this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
94 points (99.0% liked)
Linux
48212 readers
2094 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
From the Gnome Foundation page about her. I am genuinely struggling to:
Like FFS, do they just let anybody in?
Tbf though the results speak for themselves though, GNOME has definitely been thriving under her though much of that is also do to the effort of others. She did put in a lot of work and no one inside GNOME complained so I assume it was a good deal. Also the page you linked shows she's been working in executive positions in non profits for a while so definitely qualified.
She lasted slightly longer than a head of lettuce. I don't think she'll be the reason Gnome Foundation lives or dies.
That must be one plucky lettuce head considering that holly has been the director for nearly a year.
Gnome foundation will continue to thrive with and without her but she has made some decent contributions while she was there
Unlike some other leaders that have been compared to lettuce.....
That's certainly something to bear in mind, but as someone who worked in academia, resume ≠ qualified. Especially at the Director+ levels, unqualified people get to become provosts and presidents all the time.
She may be qualified on paper, but given the fact that she voluntarily left after only 10mo, it speaks to the fact that she's likely a flake and very self-interested. Gnome may have thrived, but it remains to be seen if that was because of or in spite of her; perhaps she was so hands-off that everybody else just ran things the way they needed to be run.
Yeah. I do find her "shamanism" to be something to eyeroll at, but her actual work experience shows her running multiple non-profits, and by all accounts she did a decent job at Gnome.
Clearly her shamanism BS didn't actually affect her ability to work at Gnome or the other places she's worked.
You can be an absolute moron/a crazy person in some areas, whilst simultaneously being qualified to do some difficult jobs.
Steve Jobs thought a fruit diet would cure pancreatic cancer, but he still had the chops to run Apple. A certain GNU figure that the Linux community loves has some, uh, unusual views on whether children can consent to sex or not, but he was still a great programmer and advocate for FOSS. I have a friend who thought Manchester, not London, was the capital of England, yet he works as an aeronautical engineer (and not for Boeing lol) in a senior design position.
A lot of OSS projects and small non-profits? Yes. The cost to entry is "be willing to volunteer" and very few people pay that cost so basically anybody can get in. These aren't exactly competitive positions. And if they improve the software honestly idk if they're a shaman healer or whatever. I care about the software. As long as their energy healing garbage isn't somehow getting into the software who cares?
As I pointed out elsewhere, if she was a warm body to fill a position and was completely hands-off, and that allowed everybody else to do what was needed, then it was overall a positive. However, a good leader can definitely help propel the group more than one who is just there.
Both examples are positive, but they aren't equally positive outcomes.