Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[Nuritzi Sanchez]

Hi Lefty,

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Lefty  wrote:

> My constructive criticism is that you not take your code of conduct
> guidance from people who are unrepentant poster children for the need for a
> code of conduct.
>
> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/EMACS_virgins_joke
>

We're all here to learn from the past. Since drafting a CoC can become an
emotionally charged subject very quickly, we need to make sure not to make
things personal.

I appreciate your sensitivity to a past issue that caused a lot of
controversy, so thanks for sending that link. It's a great example for us
to consider when drafting the CoC, so that we dissect the issue and think
about how we might craft a policy that can help us avoid similar fall outs
in the future.

Both have been added to our resource list
. Thanks again!



> On Sep 15, 2016, at 9:32 AM, nurit...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi Lefty,
>
> We want to keep this productive and constructive. Please feel free to
> email us any specific language that you think we should stay away from and
> why, or any resources you think are a good example of a CoC.
>
> Remember, we want both examples of CoCs that you don't think work, and
> ones you think do. The important part is to explain why.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best,
> Nuritzi
>
> ..
>
> *Nuritzi Sanchez*  |  +1. <+1.650.218.7388>650.218.7388 <+1.650.218.7388>
>  |  Endless 
>
> On Sep 14, 2016, at 1:18 PM, Lefty  wrote:
>
> I'm unconvinced that people should be taking their conduct tips from
> "Beloved Saint IGNUtious" and the Shrine of the EMACS Virgins..,
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Sep 14, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Richard Stallman  wrote:
>
>
> Here's a code that I helped write:
>
> http://abstractions.io/policies/#code-of-conduct .
>
>
> I tried to avoid vague, subjective rules
>
> that could be interpreted in many ways.
>
>
> --
>
> Dr Richard Stallman
>
> President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
>
> Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
>
> Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
>
>
> ___
>
> foundation-list mailing list
>
> foundation-list@gnome.org
>
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
>
>
> ___
> coc-working-group-list mailing list
> coc-working-group-l...@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-working-group-list
>
>


-- 


.

*Nuritzi Sanchez*  |  +1.650.218.7388 |  Endless 


[image: --]

Nuritzi Sanchez
[image: https://]about.me/nuritzi

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[nuritzis]

> On Sep 14, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Richard Stallman  wrote:
> 
> Here's a code that I helped write:
> http://abstractions.io/policies/#code-of-conduct .
> 
> I tried to avoid vague, subjective rules
> that could be interpreted in many ways.

Thanks, Richard! Let us know if you have any other resources to consider. 

Best, 
Nuritzi


> 
> -- 
> Dr Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
> Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
> Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
> 
> ___
> coc-working-group-list mailing list
> coc-working-group-l...@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-working-group-list
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[nuritzis]

Hi Lefty,

We want to keep this productive and constructive. Please feel free to email us 
any specific language that you think we should stay away from and why, or any 
resources you think are a good example of a CoC. 

Remember, we want both examples of CoCs that you don't think work, and ones you 
think do. The important part is to explain why.

Thanks!

Best,
Nuritzi

..

Nuritzi Sanchez  |  +1.650.218.7388 |  Endless 

> On Sep 14, 2016, at 1:18 PM, Lefty  wrote:
> 
> I'm unconvinced that people should be taking their conduct tips from "Beloved 
> Saint IGNUtious" and the Shrine of the EMACS Virgins..,
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On Sep 14, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Richard Stallman  wrote:
>> 
>> Here's a code that I helped write:
>> http://abstractions.io/policies/#code-of-conduct .
>> 
>> I tried to avoid vague, subjective rules
>> that could be interpreted in many ways.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dr Richard Stallman
>> President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
>> Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
>> Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
>> 
>> ___
>> foundation-list mailing list
>> foundation-list@gnome.org
>> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
> 
> ___
> coc-working-group-list mailing list
> coc-working-group-l...@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-working-group-list
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[James]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Richard Stallman  wrote:
> My practical question is, which of those lists _do his messages
> actually get through to_?
>
> I should send my reactions to the lists that his messages
> actually reach, and not to those his messages do not reach.

