LWN: Comments on "Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation"

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

jubal — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 17:10:29 +0000

Argh. Right. Duly noted. Sorry. Stopping now.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

corbet — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:03:11 +0000

Please, we are trying, with some success, to bring this part of the conversation to a close. We don't need to restart it now.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

jubal — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:41:31 +0000

and who are you, exactly, to make such bold statements?

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

ms_43 — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 13:01:51 +0000

Your complaint smells of equivocation.

Since piotrjurkiewicz evidently thinks it's a good idea to troll with slanderous propaganda/character assassination comments that have nothing to do with reality, instead of reading the easily found report on what actually happened [0], any expectation of "respect" on his part is laughable, since he has proven by example that that word does not exist in his dictionary.

[0] http://jeff.ecchi.ca/blog/2015/09/13/outrageous-outreach/

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

rahvin — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 05:01:48 +0000

Two events happened in close proximity. A current SFC executive announced they were going to stand for one of the at-large community board slots. Shortly thereafter the Linux Foundation acted to remove community member board seats and even removed membership from non-corporate members. All this was done without any warning and other than an email from paypal announcing the end of auto pay there wasn't a word from LF about it until after it was done.

Is there a connection between the two? There is no information to indicate there is. But there is the appearance of impropriety here and the appearance of impropriety is often worse that actual impropriety. So one of the Linux Foundation representatives comes out and releases this non-statement that doesn't even address the apparent impropriety and tries to "re-frame" the question to distract from the issue which at least to me anyway makes the appearance of impropriety even worse.

The LF needs to address the elephant in the room. They need to refute this directly then release the evidence that will prove the truth and that is the raw transcripts from the board meetings after Karen announced her intent to stand for the board slot. Personally I think they can't do this because the two events are correlated and that they moved to remove community representation because they didn't want someone who'd worked on GPL enforcement on the board. Particularly with Vmware on the board.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

krake — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:11:50 +0000

> No, running Doxygen on the code does not produce good, complete documentation.

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

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

krake — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:05:56 +0000

> Whereas most GSoC projects are true programming tasks.

Not due to selection of proposals but because that is the condition by the program's sponsor, Google.

> And the most rigorous one is gender and sexual orientation...

Actually GSoC has a much more rigorous base selection criteria by requiring applicants to be enrolled at an accredited university or college.

Which applies to a far smaller percentage of the overall population, no?

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

krake — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:01:41 +0000

> Don’t the GSoC mentoring organizations get to choose who they accept as a GSoC student?

Yes, they do.

However, some of the participating organizations gets hundrets of applications and it becomes difficult to find distinct yet suitable smaller tasks that applicants need to solve before considered eligible.

There is also quite some system gaming involved, e.g. applicants getting their intro tasks solved by more senior students at the same university for some share of the money.

But all organizations try their best to select the most approriate candidates and I am pretty sure the very same organizations treat selection in the Outreachy program with the same considerations.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

daniels — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:42:30 +0000

If only it wasn't a zero-sum game; say, if there was a way to increase participation from groups who are either collectively not good enough to pass merit-based tests, or in fact not being judged on their merits, but without decreasing participation from other groups. Some kind of strictly additive scheme which is solely based around growing the pool of open source developers for everyone's collective benefit. If only ...

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

tuna — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:37:13 +0000

Nobody compared anyone to Breivik. It was written that using the same terminology as Breivik is in pretty bad taste. It is unfortunate that people like Breivik can "steal" words, but is the world we live in.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

jku — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:45:58 +0000

Supposedly HP had been taking advantage of this mechanism before to have two reps where otherwise they'd get just one.

So you are saying it's unlikely that individuals could have voted in Bdale Garbee, a major Debian contributor for >20 years? For such an extraordinary claim you should have some actual evidence.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

u-ra — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:11:34 +0000

But this stuff is? Or this one, still my personal favourite. Please stop pretending the rules apply equally to everyone.

You may delete my account now, I have no interest in resubscribing or making further comments.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

tuna — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 07:01:16 +0000

What you are complaining about seems to be that the Windows port of GTK3 is not in a good state and that it is difficult to set up PyGI on Windows. If you think that is more important the improving the Gnome platform/experience on Linux (and BSD and Mac) you should definitely try join the GTK and PyGI teams to improve those areas. And maybe you should even join the Gnome foundation to make that a priority and possibly even hire people to do the work. However, the people working on GTK/Gnome and are involved in the Gnome foundation seems to have other priorities. And that is just the way life is.

