McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

[Posted April 29, 2024 by corbet]

Robert McQueen has posted a message from the GNOME Foundation board describing the current financial situation, plans to improve it, and an increase in the size of the board.

The Foundation has a reserves policy which specifies a minimum amount of money we have to keep in our accounts. This is so that if there is a significant interruption to our usual income, we can preserve our core operations while we work on new funding sources. We've now "hit the buffers" of this reserves policy, meaning the Board can't approve any more deficit budgets – to keep spending at the same level we must increase our income.

(Log in to post comments)

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted Apr 29, 2024 21:17 UTC (Mon) by edgewood (subscriber, #1123) [Link]

I stumbled upon another view of GNOME Foundation's situation that is considerably less cheery and thought that LWN subscribers might be interested.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted Apr 29, 2024 22:09 UTC (Mon) by atnot (subscriber, #124910) [Link]

Oh, it's lunduke saying lunduke things, nevermind then

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted Apr 30, 2024 1:41 UTC (Tue) by rolexhamster (guest, #158445) [Link]

I don't think this blanket dismissal is useful.

The Lunduke post is a bit too verbose and repetitive, but it does raise important issues. Apart from highlighting the apparent lack of performance by the executive director of the Gnome foundation, this is probably more important:

What about Red Hat, SUSE, & Canonical?

GNOME is heavily relied upon by some of the biggest Linux companies on Earth.

Right about now it's worth considering... why haven't Red Hat (or SUSE & Canonical, for that matter) stepped up to provide the needed funding for the foundation which supports their default Desktop Environment?

Maybe they can't. Maybe they don't want to. The reason for the lack of funding is entirely unknown. But it's worth asking, just the same.

For that matter, where is The Linux Foundation? This seems like exactly the sort of thing a "Linux" foundation -- with over a quarter of a Billion dollars in annual revenue -- could do to help "Linux".

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted Apr 30, 2024 6:55 UTC (Tue) by lynxlynxlynx (guest, #90121) [Link]

Judging from the president's update, the CEO is not apparently underperforming. It's hard to judge fully, since we don't know everything, but for half a year's worth of work of someone starting from scratch it doesn't seem glaringly deficient.

All those companies already are supporting the Gnome Foundation. I'm sure more could be raised from them if needed, but the foundation also has to make a good case. Having a break-even budget is a great first step in building more trust. One shouldn't just dump more water into a tub that's leaking ...

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted Apr 30, 2024 7:30 UTC (Tue) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

I don't know anything about Lunduke, but... Holly Million was previously a self-described professional shaman? With no tech experience? Bizarre.

I'm not a gnome user but it probably matters to all linux desktop users.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted Apr 30, 2024 9:29 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

The FSF's executive director has no formal tech background. This is absolutely not unusual. I haven't seen a single person who's actually been involved in the running of a non-profit be upset about the Gnome ED's background.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted Apr 30, 2024 10:27 UTC (Tue) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

But she had been at FSF since 2019 as a program manager. She had previously worked on issues related to copyright, which is part of FSF's mission.

But point taken, an effective executive head need not be familiar with the technical nittygritties. Knowing financial stuff is enough. Just ask Boeing.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted Apr 30, 2024 10:37 UTC (Tue) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

> But point taken, an effective executive head need not be familiar with the technical nittygritties. Knowing financial stuff is enough. Just ask Boeing.

Whether or not you want to face it, the primary job [1] of the head of a nonprofit is fundraising.