I would respectfully recommend to treat his email address as SPAM when
his messages reach you, since based on previous comments and postings
I've seen from him, he's obviously just a troll and doesn't need to be
fed.

Good luck!
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > I don't know, but maybe he's just not subscribed. If so, his posts
  > won't appear until approved by a moderator.

My practical question is, which of those lists _do his messages
actually get through to_?

I should send my reactions to the lists that his messages
actually reach, and not to those his messages do not reach.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[Olav Vitters]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 08:29:50PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> We should judge proposals based on what they say and their effects,
> not based on personalities.

FYI: Those messages were moderated (IIRC Lefty is), there's nobody
really actively looking at moderated emails (various reasons). Once
something is in a moderation queue please ensure that your
comment/remark is worthy to be let through. 

-- 
Regards,
Olav
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 20:33 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Ironically, I was serving as his conduit into the list(s).
> I will certainly stop.
> 
> Which of these lists is he banned from?  Both?

I don't know, but maybe he's just not subscribed. If so, his posts
won't appear until approved by a moderator.

Michael
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[Richard Stallman]

  > My guess is that Lefty is replying publicly, that his posts are not
  > being allowed through the list for some reason, and that Richard
  > understandably does not realize nobody else can see the posts he is
  > replying to.

Ironically, I was serving as his conduit into the list(s).
I will certainly stop.

Which of these lists is he banned from?  Both?


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[Jens Georg]

> I do not understand.  What I am doing is sending the reply to a
> message to the same lists that the other message went to.  I do that
> because these messages attack me and I deserve a chance to respond.

I assumed that you were accidently moving a conversation from the
private ML to the public one, missing the part you were replying to.

Apparently there is a moderation hickup, so sorry about that.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[Nuritzi Sanchez]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Richard Stallman  wrote:

>   > Can you please stop leaking half a conversation from a private mailing
>   > list to a public one? Thank you.
>
> I do not understand.  What I am doing is sending the reply to a
> message to the same lists that the other message went to.  I do that
> because these messages attack me and I deserve a chance to respond.
>
> What is it about this that is wrong?
> Would you please spell out concretely what actions you are criticizing?
> What, concretely, are you asking me to do instead?
>

Hi Richard, you're not doing anything wrong. I think the problem is with
the moderation of the emails. Lefty's emails may not all be coming in, so
it's hard to know if everyone has seen the entire conversation unfold. I'm
not the foundation-list moderator, so I'm basing my response on Shaun's
last email.

*@Everyone *- The Foundation list does not need to know the entire
conversation going on. It's not our business and seems to be personal
between two members. I agree that we should protect members from
harassment.

*@Richard* and *@Lefty*, if either of you feels like you are being
personally harassed, please send an email to
coc-working-group-l...@gnome.org describing the full concern and we'll try
to help. The entire Foundation list no longer needs to be involved in the
threads you guys are sending as it has devloved from being productive and
has become more personal. Let's try to have a constructive conversation
instead of one full of personal attacks.

I'd like to raise the point that we do not have an organizational CoC with
a strong enforcement policy. This is something the CoC Working Group is
hoping to propose as a Phase II of this project. This would help with what
James is talking about.

It takes each and every one of us to promote a safe and welcoming space. We
hope that you'll help us remain productive through this CoC drafting
process and welcome more resources and examples for us all to learn from.



>
> ___
> coc-working-group-list mailing list
> coc-working-group-l...@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-working-group-list
>
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[Richard Stallman]

  > Can you please stop leaking half a conversation from a private mailing 
  > list to a public one? Thank you.

I do not understand.  What I am doing is sending the reply to a
message to the same lists that the other message went to.  I do that
because these messages attack me and I deserve a chance to respond.

What is it about this that is wrong?
Would you please spell out concretely what actions you are criticizing?
What, concretely, are you asking me to do instead?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[Shaun McCance]

On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 07:04 +0200, Jens Georg wrote:
> Can you please stop leaking half a conversation from a private
> mailing 
> list to a public one? Thank you.

In Richard's defense, I don't believe the emails he's replying to are
intended to be private. In the mailing list archives, there are a
number of "Message not available" entries:

https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2016-September/thread.h
tml

My guess is that Lefty is replying publicly, that his posts are not
being allowed through the list for some reason, and that Richard
understandably does not realize nobody else can see the posts he is
replying to.

