I don’t know the article author but the article makes a very good point: that person seems to have no software nor technological nor even organization managing experience.
To add insult to injury, this person does not even seem to have core free software values as she run and advertise a business through Facebook.
It is also concerning that the person seems to be trying to erase some of her past while not even managing to do it properly (keeping the facebook page). This seem to indicate a lack of technological awareness.
So there’s a lot of questions here about how that person was chosen has the executive director of GNOME. The profile is very very different from previous directors and doesn’t seem to fit at all the post.
The shamanism aspect is also quite controversial in technological/scientific communities centered on rational thinking. While everybody is free to have its own views, the problem here is that the person is presenting herself has having a business centered around superstition. So it might be interpreted less as the expression of a deep belief and more as the exploitation of credulity (which is, as every religion demonstrates, is a very thin line), something that would deeply be at odd with lot of people in the free software community.
This latest aspect would not be enough to be a red flag alone as we could consider that a person has the perfect right of having a side-hustle making herbal tea and branding it “shamanism” while keeping it completely separate from her work at GNOME but keep in mind that the GNOME director is the public face of the project. When Elon Musk says something frivolous, its bad for Tesla and Twitter, even if unrelated. Same applies here and that’s why a director position is so hard and important.
I find the linked article badly structured and written. It raises the good issues but is on the verge of attacking the person while the real question is “who choose her and what was the process and the rationale?”.
It is possible that the person might become a very good GNOME director. But, yeah, the choice is at first concerning and should be supported by strong arguments.
I’m not too much of a fan of them ragging on her religious views… but yeah, this is pretty on-brand Gnome.
I’m not a fan of the article’s author nor what they’re trying to do in the linked article.
I don’t know the article author but the article makes a very good point: that person seems to have no software nor technological nor even organization managing experience.
To add insult to injury, this person does not even seem to have core free software values as she run and advertise a business through Facebook.
It is also concerning that the person seems to be trying to erase some of her past while not even managing to do it properly (keeping the facebook page). This seem to indicate a lack of technological awareness.
So there’s a lot of questions here about how that person was chosen has the executive director of GNOME. The profile is very very different from previous directors and doesn’t seem to fit at all the post.
The shamanism aspect is also quite controversial in technological/scientific communities centered on rational thinking. While everybody is free to have its own views, the problem here is that the person is presenting herself has having a business centered around superstition. So it might be interpreted less as the expression of a deep belief and more as the exploitation of credulity (which is, as every religion demonstrates, is a very thin line), something that would deeply be at odd with lot of people in the free software community.
This latest aspect would not be enough to be a red flag alone as we could consider that a person has the perfect right of having a side-hustle making herbal tea and branding it “shamanism” while keeping it completely separate from her work at GNOME but keep in mind that the GNOME director is the public face of the project. When Elon Musk says something frivolous, its bad for Tesla and Twitter, even if unrelated. Same applies here and that’s why a director position is so hard and important.
I find the linked article badly structured and written. It raises the good issues but is on the verge of attacking the person while the real question is “who choose her and what was the process and the rationale?”.
It is possible that the person might become a very good GNOME director. But, yeah, the choice is at first concerning and should be supported by strong arguments.