[1] As in what takes up the overwhelming majority of their time.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted Apr 30, 2024 11:32 UTC (Tue) by lynxlynxlynx (guest, #90121) [Link]

I don't know any non-profit of GF's size where that's true and I work in the sector. Of course it's the role of the leadership as an extension of the board to keep the organization afloat in all senses of the word, but fundraising is typically a shared task even when you don't have dedicated staff for that.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted Apr 30, 2024 12:46 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

> I don't know any non-profit of GF's size where that's true and I work in the sector

Agreed. I worked for a charity for about a decade, and now work for a company whose primary client base is non-profit organisations. In my experience the chief exec of a non-profit would not be typically spending a non-trivial amount of time fundraising, unless the organisation has fewer than half a dozen employees in total.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted Apr 30, 2024 22:12 UTC (Tue) by lunaryorn (subscriber, #111088) [Link]

Well, the Gnome foundation seems to have just slightly more than half a dozen (namely, eight) employees according to https://foundation.gnome.org/team/

The rest are volunteers as far as I understand.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted May 1, 2024 6:08 UTC (Wed) by lynxlynxlynx (guest, #90121) [Link]

You can see on that list that 3 people have fundraising related roles.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted May 4, 2024 23:18 UTC (Sat) by npws (subscriber, #168248) [Link]

Whether or not that's true, one thing they could have considered is perception. I certainly wouldn't give money to any organization led by a "self-described professional shaman", and I'd be surprised if this opinion isn't shared by many other technical people.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted May 12, 2024 20:24 UTC (Sun) by ebeale (subscriber, #170376) [Link]

Just look her up and you'll see that she:

1. Retired from nonprofit fundraising
2. Followed her passion as an artist AND shaman
3. For whatever reason, got back into the game to work for the GNOME Foundation.

And, I'm assuming that you don't realize it, but your comment is low key offensive in a few different ways.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted May 15, 2024 22:13 UTC (Wed) by DanilaBerezin (subscriber, #168271) [Link]

It's offensive to point out that people who were "self-described shamans" shouldn't by put in a leadership position of a massive, serious organization? Okay that's fine by me. I'd rather be seen as offensive than have that be normalized.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted May 15, 2024 22:19 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

In the US it's illegal to discriminate against employees or potential employees on the basis of their religious beliefs, so whether you like it or not this is something that the board were likely unable to take into account when making a decision.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted May 15, 2024 22:30 UTC (Wed) by DanilaBerezin (subscriber, #168271) [Link]

If you take a quick look into her "shamanism" you will find that it is about as religious as tarot card and mind reading. It has *zero* connection to any actual religious order or cultural identity. It is the same made-up "shamanism" of white hippies in the 60 and 70s who reappropriated actual shamanism from religious and cultural minorities.

Not every belief is religious, and there is absolutely nothing discriminatory about judging unfit for a position based on beliefs that reflect that the person is, at best, a deeply unserious and ignorant person, or, at worst, a person who doesn't actually believe those things but leverages those beliefs to scam those who are ignorant and deeply unserious.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted May 15, 2024 22:49 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

> It has *zero* connection to any actual religious order or cultural identity. [...] Not every belief is religious,

*you* (or I, or the government) do not get to determine whether or not someone else's "religious beliefs" are somehow "valid"

...which is the entire point of the laws that mjg59 mentioned.

> judging unfit for a position based on beliefs that reflect that the person is,

Some of our greatest scientists have held beliefs that were quite outlandish, both in their day and by modern standards.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted May 15, 2024 22:59 UTC (Wed) by DanilaBerezin (subscriber, #168271) [Link]

Okay so I can believe anti vax nonsense, try to become a "career anti vaxer", realize I can't make any money off of it, call it a religion and then threaten to sue anyone who doesn't want to hire me? You see how that could spiral out of control really quickly?

Obviously the line does have to be drawn somewhere. And in the case of the United States, that line is drawn by the government. Since, like I said earlier, her "shamanism" has zero connection to any actually federally recognized religious order, there is no discrimination legally. Since she doesn't even claim to be a part of any sort of religious order and just calls herself a generic "professional shaman" there is no religious element to it all, so morally it isn't discrimination either. But like I said, even if she did claim it was a religion, it would be a ridiculous claim.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted May 16, 2024 0:01 UTC (Thu) by jzb (editor, #7867) [Link]

This thread seems to be going off-topic for LWN, it would probably be best to stop here. Thanks!