> > 
> > > 
> > > My constructive criticism is that you not take your code of
> >   > conduct guidance from people who are unrepentant poster
> > children
> >   > for the need for a code of conduct.
> > 
> > He's exaggerating about me, but that's the smaller error.  His
> > fundamental error is in the general premise that he wants us to
> > accept
> > without examination: that we should judge proposals based on
> > opinions
> > about the people who worked on them.
> > 
> > We should judge proposals based on what they say and their effects,
> > not based on personalities.
> ___
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[James]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Jens Georg  wrote:
>>
>> I do agree that seeing only part of the conversation isn't
>> particularly helpful,
>
>
> Sorry for not making this clear, that was the point I was trying to make
> here. Nothing else.

Indeed, now an apology from me, if it wasn't clear that I wasn't
trying to interject against you, but rather both:
1) agree with your comment
2) ask if someone is looking into helping deal with the alleged harassment.

I still haven't heard anything about (2) but hope that it is resolved soon.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[Jens Georg]

I do agree that seeing only part of the conversation isn't
particularly helpful,


Sorry for not making this clear, that was the point I was trying to make 
here. Nothing else.

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[James]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Jens Georg  wrote:
> Can you please stop leaking half a conversation from a private mailing list
> to a public one? Thank you.

I have to interject here. What it sounds like is that one foundation
list member (doesn't matter who it is) is getting harassed (possibly
off-list to some degree) by another person. I would hope that the
foundation can take steps to decide if this alleged intimidation is
happening or not, and if so, to help remedy the situation.

I do agree that seeing only part of the conversation isn't
particularly helpful, but hopefully someone on the foundation board
can ensure that this can be made at least somewhat of a safe and
welcome space.

Thanks
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[Jens Georg]

Can you please stop leaking half a conversation from a private mailing 
list to a public one? Thank you.



My constructive criticism is that you not take your code of

  > conduct guidance from people who are unrepentant poster children
  > for the need for a code of conduct.

He's exaggerating about me, but that's the smaller error.  His
fundamental error is in the general premise that he wants us to accept
without examination: that we should judge proposals based on opinions
about the people who worked on them.

We should judge proposals based on what they say and their effects,
not based on personalities.

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[Richard Stallman]

  > My constructive criticism is that you not take your code of
  > conduct guidance from people who are unrepentant poster children
  > for the need for a code of conduct.

He's exaggerating about me, but that's the smaller error.  His
fundamental error is in the general premise that he wants us to accept
without examination: that we should judge proposals based on opinions
about the people who worked on them.

We should judge proposals based on what they say and their effects,
not based on personalities.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[Richard Stallman]

"Lefty" has resumed his old practice of attacking anything that is
associated with me, mainly as a way of associating my name with
a cloud of vague disapproval.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[Richard Stallman]

Here's a code that I helped write:
http://abstractions.io/policies/#code-of-conduct .

I tried to avoid vague, subjective rules
that could be interpreted in many ways.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[Nuritzi Sanchez]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Liam R. E. Quin  wrote:

> On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 12:07 -0700, Nuritzi Sanchez wrote:
> >  proposing to draw up a standard code of conduct for GNOME events.
>
> You could maybe start with the libregraphicsmeeting.org policy,
> http://libregraphicsmeeting.org/lgm/public-documentation/code-of-conduc
> t/


Awesome, thanks, Liam! Just added it to our list of resources on:
https://wiki.gnome.org/eventCoCresources


-- 


.

*Nuritzi Sanchez*  |  +1.650.218.7388 |  Endless 
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[Liam R. E. Quin]

On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 12:07 -0700, Nuritzi Sanchez wrote:
>  proposing to draw up a standard code of conduct for GNOME events.

You could maybe start with the libregraphicsmeeting.org policy,
http://libregraphicsmeeting.org/lgm/public-documentation/code-of-conduc
t/

Liam

-- 
Liam R. E. Quin 
W3C XML Activity lead
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[Luis Villa]

This is terrific to see. I'm sorry that I probably don't have time to help
out much, but look forward to the final result.

