Archive for the ‘PlanetGNOME’ Category

Open source teaches people how to fish

February 27th, 2012 in mozilla, open source, PlanetGNOME

One of the things I love most about the open source communities I’m a part of is that when I ask a question, I just don’t get the answer, I get taught how to find the answer.

A few weeks after I started as executive director of the GNOME Foundation, I asked Dave Neary for someone’s contact information. Actually, it might have been the third or fourth time I asked him for someone’s contact information. He sent me back an email with the contact info I wanted. And a detailed explanation of how he found it. So the next time, I was able to find info like that myself.

I love that when you ask someone in open source a question, they not only answer it, but explain how they found the answer. (I realize some people find that annoying. I really appreciate “learning how to fish.”)

It’s the same empowering attitude that drives people to blog about a problem and how they solved it or found the answer. They are teaching others how to fish.

It’s scary to join an open source project

February 26th, 2012 in mozilla, open source, PlanetGNOME

Photo by DennisSylvesterHurd

Think of the last time you walked up to a complete stranger, stuck out your hand and said, “Hi, my name is …” Depending on how often you do that, it was probably a scary moment. Before you walked up to the person, you had to steel your nerves, decide what you were going to say, and then approach them.

Joining an open source software project is a bit like that. You have to send a mail to a huge list of random people. Or file a bugzilla bug that goes to a ton of random people.

And then imagine the immediate response is “WONTFIX” with no comments. That’s like if the person you got up the nerve to introduce yourself to said, “Not interested.”

I once spent weeks convincing a friend she should help out on an open source software project. She did. And she sent in her work to the mailing list and the first response was full of harsh critique. None of the follow up messages made up for that first message. I never did convince her to push her work forward. Nor to participate in open source again. (She does know exactly what she’d say to that first critic if she ever met him in person!)

What can we do to make sure people trying to shake our hands get a better reception?

How to foster productive online conversations: Mozilla Conductors

February 1st, 2012 in mozilla, open source, PlanetGNOME

When I first started using email, I had a part time job in the computer science department at Rice University. A new grad student joined the department and a few days after he started, I noticed it was his birthday. Knowing he was unlikely to know many people in town, I sent him an email that said, “HAPPY BIRTHDAY” all spelled out in big letters made out of asterisks. He wrote me back “Thanks a lot”. Now in my world, “Thanks a lot” was always said “Thanks a *lot*” with a slightly sarcastic twist to it. I emailed him right back to ask him if he really liked it or if he was being sarcastic. He said no, of course, he really liked it.

So if one happy birthday email can be that confusing, imagine what can go wrong with a complicated email about project directions and motivations … Especially when it’s going out to a mailing list that has hundreds of people on it. That’s what most of us in the open source space deal with every day. Some of us do it better than others. Some days we do it better than others. But we all work at it every day. It’s the way we communicate with our friends, peers and co-workers.

Please meet the Mozilla Conductors

A few months ago, several of us at Mozilla had a conversation about how we could best help people learn how to communicate well online. We have new people joining the project all the time and they have to learn how to communicate on mailing lists, IRC and bugzilla. Those of us helping them realize daily what a challenge it can be. As much as we don’t think about it, cc’ing the right people, quoting previous mail messages and keeping the conversation from getting argumentative are not easy things.

We were looking for a way to help everyone communicate better, exploring all sorts of crazy options like classes and consultants, and realized we had the best resources right inside our project. We have people that are really good at fostering online conversations. They’ve been doing it for years; quietly (and not so quietly) leading and directing the conversations and projects they are part of.

So we sent out a bunch of emails, came to a consensus and created the Mozilla Conductors!

Mozilla Conductors help Mozillians with difficult online conversations. We offer advice, suggestions, a listening ear, moral support and, in the case where the discussion is public, occasionally direct intervention. But the goal is to help everyone communicate effectively, not to be enforcers.  If you end up in a difficult online situation, you can reach out to Conductors via the mailing list or to any individual in the group to ask for help. Maybe you just need a sounding board or  help figuring out how to phrase a particular idea or how to make someone particularly difficult go away. The Conductors will help brainstorm, ask questions,  provide ideas and help. And where we are on mailing lists, we commit to helping  keep the conversations constructive.

We are not an officially appointed group. We are a peer nominated group. We are a group of people from across the Mozilla project. We are a Mozilla Module.

