Companies which accept donations, might want to put this in their charters then? Or a quarter of expenses could slip unmentioned in the charter?

I don't understand this post, and I consulted the budget FAQ too. I guess there is an immense ambiguity(, or an intention to mislead readers) in both the FAQ and your post.

You say "yes, the outreach program took funds out of the general funds". So, do you mean it should not have taken the funds out of the general funds? Where else should it have taken them from?

From FAQ - "GNOME, as the lead organization, has been responsible for managing the finances for the entire effort". I don't understand what managing the finances means. Does it mean all participating organizations have their own income sources, and GNOME just does the paperwork + temporary loaning to smooth over their temporary difficulties? Or does it mean GNOME finance the OPW ?

And if GNOME is only managing the finances, and not financing the activities, how did 25% of GNOME budget get taken up with OPW? Is all of the 25% temporary loans?

If GNOME is actually financing OPW, there is a big transparency gap here - the donors to GNOME may not be aware that one fourth of their money goes toward outreach to arbitrary subsets of people.

Lot different too, in spite of common words. Whodathunkit!!! Try again, find the difference.

I didn't, read again

Strawman

Doesn't change anything

To credibly say it is a simple case of exclusion, you DO have to prove women are as good as men in coding.

Exactly because they are socially stratified from "normals", your chances of crossing them by coming into contact with them are negligible. So effort to maintain relationships with them is negligible.

Effort to keep "powerful people" un-crossed is enormous in non-"civilized" society because they are frequently right next to you.

Also, in "civilized" society, people powerful enough to get away with murder are about one in a million. In non-"civilized", there are multiple within a tribe, say 15-100.

You haven't proven that the girls produce code that's just as good. Computer Science grades are very different from ability to code.

There is slight evidence that girls produced less good code - the fact that they weren't hired in spite of similar grades to people who did get hired. Could be discrimination - girls lose productivity by getting pregnant, after all. But there are arguments against that - pregnant nurses and teachers are much more unable to work than pregnant coders.

And then girls joining Computer Science in 1980s couldn't have more contact with computers before joining, than girls joining Computer Science in 1990s, and more so for 2000s. Yet girls joined less in 1990s and 2000s - more evidence that girls knowing what computer programming is like, before joining Computer Science, DO NOT join computer science.

In 1980s, they could have joined just because it was a "new" field, which they had no idea of, and likely to provide indoor jobs like typists had.

Destruction/prevention of evidence FTW!!!

Yes, and it is extremely hard work to acquire and maintain this wealth. Your tribe has powerful members that will kill you if you cross them - really or only in their perception. That means letting go of your good food because they want it, offering them your mate if they like her, besides the harder physical work you do than the powerful members.

Plasma is not a necessity for glowing - typically gases start visibly glowing at lower temperatures than needed to qualify as plasma. So low temperature flames glow without being plasma.

No. It is because there was no evidence that the slight was enormous. A variant of "innocent until proven guilty".

That, in turn, is because it is not punishable in any sense of the word to intentionally damage cameras/surveillance devices. So they were damaged - a variant of "you get what you measure".

No, the story of Job pretty much undoes everything. God does things according to some rules, but may choose not to do it. Just because fuck you.

While any superheated gases can glow visibly, flame has a stricter definition which does not allow your statement to be true. You'll have to redefine flame for that.