Luis

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:49 PM Nuritzi Sanchez <
nurit...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:

> Dear Foundation Members,
>
> GNOME has never had a standard code of conduct for events. This has
> historically placed a burden on GUADEC organizers in particular, as they
> have had to draft and take responsibility for a code of conduct every year.
>
> This GUADEC, a group of us formed a working group to try and resolve
> this, by proposing to draw up a standard code of conduct for GNOME events.
> This effort has been endorsed by the Foundation Board of Directors and we
> are now in the process of researching codes of conduct to inform the one we
> will propose.
>
> *I'm writing to see if anyone else is interested in joining the Code of
> Conduct working group* and to give Foundation members information about
> how they can participate in the process.
>
> We will be meeting regularly (every other week) to push this project
> forward so that we prepare it in time for the 2017 GUADEC committee to
> consider, and in time to make it available during the 2018 GUADEC bid
> process. The Code of Conduct for events will be a phase one project for
> the working group, and we plan to work on the Code of Conduct for the GNOME
> community as a phase two project.
>
> The committee will be doing the legwork of researching and proposing the
> Code of Conduct, but Foundation members will have opportunities to give
> feedback, and ultimately the Board will vote on the proposal. Below, you
> can find more information on the proposal process itself. We've tried to
> make it an analytical process since it can otherwise be an emotionally
> charged subject.
>
> *If you are interested in the group's progress, but don't want to commit
> to joining the group*, you can stay updated on our progress by following
> the meeting minutes and other materials posted at
> https://wiki.gnome.org/Diversity/CoCWorkingGroup/
>
> *At this time, we encourage you to email coc-working-group-l...@gnome.org
> *, or any of the committee members
> privately, with any of the following you'd like us to consider:
>
>- Code of Conduct resources
>- Details of incidents you have observed or been involved in, and
>which are relevant
>- Other specific feedback regarding codes of conduct
>
> coc-working-group-l...@gnome.org is a private mailing list for members of
>  the code of conduct working. Alternatively, you can share your feedback
> with any working group member(s) privately, and they will provide an
> anonymized summary to the working group. You can provide further
> instructions to them on how you want your feedback to be shared.
> Information shared with the working group might be shared anonymously with
> the Board and the community unless otherwise specified (e.g. as not to be
> shared, or as ok to be shared with personal identification by all affected
> parties).
>
> You can also email us if you'd just like to learn more, or talk to us on
> IRC at #diversity.
>
> Thank you in advance!
>
> Sincerely,
> Nuritzi
>
>
>
> Code of Conduct for Events
>
> Overview
>
> *Why is this important? *
> Having a code of conduct is an essential part of holding conferences, and
> is often a sponsorship requirement. It is also important for GNOME's health
> and longevity as it will ensure that the project is welcoming and inclusive
> for both current and prospective GNOME members. While GNOME is generally
> a friendly and welcoming place (yay!), there has been a small number of
> incidents over the years where a Code of Conduct has, or should have,
> helped the community.
>
> Each year, organizing groups had to draft their own Code of Conduct for
> their event and there has often been disagreement that surrounded the
> adoption of a Code of Conduct for an event. Having a standard event Code of
> Conduct will remove work from the event organizers and uncertaintly for the
> community members for what to expect at the event. It will also make it
> easier to support event organizers, through standard processes and 
> theestablishment
> of a dedicated support team for Code of Conduct issues.
>
> We want to make sure there is a consistent standard for the GNOME
> community across the globe. As such, the Code of Conduct will need to
> highlight areas that will change across geographic locations. We also
> recognize that we need to better define what a "GNOME event" is and when
> organizers will be expected to use the standard Code of Conduct.
>
> *Our** Plan*
> We have assembled a Code of Conduct Working Group to gather feedback among
> community members and propose a standard event Code of Conduct. The details
> for our proposal process are below. Once the standard Code of Conduct is
> approved, this team will also provide ongoing support to event organizers
> with its enforcement.
>
> The Board has already 

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Magdalen Berns]

 People can do as they like on their own systems and resources, but when
 participating in the GNOME community, they should do so with respect.
 Refusing to exclude anyone is itself an exclusionary policy; it selects
 for the kind of people who will put up with absolutely anything, and
 excludes people who do not feel comfortable in such an environment.
 That creates a kind of community that I would not want to see GNOME
 become; there are too many of those already, because there are too many
 projects unwilling to kick out awful people.


