[yAnonymous]

>The GNOME Foundation has run into cash flow problems [...] got into this situation through its Outreach Program for Women [...] "The Outreach Program for Women (OPW) helps women (cis and trans) and genderqueer get involved in free and open source software."

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTY2Mjc

[pseudalopex]

You chose to leave out that OPW was an internship program that GNOME managed on behalf of a number of organizations, that they simply fell behind on sending out invoices and collecting late payments, and that this took place 4-5 years ago. How does any of that show that GNOME has compromised technical hiring for political reasons?

[IAmEveryone]

You are blaming problems with Ubuntu 18.4 on a project to encourage diversity from 2013?

And apart from the 5 years since: it seems the problems were administrative, having nothing to do with the actual content of the program?

Any other problems in your life that’d easily go away if only these women weren’t meddling?

[Karunamon]

Really, GNOME's problem is the low quality of their software and poor responsiveness to user feedback and needs, not inane social initiatives. So long as Red Hat is one of their primary sponsors, it's not going anywhere.

[SmellyGeekBoy]

You're saying their software is poor quality* because they employ... Women?

* Your opinion, not mine.

[RightMillennial]

That is a deliberate mischaracterization of the OP's comment. It in no way implies that the software is poor because of women.

The outreach program is political, and is rather discriminatory and sexist.

[IAmEveryone]

Targeted programs to increase diversity are not sexist, in the same way that taking a bank robber’s loot and giving it back is not theft.

[jake_the_third]

Your analogy makes no sense to me. When evaluating applicants, the only metrics used should be how well the applicant can do his or her job.

Giving applicants preference for having some blessed sex or political leanings is generally a recipe for disaster.

[IAmEveryone]

To explain: certain groups are underrepresented in sought-after professions, at colleges, etc. It is rather widely agreed that this is a result of historical injustices, such as racist or sexist policies and habits not allowing women or non-whites to study at colleges, or get certain jobs.

That is the bank robbery: these groups were robbed of opportunity.

The remedial measures are programs such as the one discussed here, or affirmative action for college admission.

That is "taking the money from the robber, and giving it back to the bank".

The analogy is that the last action does fit your everyday definition of something bad: you are not supposed to take a bag of money from someone against their will. You are not supposed to make employment or acceptance decicions based on sex or race.

Yet, quite obviously, it's stupid to look at those actions in isolation. You have to zoom out, and you'll see: it wasn't his money in the beginning.

That's the analogy, just in case your ignorance was genuine.

[RightMillennial]

If a program deliberately excludes one sex, is it not sexist?

[IAmEveryone]

Targeted programs to increase diversity are not sexist, in the same way that taking a bank robber’s loot and giving it back is not theft.

[yellowapple]

"taking a bank robber’s loot and giving it back is not theft."

I mean, that is technically theft. It's just very obviously justified theft in response to a previous theft (assuming you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is in fact the bank robber from whom you're taking the money).

[IAmEveryone]

It's not. Here's the definition from wikipedia: " theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission with the intent to deprive the lawful owner of it"

...but that's really not the point here, is it?

[yellowapple]

No, it's not the point at all. I just like going off on these sorts of weird tangents :)

Curiously, Wiktionary has a different definition: "The act of stealing property". "Property" in turn has a lot of different definitions, the first being "Something that is owned". Relevantly, neither definition specifies by whom the property is owned; as long as it's someone's property, stealing it is technically "theft" under this sort of broad definition.

Merriam-Webster seems to agree more with you than it does with me ("[...] the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it" / "an unlawful taking [...] of property"), while Dictionary.com seems to be similarly vague ("the act of stealing", though this is lumped in with "the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another" and "larceny").