Please help us make online conversations productive and Mozilla a success!

How to hire an Executive Director

January 31st, 2012 in gnome, mozilla, PlanetGNOME

When I told the GNOME Foundation Board of Directors that I was leaving my job as executive director, I told them my number one priority was to hire my replacement. Before I was hired, the GNOME Foundation went through a long period without an executive director and I wanted to make sure that didn’t happen again. At the Boston Summit, there was actually some discussion about whether they wanted another executive director or whether they could hire more specialized individuals for particular tasks. For numerous reasons, they opted to hire another executive director. (I was relieved – speaking as a current GNOME Foundation board member, it would be a lot of work for a volunteer board to manage more staff without an executive director.)

The most amazing thing about this process was that an all volunteer hiring committee was formed and made a recommendation to the board in just two months. We received a number of high quality candidates and we were committed to moving quickly through the interview and decision process.

Executive Director Hiring Process

Here’s the process we used to hire an executive director:

  • We put together a great hiring committee.
  • We created a mailing list and set of private wiki pages for the hiring committee.
  • We drafted and posted the job description.
  • We collected resumes; conducting phone screening as we went. We were quite excited at the number of quality candidates that we got.
    • On the wiki we tracked candidates, who was phone screened, who was set up for follow up interviews, etc.
    • The phone screener for each candidate was responsible for managing that candidate for the rest of the process.
    • All communication that involved decisions went through a GNOME board member who was also part of the hiring committee.
  • We recommended three candidates to the board.
  • The board interviewed the top candidate and negotiated an offer.
  • She accepted! To carry on the tradition, we made her write her own press release. (Actually, Luis Villa helped me with mine.)

The GNOME Executive Director Hiring Committee

The group that agreed to help out and did an awesome job is:

  • Bradley Kuhn, Executive Director at Software Freedom Conservancy. Member of the Advisory Board representing FSF, former Executive Director of FSF. Bradley offered a lot of free software and nonprofit expertise to the hiring process. Bradley has a personal friendship with Karen, which he disclosed to the committee as soon as her application arrived. Other committee members carried out the initial interviews with Karen, and Bradley recused himself on 14 March 2011 when Karen became the top candidate.
  • Dave Neary, Neary Consulting. GNOME contributor, former Director of GNOME Foundation. Dave brought us a lot of GNOME experience and understanding. He was involved in recruiting me for the job several years earlier.
  • Germán Póo-Caamaño, Director of GNOME Foundation. Germán was our board member contact. He pulled us all together and was our communication point with the board of directors. Og Maciel and Brian Cameron, two other board members, joined him midways through the process. We had board members communicate all official decisions to candidates and that turned out to be quite a bit of work. Og did great sending out a lot of emails – some fun and some hard.
  • Jonathan Blandford, Manager of the Desktop team at Red Hat. Member of the Advisory Board representing Red Hat, former Director of GNOME Foundation. Jonathan brought us not only GNOME experience but hiring experience in the open source world.
  • Kim Weins, OpenLogic. Senior VP of Marketing at OpenLogic. I invited Kim to the committee because Kim makes things happen! She brought a wealth of team building and hiring experience as well as strength in execution that kept us moving along whenever we started to stall.
  • Luis Villa, Greenberg-Traurig. Attorney at Greenberg-Traurig, formally attorney at Mozilla, former member of the Advisory Board representing Mozilla, former Director of GNOME Foundation. Luis joined to help us part time. He did not interview candidates but leant his GNOME experience – and he’s the one that hired the former GNOME Executive Director (me!).
  • Robert Sutor, IBM. Vice President of Open System and Linux at IBM. Bob brought a history of GNOME but also ties to the greater industry and a lot of hiring experience. He also drove us to keep moving at times when volunteer orgs tend to slow down.
  • Stormy Peters, Head of Developer Engagement at Mozilla. Former Executive Director of GNOME Foundation, former member of the Advisory Board representing HP, now Director of GNOME the GNOME Foundation (but not at the time of the hiring committee).