I suspect we might actually agree if we debated this properly, but I think
you're right and we should try not to digress too much. Just to say, I
probably could have worded that a bit better: An objectionable a-hole or
awful person might not mean the same thing to you as it does to me, so we
probably ought to be a bit careful about defining behaviours in those terms.

Magdalen
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Allan Day]

Hi Marina!

Marina Zhurakhinskaya mari...@redhat.com wrote:
...
 Thanks to all the candidates for stepping up to run for the board and for all 
 the work you already do for the Foundation!

 Many free software organizations have adopted codes of conduct for their 
 events [1] and some for their communities [2]. Detailed codes of conduct with 
 specific enforcement guidelines signal to newcomers that the community has 
 high standards of behavior. They give participants who observe or are subject 
 to inappropriate behavior something to point to that shows that such behavior 
 is outside of what is expected and guidelines on how to proceed in getting it 
 addressed.

 What do you think about adopting a detailed code of conduct, similar to the 
 one used for GUADEC 2014 [3], for all GNOME events and creating a similarly 
 detailed code of conduct for the GNOME community?

Most of the time, GNOME is a great place to work and have fun, but
sometimes conversations can get heated and/or personal, and the GNOME
project has a collective responsibility to manage with these
situations. It's important to have effective codes of conduct in
place, not just to ensure that GNOME is a friendly and welcoming
place, but also so that contributors feel safe from attack, and have
support when things go wrong.

My view is that a code of conduct needs to strike a balance between
length and specificity on the one hand, and readability on the other.
In the past, I have found the existing general code of conduct [1] to
be too general and vague, and I think that we need something that is
longer and clearer. At the same time, a code of conduct is a kind of
constitutional document, and sends an important signal about the
identity and character of the project, so we need to be careful about
having something that seems too prescriptive and bureaucratic.

It's not just the rules about conduct that are important here. One
thing that we really lack are guidelines about how infringements of
the code of conduct should be handled. This creates the danger that
people feel unfairly treated if they are accused of breaking the code
of conduct, and it opens the door to self-appointed judges taking the
law into their own hands. We need to be clear about what should happen
if someone breaks the code of conduct. (Who will arbitrate? What are
the potential outcomes? What can you do if you disagree with the
decision?) My view is that these procedures shouldn't be overly
bureaucratic, and should have reconciliation and mediation as their
goal, rather than punishment or excommunication. Above all, they
should be independent, neutral and fair.

Allan
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Marina Zhurakhinskaya]

- Original Message -
 From: Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org
 To: Marina Zhurakhinskaya mari...@redhat.com
 Cc: foundation-list foundation-list@gnome.org
 Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 1:06:49 PM
 Subject: Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates
 
 On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 11:41:06AM -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote:
  Thanks to all the candidates for stepping up to run for the board and
  for all the work you already do for the Foundation!
  
  Many free software organizations have adopted codes of conduct for
  their events [1] and some for their communities [2]. Detailed codes of
  conduct with specific enforcement guidelines signal to newcomers that
  the community has high standards of behavior. They give participants
  who observe or are subject to inappropriate behavior something to
  point to that shows that such behavior is outside of what is expected
  and guidelines on how to proceed in getting it addressed.
  
  What do you think about adopting a detailed code of conduct, similar
  to the one used for GUADEC 2014 [3], for all GNOME events and creating
  a similarly detailed code of conduct for the GNOME community?
 
 I'm entirely in favor of an improved code of conduct, both for events
 and in general.  And thank you for raising this issue.
 
 Some searching turned up https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct
 , but that's definitely insufficient.  (It's a nice set of sentiments,
 but not a functional code of conduct.)  By contrast, the GUADEC 2014
 code of conduct you linked to sets the higher standard I would expect,
 and that I've come to expect from other conferences as well.  I'm in
 favor of improving the general code of conduct to the same standard.
 
 Would you consider putting forth a concrete proposal along those lines,
 taking into account the models and requirements for an effective code of
 conduct?