Point of order: comment filtering

flussence — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 06:03:07 +0000

It would be nice to have an option to collapse comments from accounts under a week old. That'd neatly shut down fire-and-forget concern trolls like the one earlier in the thread.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

voltagex — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 05:39:28 +0000

I agree. Documentation is *hard*, "agile" does not mean "don't document anything".

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

nybble41 — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 05:16:51 +0000

> It's _contributions_ to charities are exempt from taxation.

I referred to the charitable income tax deduction in my second paragraph. However, the complaint was about the tax exemption for the organization itself. Charitable and religious organizations (501(c)3 non-profits) are exempt from income tax in their own right, separate from the deduction for donations to such organizations, and the reason for this is that they are not expected to have any income (i.e. profits) to tax.

The Linux Foundation isn't even classified as a charitable organization in the first place, so donations to it are not tax-exempt. It's a 501(c)6, a different type of non-profit organization which covers business leagues and so forth.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

gnomefu — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 03:55:12 +0000

I would have assumed such grownup comments comparing other posters to Anders Breivik's would not be welcome either. But it seems the definition of "polite, respectful, and informative" is simply an ideological filter to exclude some and empower other rather then a genuine attempt to maintain civil informative discussion.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

xtifr — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:40:57 +0000

Thanks. That's definitely an interesting perspective. Somewhat reassuring, although I retain the right to be highly suspicious of the LF's role in...lots of things. But that does make the whole thing make a lot more sense.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

corbet — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 01:32:04 +0000

What is it with you? I'm done asking for grownup behavior from you. This stuff is not welcome here.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

brine — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 01:16:45 +0000

Ah yes, the appeal to extremism. It seems old Cultural Marxist dogs cant lean new rhetorical tricks?

Its precisely these old dogs who sang sweet songs of Integration to open the gates for millions of fundamentalist to spill the blood of French children. Does the spilt blood of Europe's children have a sweet pong to Cultural Marxists? The silence is defining.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

brine — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:50:04 +0000

This is an industry wide observation. In an industry of roughly tens of thousands of companies globally ranging between 50-500 on average. Roughly 80% Linux desktops with the rest a mix of Mac and Windows. Roughly 20% C/C++ programmers and around 60% who have some scripting ability in Python or similar. The rest are 'power users' excluding accounting and hr. We share quite a lot of code through open source libraries to standardise in certain areas.

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.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

ksandstr — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:18:24 +0000

>(...) multiple studies have shown that attempting to pay attention only to "merit" typically produces results contrary to that goal; (...) A program designed to counterbalance that tendency seems entirely sensible.

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

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

Cyberax — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:57:58 +0000

> The reason that non-profits are exempt from paying income taxes has less to do with "charity" and more to do with the fact that these organizations, by design, do not have any profits to be taxed.
It's _contributions_ to charities are exempt from taxation.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

nybble41 — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:19:27 +0000

The reason that non-profits are exempt from paying income taxes has less to do with "charity" and more to do with the fact that these organizations, by design, do not have any profits to be taxed. Trying to tax them would cost the government more revenues than it brings in. Note that various obviously commercial organizations like the MPAA and RIAA have non-profit tax status, for exactly the same reason: they aren't profit centers and exist to spend money on behalf of their members, not to accumulate assets or pay dividends. The income was earned elsewhere and taxed as such before it every entered the non-profit organization in the form of donations or membership dues or whatever else they chose to call it.

If you want to complain about the impact to the government's take, you should be complaining about the deductions for charitable expenses which are granted to the donors, not the tax status of the organizations they're donating to.

Point of order: comment filtering

robclark — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:13:59 +0000

ahh, thanks, "Filter all guest accounts" drastically improves the signal/noise on this article..

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

tialaramex — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:12:35 +0000

Aha, I see the Foundation is actually a 501(c)6 organisation. So some of my comments don't apply. Whoops.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

tialaramex — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:03:14 +0000

Such a church is exactly as obnoxious, but even more politically untouchable.

The rationale for why tax exemptions of this sort are obnoxious is that taxes are needed to fund government programmes. Some people don't agree with the whole concept of taxation, or think government should do almost nothing, I don't have time to discuss that. But if you agree that the general idea of taxes makes sense, exempting the arbitrary "charitable" activities of these organisations makes no sense. I also won't dive into why churches are a particularly ludicrous exemption, I understand that people who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster can't think of any higher priority, so of course they're going to want the FSM to be tax exempt...

