions, but
that has been a topic of discussion for various years.

The question is not just about whether they most of them vanish, although I agree that's clearly part of it. We need to be able to compare their behaviour to other kinds of contributors statistically, accounting for all our sources of error, before we can begin to make any assumptions or predictions about this model. Let's see the raw data and analyse it first.

Magdalen