Yes, I'd be interested in working on a proposal for an events and community 
codes of conduct.

Thanks to the candidates who shared their thoughts on this so far!

Marina

 In the process, I'd also suggest extending the Applies to
 for the code of conduct to include not just lists, bugzilla, and
 specific individuals, but also conferences (such as GUADEC), IRC and
 other communication, and members of the Foundation and the Board.
 
 - Josh Triplett
 
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Tobias Mueller]

Hi!

On Sa, 2015-05-23 at 11:41 -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote:
 What do you think about adopting a detailed code of conduct, similar
 to the one used for GUADEC 2014 [3], for all GNOME events and creating
 a similarly detailed code of conduct for the GNOME community?
It's a complicated subject, but I echo pretty much was Alexandre said.

I appreciate that we want to make people feel welcome and safe at our
events.  And I support that goal.  I'm not convinced a detailed list of
offenses, such as the GUADEC 2014 one, achieves that goal, though.

Cheers,
  Tobi


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Josh Triplett]

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 05:05:30PM +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote:
 On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
  Nobody is asking anyone to sign anything.  A CoC would simply be a
  stated policy for expected behavior on community resources, such as
  mailing lists, IRC, Bugzilla, wikis, email, etc.
 
 Except the board did ask the GUADEC 2014 attendees to sign something.
 There was a box that needed to be checked to register for the
 conference.

I was talking about a hypothetical improvement to the community code of
conduct, not to the conference code of conduct.  For a conference code
of conduct, it makes sense to require explicit assent, not least of
which because when people have spent money getting to and attending an
event, and they then do something sufficiently severe to warrant being
excluded from that event, explicit assent helps protect the conference
from further trouble that they might try to stir up as a result.  That
doesn't apply as much to free online communication and community
resources.

- Josh Triplett
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Alexandre Franke]

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
 Nobody is asking anyone to sign anything.  A CoC would simply be a
 stated policy for expected behavior on community resources, such as
 mailing lists, IRC, Bugzilla, wikis, email, etc.

Except the board did ask the GUADEC 2014 attendees to sign something.
There was a box that needed to be checked to register for the
conference.

-- 
Alexandre Franke
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Alexandre Franke]

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Marina Zhurakhinskaya
mari...@redhat.com wrote:
 Hi,

Hi,

 Many free software organizations have adopted codes of conduct for their 
 events [1] and some for their communities [2]. Detailed codes of conduct with 
 specific enforcement guidelines signal to newcomers that the community has 
 high standards of behavior. They give participants who observe or are subject 
 to inappropriate behavior something to point to that shows that such behavior 
 is outside of what is expected and guidelines on how to proceed in getting it 
 addressed.

 What do you think about adopting a detailed code of conduct, similar to the 
 one used for GUADEC 2014 [3], for all GNOME events and creating a similarly 
 detailed code of conduct for the GNOME community?

First of all, it is important for people participating in the
community activities, be them online (mailing list discussions, IRC,
bugzilla…) or offline (GUADEC, hackfests…), to be aware that they have
someone they can talk to if they need to. They should also know that
suffering from attacks, or feeling like it is the case, is nothing to
be ashamed of, and that they can trust the listed contacts to have a
listening hear and provide an appropriate response.

It is however also very important for them to feel welcome and I know
that a code such as the one used for GUADEC 2014 fails to achieve
that. As the organizer, I was approached by people, seasoned
contributors as well as newcomers, who told me they felt uneasy
because the code conveyed the message that there was a constant threat
and that they should be on their guard. I share their concerns and I
would feel the same way if I had to attend another event with the same
code. I want to emphasize that I'm not saying there is no threat at
all, and I'm taking this very seriously. What I'm saying here is that
we want a positive environment.

Long texts also suffer from the TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read) effect,
and I'm convinced many people who sign up for events with a checkbox
saying I have read the code of conduct and I agree to this terms
actually think yada yada yada whatever, I just want to participate
and I don't care/have time to read this. Some people have argued to
me that it's ok since all we should care about is people signing off
the code so that it can be enforced on them. This is a pretty
shortsighted way of thinking and I'd say I'd rather have people read
and take into account a short message without having to sign anything
than them signing something they don't acknowledge and us having to
take action afterwards.