The timeline

Here’s the actual time line of how it worked:

  • I gave notice on October 20, 2010 and said we should work on hiring a replacement right away.
  • At the Boston Summit, the board decided to hire an executive director to replace me.
  • The board appointed Germán as the board member in charge.
  • Germán posted the job description on November 7, 2010.
  • On November 29th, Germán involved me in the hiring committee formation.
  • On December 27th, we introduced the hiring committee.
  • We started screening resumes and doing phone interviews.
  • On February 2, 2011, the hiring committee made a recommendation to the board.
  • On March 11, 2011, the board told the hiring committee they were ready to make an offer to the top candidate.
  • Discussions, clarifications, negotiations and communications.
  • On June 21, 2011, we announced that Karen Sandler would be joining the GNOME Foundation!

The process went well and I’d recommend it to others trying to hire in a virtual, global, nonprofit environment. There are parts that could have been more efficient but we learned and adjusted as we went. We talked to a large number of high quality candidates and hired a new executive director in an a very efficient manner – all done by a volunteer board of directors and a volunteer hiring committee!

Does open source exclude high context cultures?

September 19th, 2011 in mozilla, open source, PlanetGNOME

High context cultures value personal relationships over process. You have to know someone before you can trust them and work with them. They also tend to be less explicit and rely more on tone of voice, gestures and even status to communicate. Typically Asian countries are more high context than Western countries. Think Korea and Japan.

Low context cultures are process driven. They rely on facts and processes. Their communication style is much more direct and action-orientated. They are orientated towards the individual rather than the group. Western cultures like the US and Germany are considered low context.

So if you start a project and send email to a bunch of folks and ask them to just jump in and contribute, which group do you think will get going more quickly? The low context culture folks. As long as you define the process and procedures, they are willing to work alone and with people they don’t know very well. That’s how open source works. So our projects are optimized for low context cultures.

What happens to the high context folks when invited to participate on a mailing list? They have a hard time sending emails and contributions to people they’ve never met and have no relationship with. (Imagine walking up to a random person on the street and critiquing their dress style. It’s that kind of awkward.) Would they make good contributors? Absolutely! Do we need to find other ways other than “join the mailing list” to get them involved? Absolutely! For an example of what’s worked well, see the great work that Emily Chen, Pockey Lam and Fred Muller and others have done with GNOME Asia.

As I think about developer engagement at Mozilla, I realize we need to have different plans for different cultures. It’s even more important to be present in person for high context cultures. To establish a personal relationship before you invite them to join your project. (Or ask them to use open technologies or spread the word.) We should be following up in different ways, setting up different programs for different countries. Luckily the Mozilla Reps program will help provide the infrastructure for this.

How do you think we should encourage high context cultures to get involved with open source? If you are from a high context culture, how did you get started?

 

Transparent voting: why I like the idea even though I think it would be useless

August 9th, 2011 in gnome, PlanetGNOME

Transparent voting is an idea that is ideally really useful but also completely useless in GNOME.

Some people in GNOME have been asking for transparent votes. When the board votes, they would like to know who voted which way. I totally agree with them – it’s important to know how different board members think so that you can make educated choices. However, I also agree with the people that say that it would be totally useless.

For example …

Yesterday and today the board discussed where GUADEC 2012 will be. It’s a big decision and not one we took lightly. We discussed it, we invited the potential hosts to come and talk to us, we debated it and we debated it some more. Many hours in total.

And yet when the vote happened, it was unanimous.

So what happened? If the vote was unanimous, why all the discussion? Because it wasn’t really unanimous. We all liked different points of different bids. And some of us weren’t sure which way we wanted to vote to start with. Then we discussed and some people changed their positions, others remained firm. We discussed some more. And although it was a unanimous vote in the end, I believe several board members still might have preferred a different bid. (They were all awesome.) The unanimous vote was the way for everyone to say “I’m behind the group decision.” More than half of us were 100% behind one bid and the few of us that weren’t were signalling that they agreed. They were willing to go with the group decision. They signaled that by the way the voted. You’d have to see their body language to understand.

So while it would be interesting for people to know how individual board members feel about issues (like maybe copyright assignment), seeing the results of votes is unlikely to be informative. We need to figure out how to convey the conversation, not the vote results.

Firefox is visiting us

June 15th, 2011 in mozilla, PlanetGNOME

Firefox is visiting us for a while before he heads to Brazil with me. He’s been a big hit so far.