I gave the example of a charity which sends cancer-stricken kids hang-gliding. That seems nice. Sure. But, it's not so nice that we'd divert central government funds specifically to support that arbitrary choice (note, if kids have a heart defect, or want to go surfing, that's not included, wrong charity), surely. So, why is it tax exempt ? If the corporation does the exact same thing but doesn't seek 501(c)3 then it's not tax exempt. The categories in 501(c)3 are super-vague, intentionally in order to permit a broad variety of such organisations, but why?

Sometimes the argument is made that a charity is better able to manage its affairs than a centrally funded government agency, that even a block grant from government would be worse than charitable status. But it's not at all clear that this is better for _society_ and we're funding them, it may be true _for the people running the charity_ but they're not the intended beneficiaries of the rule. Charities often act on the prejudices of their directors, or at the whim of major donors, and whereas a government agency which acts in a prejudiced way or has been "captured" by big money is answerable to that government and thus ultimately the people, the charity is answerable to no-one but its directors. And that takes us full circle to the topic of this LWN article. What the Linux Foundaton is doing here looks suspicious as hell.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

corbet — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:49:15 +0000

Second request: the item in question is not about the GNOME Foundation or the actions of its past director. Can we please bring this conversation to a close?

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

oever — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:46:04 +0000

Every Linux desktop install in a commercial Desktop installation I have seen in the last ~5 years has run KDE.

This sounds highly unlikely to me unless you have seen only a very small number of such installs or have not ventured outside a very atypical monoculture. How many have you seen?

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

tialaramex — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:30:45 +0000

Sure, I guess my point was that in the same way groups of people who don't feel or act in the least bit "corporate" end up forming corporations to obey current US not-for-profit rules, if the law was reformed without touching churches they'd end up forming churches, assured by a lawyer for a healthy fee that this is "just how it's done" so it achieves nothing, except perhaps to make the hypocrisy involved a little more transparent to the layman.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

brine — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:25:17 +0000

"She left the GNOME Foundation in a better state than when she was hired as the ED, all things considered."

This comment some what confirms the impression that most software developers have that the GNOME Foundation has given up supporting desktop and widget toolkit development in favour of perpetuating the employment of the GNOME Foundation staff by soliciting corporate funding under various 'social equality' mantras.

Lets be clear GNOME the desktop and GTK+ the cross platform widget toolkit are essentially dead projects for the vast majority of developers that might develop an application which runs on Linux. Karen did nothing to reverse that trend and did a good deal to scare off serious developers who might contribute by marking large portions of the GNOME Foundations funding off limits to them because they have the wrong Genitalia and instead gifted that money to social vanity projects. GTK is no longer a serious competitor to QT in any respect. Every Linux desktop install in a commercial Desktop installation I have seen in the last ~5 years has run KDE. if for no other reason because any custom tools that are written now use QT or PYQT/PYSIDE so it makes utterly no sense to try to adapt the crippled GNOME desktop into a usable workspace that runs predominantly QT applications.

Good luck with the GNOME Foundation because thats really all that is left. The desktop and the widget toolkit are a distant memory.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

mtaht — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:11:46 +0000

Would starting a church of FOSS make more sense than a 501c(x)?

I've always viewed my cash contributions (and contributors) as "tithing".

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

pboddie — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:10:55 +0000

I was talking about projects quality, not participants quality. About half of OPW projects were things like documentation writing, graphic design or testing. Whereas most GSoC projects are true programming tasks.

True programming tasks!

Once upon a time, things like documentation and tests were regarded as essential deliverables in any complete system. And contrary to what the delusional "the code is the documentation" bandwagon might claim, their absence inhibits the adoption and further development of software.

Writing good documentation is pretty difficult. No, running Doxygen on the code does not produce good, complete documentation. And if only the people writing the code actually bothered to try and write proper documentation, they'd probably produce better code as well.

But I suppose "true programmers" are too busy writing their "high-quality" code to appreciate any of this. No wonder some projects are in a mess, others can't attract and retain productive contributors, and people are cooking up new projects that are supposedly better than existing ones all the time, only for those to flame out, too, and for everyone to move on to the next new shiny thing.

True programmers!

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

jspaleta — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:39:47 +0000

Indeed... the real issue here is the lack of notice concerning the bylaw changes...and as a result the timing of the vote becomes questionable.

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

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

ksandstr — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:39:28 +0000

>yet another Cultural Marxism enforcing agency

Having a bunch of experience in writing contrarian letters-to-the-editor, I'd have suggested leaving the capitalized words out and substituting them with something derived from practice rather than (what sounds like) wingnut tribal doctrine. As you'll have noticed, this attracted people who're more interested in debating your use of those words[-1] (*blush*) which serves to distract from the argument proper; in this case, that a "let's hit the Linux Foundation up for Morally Righteous Dosh[0]" plot may have been afoot.