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted May 16, 2024 0:04 UTC (Thu) by DanilaBerezin (subscriber, #168271) [Link]

Agreed and will do

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted May 16, 2024 0:35 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

I'm not going to go into the virtues of this in any way, but just to correct something here:

> Since, like I said earlier, her "shamanism" has zero connection to any actually federally recognized religious order, there is no discrimination legally.

That's not what Title VII says. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-d... goes into more detail on this.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted May 16, 2024 0:50 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

> Since, like I said earlier, her "shamanism" has zero connection to any actually federally recognized religious order, there is no discrimination legally. Since she doesn't even claim to be a part of any sort of religious order

What part of *you do not get to make that determination* do you not understand?

,,,,And there is no such thing as "a Federally recognized religious order" for purposes of the 1st amendment.

> Okay so I can believe anti vax nonsense, try to become a "career anti vaxer", realize I can't make any money off of it, call it a religion and then threaten to sue anyone who doesn't want to hire me

First, nobody owes you a job. Secondly, someone can hire you, or not, for almost [1] any reason whatsoever.

But in this case, I'm reminded of a line I saw in a TV show long ago: "When I look at you, I don't see a cripple -- I see an a-hole in a wheelchair."

Fortunately for the rest of us, being an a-hole isn't a protected category.

[1] Protected categories include gender, race, physical disabilities, and religious beliefs.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted May 15, 2024 22:31 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

While I don't know what the heck a shaman is, I know enough to know that it is totally irrelevant to someone's ability as a CxO. In fact, it might even be highly advantageous. While I think your average CxO is probably thick as two short planks, they also tend to have very high EQ (as opposed to IQ) which is the sort of thing I would expect from a Shaman.

I'd have every reason to be upset if I lost a job opportunity simply due to the fact the instrument I play has a well deserved reputation for playing things like "The Stripper", or "Hey Big Spender" ...

Cheers,
Wol

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted May 2, 2024 20:55 UTC (Thu) by flussence (subscriber, #85566) [Link]

This man is utterly terrified and fuming at the idea of a woman. Not even one in a managerial role, the mere idea of one. If he was any more unhinged and up his own ass he'd be ESR.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted May 12, 2024 20:46 UTC (Sun) by ebeale (subscriber, #170376) [Link]

I'd say this guy is fuming at a lot based on the tone of the linked article, and to the link to his own article on hiring Holly Million.

Not limited to:
- hating Gnome foundation (?)
- feeling that the Gnome foundation owes him something (?)
- "omg Gnome foundation is _so_ incompetent they hired a self professed shaman...let's basically put a call out to doxx them"
- you are probably right about the mysoginistic take

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted May 12, 2024 20:49 UTC (Sun) by ebeale (subscriber, #170376) [Link]

EDIT: actually did some research on Lunduke...seems like this guy's thing is not so well thought out, and controversial controversial opinions. Seems to be how he's always made content. So, I'm guessing all of the above, but esp the last bullet point.

McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

Posted Apr 30, 2024 10:15 UTC (Tue) by benzea (subscriber, #96937) [Link]

I think whether this is a problem depends on the role you see for the Foundation within the community.

What I am seeing here, is that they have a hard time to achieve a goal that the Foundation has set for itself years ago. They wanted to scale up the Foundation's business to do more than just keeping the lights on (facilitate organization of affordable conferences, handling infrastructure, some internship programs, dealing with overhead). This plan worked out in some ways, but it appears that it depended on large one-off contributions and never became sustainable.

I do not believe that a failure to raise more money (from outside the community) would necessarily be a large failure for GNOME. If you want the GNOME Foundation to be a strong entity within the community, then this is likely a major problem. If you are happy with the Foundation to simply keep the lights on and work in the background, then it probably doesn't matter too much.