I was asked if he came in kid sizes. I foresee a request for a Firefox Halloween costume. Luckily I have experience making Firefox costumes too …

 

My jury duty experience

June 10th, 2011 in mozilla, PlanetGNOME

Yesterday I reported in for jury duty. I was impressed by the whole process. But while I left feeling like I’d been a part of something big, over the course of the day I ended up feeling unsettled and dissatisfied. The case we were on was abruptly closed by mistrial about 3 hours into the morning. It’s not so much that I think justice wasn’t served (there will be another trial, I assume) but I really feel for all the people who put a lot of emotional effort into getting through the day and some of them are going to have to do it again.

Here’s how the day went, for those curious about jury duty.

We showed up at 8:30. (Actually we were supposed to show up between 8:15 and 8:30. I showed up at 8:25 and most of the other ~50 jurors were there already. They had to pull up an extra chair for me. Only one other person showed up later than me. For the record, I was hanging out in my car with my smartphone.) We watched a 10 minute video on why we have a jury system and why it’s such an important thing. It managed not to be too cheesy.

We were then escorted to the court room where the prosecutor and defense were already waiting. The judge showed up, we all swore an oath, and then they called up 12 of us to begin the jury selection process. In spite of his black robe and high seat, the judge came across as a very friendly, likeable guy. He managed to ask really personal and tough questions of all of us in an nonthreatening manner and while he didn’t make it lighthearted (the subject wasn’t lighthearted), he did keep the day flowing and made everyone feel like they were treated with respect. We felt valued and respected.

I was relieved to hear the trial was expected to take less than a day. At that point, I was interested in serving. (I had been terrified I was going to end up on a six month trial.)

We all got asked some standard questions (name, age, education, occupation, length of time you’ve lived here, kids, parents, spouses, their occupations, do you have any friends or family that are in law enforcement, sued anyone, been sued, been victim of a crime, etc.) We had to answer each question out loud for the whole group. (You could request to answer a particular question in private.) Then the judge followed up on some questions and asked some additional questions. Note that the whole group of 50 potential jurors is still sitting there listening and 12 of us are answering each of these questions.

After that each of the attorneys got their turn. They used their jury questions to make points. The defense attorney in particular really wanted to make sure we knew that putting her client on the stand might be a bad move for him and did we understand why. She was really condescending about how she asked questions. But perhaps I just didn’t like her after she told me engineers had a reputation for being poor communicators and could I tell her about a time when I thought I’d perfectly clear and yet the other person just hadn’t gotten it. I don’t think she was implying that I was a bad communicator but that all the “geeks” I worked with were. I really wanted to tell her what I thought about that but I stuck to the question. I told her nobody is such a good communicator that they can’t be misunderstood. (Perhaps that’s why she chose me to stay. After listening to the victim though, I believe the victim was communicating perfectly clearly. If the guy didn’t get it, he had problems.) I can’t say I liked the prosecutor’s questions any better though. She tried to explain “reasonable doubt” by asking me if I stop at every green light. I hate rhetorical questions that you are forced to answer in public to make someone else’s point. Especially when you don’t get to ask questions back. (Perhaps that’s why I liked the judge – we were allowed to ask him questions.)

One woman had to recount her personal experience with domestic violence including kidnapping and beatings and the subsequent trial for the entire group of 60+ people at the public trial. (She could have asked to answer them in private.) She was not dismissed and she had to answer more questions about her experience for both the attorneys and then she wasn’t chosen for the jury. I really felt for her. What a shitty way to spend your morning.

They chose 6 of us to serve as jurors and we got a short break. The jury room was nice with windows, a couple of private bathrooms, food, water, and rather alarmingly to me, a very large selection of magazines. (How long were we going to be in there?) We were allowed to use our phones in the break room though so we could catch up on voice mails and emails.

The jury ended up being half men, half women. Three of us from my small town, none from the town where the crime took place. All of us were college educated (which was not the case of the pool they pulled from.) Two were teachers. Three of us were in technology or engineering.

We were sworn in (again) and the judge told us what the trial was about. A guy was charged with trespassing and interference of telephone services.

Then the attorneys gave their opening statements.

According to the prosecutor, the victim had broken up with her boyfriend. He had been calling nonstop, showing up at her work place and her hang outs. The day in question, he was waiting in her parking garage for her. In spite of the fact that she repeatedly told him to leave her alone, he followed her up to the apartment, stood in the door for a while, came in and continued hounding her. When she reached for her phone to call 911, he grabbed her wrist and threw her phone to the ground, shattering it. She then went to a neighbor’s apartment to call 911 and stayed there till the cops came.

