Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

In GSoC selection phase mentoring organizations don't know how candidates look like and what their gender is (if student is using a nickname). So there is no need to 'counterbalance' it with a similar program limited to minorities.

But let's leave this topic, as Jonathan suggested.

> changing the rules with any specific candidate in mind seems deeply scummy

I agree, but such things happen. And changing the rules with the SFC-VMware lawsuit in mind (as mjg59 speculated) seems even more scummy.

As greg wrote in reddit in defense of the change, It might be common for non-profits with self-perpetuating boards to not notify their non-voting membership when a bylaw amendment comes up. But I don't think its considered a best practice.
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/roberts-rules-for-a...

But the reality non-profits generally have a lot of leeway in how they construct the procedure they use in bylaw amendment. So there's nothing technically wrong with the fact that this board has the power to amend the bylaws without input from the membership..as stated in these bylaws. It just maybe... unfriendly to do so without notice in this case, and makes a space for the board's intent to be misinterpreted, since this impacts membership benefits and it doesn't appear to be a change imposed by government regulation changes.

Make no mistake, there are good reasons to give a board the power to amend bylaws at need without delay and without requiring input from membership. But if there's no expressed need for quick action to address an immediate business or legal requirement, then perhaps the board should choose to provide notice to membership as a standing discretionary policy, in order to get non-binding feedback to make the best informed decision possible. At the very least, is someone pops up and hates the proposed changed, they won't want be able to claim the board stabbed them in the back when they weren't looking. The board will be able to make the case that they stabbed that particular person in the face...for very good reasons. And really.. sometimes..that's the best we can hope for when changes happen... to see it coming no matter how powerless we are to stop it and no matter how painful it is when it finally comes.

If we could roll the clock back on this, and the board had issued a notice concerning the proposed amendment to membership for feedback with a statement as to the reasoning for the proposed amendment... would the timing of the final vote to adopt have been as suspicious? Maybe not. I doubt that it would have.

-jef"... still trying to blame Canonical for this..."spaleta

Hogwash. A consciously-designed counter[-1] to an arguably[0] flawed setup will be at least equally flawed, and almost certainly more so due to (e.g.) the cognitive biases, preconceptions, imperfect modeling, etc. at play while setting it up. In terms of an example, meritocracy may[0] end up favouring whitey, but a "counterbalance" program defined to exclude whitey is outright racist despite seeming like an "entirely sensible" idea (to some).

Consider this: is a counter-$foo always better if $foo has a flaw, an imperfection? And if so, why isn't everything perfect already -- surely everyone's ancestors would've iterated the counter-whatever until all rain became Brawndo?

That's not to pretend ignorance of where these outreach programs come from: they're designed by feminists to further feminist causes. Because it is formally neutral, meritocracy disfavours the women-only ideal; so feminist ideology demands it be torn down and, in practice, replaced with what looks, sounds, and smells exactly like a ruling clique's say-so. This is supposedly better, though curiously there's never any studies showing this; only doctrine that's been shown silly (as above) at a mechanical level -- nor is there a reason why anyone would prefer to be lorded over by a kakistocratic knitting society[1].

[-1] and it's certainly not a balance: that would be dynamic. In practice women's outreach programs rarely have a termination or proportionality clause to (say) compensate for their own success, i.e. so as to not produce a Girls-Only Tree House.
[0] I call your multiple anecdotes of studies, and raise you the wind whispering in my ear
[1] besides the foolish idea of being one of The Chosen after Year Zero, rather than a trod-upon factory slave

Agreed.
But even if it would that would only solve one aspect of documentation, i.e. how the software does things.
It would still leave the need to document how to use the software.

I.e. developer documentation vs. end user documentation

a few observations.

a default install would usually have either KDE or you could choose GNOME or KDE at login. No one liked GNOME 3. This is from my own experience and through the grapevine. So there was a sharp drop-off in GNOME desktops.

Occasionally internal project are spun out as commercial products and probably 95% of the market for those projects is on Windows. GTK is no longer fit for purpose in that respect. Thats not the only reason but a big reason why there was an industry wide shift to QT for internal tools.

PYQT/PYSIDE and embedded python interpreters in internal C/C++ tools have brought a massive productivity boost to our industry in the last few years. That 60% that know python were very excited to be able to make there own gui tools which was previously only done by C/C++ developers. And they could easily work on these projects on Windows which is what many run at home.

There has been significant time and money and research put into developing cuda clusters as part of the compute infrastructure in many larger companies. GNOME putting all there eggs in the Wayland basked which lacks Nvidia drivers is a big red flag for the project as a whole. Nvidia + drivers is de facto standard for desktop also.

And QT and KDE has just gotten better and better for us over the same period with not really any missteps. This is sort of the same story I get from friends in HPC industries as well.