Also, the expression "cultural marxism" (regardless of the concept's in-/validity otherwise) has a very nasty pong in much of Europe because of those words' association with Anders Behring Breivik's ideological manifesto.

[-1] though mostly it looks like discussion of your person instead. par for the course and all that.
[0] guess they've changed tacks to "GPL enforcement!" from "for teh otherwise helpless girls!", and "poor vulnerable wimminz beset by awful, awful males!" before that...

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

ksandstr — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:23:03 +0000

So... in effect, it's no longer possible to buy a seat on the LF board at $99 plus individual overhead, times however many votes it takes? I'm sure that's much cheaper than the $5k for a vote into a different quota, and certainly less than the 500 kilosmackers a megacorporation would've ponied up for a guaranteed seat. Supposedly HP had been taking advantage of this mechanism before to have two reps where otherwise they'd get just one.

I'd be interested in hearing the other interpretations, which certainly should've been considered and then rejected with explicit justification, and how this one rose to the top from among them. For example, beyond them happening at the same time, there's no reason to believe the bylaws change was related to GPL enforcement. There's also no claim (besides innuendo) that the Linux Foundation is somehow lacking in that department, or even that the shoe-in candidate's election would've changed this aspect one way or the other. The allusion of corporate skulduggery ("they have something against GPL enforcement [because they're crooks]") is also quite mysterious: what would've changed if the bylaws had stayed the same on this matter, what's different now, and how come this isn't part of the argument? And isn't this once again the boring old moralist narrative of Goodie vs. Baddie, with GPL enforcement as the conveniently inarguable hobby-horse du jour?

The way it reads to me is that a leak was plugged before it got exploited a second time. But the other readings must be explored as well, unless it's really the case that someone's sore about it because their own clique didn't get a shot at exploiting that same leak.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

brine — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:37:04 +0000

Your choice to censure this comment while saying nothing about the abusive and hateful OP comment is condoning and enabling such actions. It seems the LWN is aligning itself with I small insular group who want to exclude and disenfranchise the majority of Men and Women who believe there hard work and ability should be the determining factor in advancement. Not the whim of a self appointed in-group of Ideological demagogues who want to impose arbitrary ratios based on sexual orientation, gender and race in what ever percentages titillates there current definition of 'equality'.

For this group if they can not subvert FLOSS into an ideological tool and plunder its resources then they will gladly try to destroy it. The attempts to 'rage-wave' bad publicity for certain FLOSS people and organizations like this current story about the Linux Foundation project are a clear sign of this strategy. If LWN is protecting these comments and giving them a platform then LWN is aligned with and enabling this effort.

You need to think about this. Is this the dark destructive road LWN wants to go down?

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

ebassi — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:19:55 +0000

And was forced to step down after running Gnome out of money.

This is an egregious misrepresentation of the facts, which would be hilarious if it wasn't the case of an agenda being pushed forward.

I can't believe I have to explain this again, but since people like you, with an axe to grind and an agenda to push keep plastering every forum with false or intentionally misleading arguments backed by absolutely NOTHING, I guess I'm fated to keep repeating this stuff forever.

Karen was not the cause of the expenditure freeze employed by the GNOME Foundation (we never "ran out of money" because we stopped spending when we reached the minimum safe funds we had at our disposal, which is a line well above zero). As the Executive Director, Karen serves at the pleasure of the Board of Directors of the GNOME Foundation; the fault for not following up with the sponsors of the OPW initiative lies with the Board of Directors (so it also lies on me, as I was a Director at the time). The board of directors froze the expenditures; the board of directors sent the invoices to the sponsoring organizations; the board of directors lifted the freeze once the invoices had been paid. Karen's role in all of this was to ensure that fund raising and outreach to various organizations went on as expected.

On top of that, Karen decided to step down well after the situation with the OPW funding was well in the black, and the SFC was in dire need of an Executive Director. She left the GNOME Foundation in a better state than when she was hired as the ED, all things considered.

Now, could you please stop the character assassination of an esteemed and valued member of the Free Software community, who has clearly done more for the cause than you? Thanks.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

eean — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:43:11 +0000

Non-profits already have more rules than churches though, so it would be very possible to tighten up how non-profit are run while churches remain lawless.

Garrett: Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

eean — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:37:19 +0000

I doubt there is any mistaking. Anyone who uses the term "Cultural Marxism" has an obvious agenda.