I ended up liking the defense attorney even less than I had during jury questioning. Her argument was that her client (a large body builder) felt like he was being attacked (by a small woman) and the cell phone got accidentally knocked to the floor. Proof of this, in her mind, was the fact that he had not destroyed the whole apartment. I wondered why she was creating mental images of slashed sofas and shattered furniture in our minds. (She mentioned these several times.) She also (later in the case) argued that the victim should not have expected her client to understand “please go away, leave me alone” when repeated 15 times because he had a previous brain injury and she knew about it.

Then the victim took the stand as the first witness. My biggest regret about the mistrial is that she will have to tell her story all over again to a whole new group of people in front of that same guy and face challenging, tricky and mean questions from the defense all over again. (Note that the victim is not the one that decides to prosecute cases like this.) The defense attorney was obviously trying to make the victim lose her composure. For example, the victim was asked when she last had sex with the defendant. She said the first weekend in April. A couple of minutes later, the defense attorney started saying, so you last had sex with him the last weekend in April and proceeded to talk about it that way for the next 5 minutes. Without a question, so the victim couldn’t correct her. Then when she asked the victim to find the date on the calendar, she gave her a hard time about “but you said the last weekend in April!” It was all just theatrics.

But the defense attorney won this round. She got the victim to say that one of the reasons she didn’t want to date the defendant was because she learned about his criminal record.

The minute “criminal record” was said, the trial was over. Mistrial.

The jury is not supposed to know if the defendant has a prior criminal history and, as the judge said, it’d be really hard to erase it from our minds.

So I don’t know which way I would have voted. I know which way I was leaning but there were still several witnesses and other evidence to examine. I do feel very bad that the victim will have to take the stand again. After listening to her, I am sure she would just much rather the whole thing went away. I wish her the best and I hope the guy leaves her, and all other women, alone in the future when they say “leave me alone”.

As an interesting side note, in Colorado the jury is allowed to question the witnesses too. We were given paper to write our questions on. We would then pass them to the judge and if admissible and he’d ask them for us. We all had lots of questions but we had to wait for the attorneys to finish their questioning first so we never got to them.

Did you have to fight?

June 5th, 2011 in Business, Career, kids, mozilla, PlanetGNOME

Yesterday it was implied that I might not know everything about raising boys because I wasn’t in physical fights as a child. While I am sure I do not know everything about raising boys, I was startled to think that not engaging in physical fights would be a parenting gap.

I was even more taken aback to be told my career path was easier because I never had to engage physical fights. While I’m not afraid of controversy, I avoid physical fights. I consider that a wise decision that has advanced my career.

So I promised to get more data about people in “successful careers” like mine and whether they thought fighting was important or not.

I was able to find data on fighting in kids: fighting among school aged children is declining in the US. Whereas 43% of 9-12 graders had been in a fight in the past year in 1991, only 32% had in 2009. There is also a gender and race difference. 39% of boys had been in a fight and only 23% of girls.

But I did not find any data that broke down those that fought and what careers they ended up in.

So here’s a short survey for you. I will share all the data on my blog. (This survey is anonymous. I am not saving IP addresses or any other identifying information.)

Please take a minute to fill it out.

Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey, the world’s leading questionnaire tool.

Who’s helping who?

May 14th, 2011 in mozilla, PlanetGNOME, Web/Tech, women

At Philly Emerging Tech some girls from TechGirlz came into meet with me and Molly Holzschlag. I think we were supposed to be role models for them but two minutes into the meeting, I realized the girls were the role models!

One of the girls was already writing a game in Python and had already considered the benefits of open sourcing it or not.  Another was concerned with the lack of emotion you can convey in a text message and how we might be able to improve that. A third girl had already set up her own dog treat business complete with an online presence. And the youngest in the group? She was in a Lego club and could build and program computer robots. Her teacher? An older girl in the group. These girls ranged in ages from 8 to 15 and they were already accomplishing amazing things.

We talked about careers in tech, how you can take technology into other fields, the things that frustrated them, the things that motivated them, … I sure learned a lot and came away motivated!

For more on what we talked about read Todd Weiss’ excellent recap.

Thanks to Tracey Welson-Rossman for TechGirlz and for inviting me to participate.