Another issue I have with strong codes of conduct is that often they
try to substitute themselves to the appropriate authorities. There are
laws and bodies whose job is to enforce them. The people in charge of
a gathering should not have to list illegal activities as
unacceptable. Most of us are not lawyers and have limited knowledge of
the legality of such texts, even more so in an international context
such as ours. We should strive to act as interfaces with the local
authorities, not try to supersede them. That is of course not to say
that we should call the police when the appropriate response is to
call someone out on their bad behaviour, but threatening with
sanctions is most of the time inappropriate too.

The last point I want to cover is codes of conduct vs. their actual
implementation. In many cases, organizers decide on a code of conduct
but then they don't properly train the staff or take actions. If you
have a look at the timeline of incidents on the geek feminist wiki,
you'll find examples of such cases. I consider more important to have
people willing to help and prepared than having the code itself. In
fact, while I disagree with the GUADEC 2014 code of conduct and they
way it was handled, I was happy to give a hand to solve issues at
previous events which I helped organize.

-- 
Alexandre Franke
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Carlos Soriano Sanchez]

Hi Marina,

I think we all agree we want a welcome community, and that means searching for 
the commune divisor and not allowing anything outside that.
As far as I saw, all the previous answer from the candidates share the same 
opinion.

I would actually like to have a code of conduct for every part of GNOME, like 
IRC, Bugzilla, events, etc.
And I always though this one https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct is 
not enough.

But it's true that even if I take seriously any inappropriate language or 
discrimination,
I felt uncomfortable reading the code of conduct of GUADEC 2014, and I think we 
don't have to substitute law forces, because we are not.

I'm thinking something more concise and shorter than the one at GUADEC 2014, 
with a more friendly language, but expressing a strong position
and applicable to all parts of GNOME.

I have in mind something like:

---
In GNOME we want a friendly community and we require these points from every 
person involved:
- Friendly and polite language.
- No discrimination, and respect towards believes, race or gender.
- Not inappropriate jokes, images or comments.
- In doubt, be always cautious, don't assume the other person thinks like you. 
Always ask firsts.

If you think someone misbehave on the points above described or you feel 
uncomfortable for any reason, even
in something different than those points, don't hesitate to contact the GNOME 
code of conduct support team or people
in charge, we will glad to talk and help you =)

Any misbehavior could cause to take any actions from the GNOME code of conduct 
support team or the people in charge.
---

Which also includes taking actions on IRC and Bugzilla towards the people that 
insult or shows an unfriendly behavior.

I think anything else relies in the law authorities (we can't do more than just 
expel and ban the person, but some actions could require more),
and we have to delegate to them everything that surpasses those points...

A detailed code of conduct could for one part, suffer the TLDR as Alexander 
said, and on the other part, limit the actions
GNOME can take towards misbehavior that was not thought when the code of 
conduct was written.
i.e. The misbehaving person can say: It's written like this, so you can't take 
a different action than what is written.

Cheers,
Carlos Soriano

- Original Message -
| Hi,
| 
| Thanks to all the candidates for stepping up to run for the board and for all
| the work you already do for the Foundation!
| 
| Many free software organizations have adopted codes of conduct for their
| events [1] and some for their communities [2]. Detailed codes of conduct
| with specific enforcement guidelines signal to newcomers that the community
| has high standards of behavior. They give participants who observe or are
| subject to inappropriate behavior something to point to that shows that such
| behavior is outside of what is expected and guidelines on how to proceed in
| getting it addressed.
| 
| What do you think about adopting a detailed code of conduct, similar to the
| one used for GUADEC 2014 [3], for all GNOME events and creating a similarly
| detailed code of conduct for the GNOME community?
| 
| Thanks,
| Marina
| 
| [1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Adoption
| [2] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Community_anti-harassment/Adoption
| [3] https://2014.guadec.org/conduct/
| ___
| foundation-list mailing list
| foundation-list@gnome.org
| https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
| 
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Josh Triplett]

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 05:15:29PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
 [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
 [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
 [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
 
 I suggest that
 we postpone discussion on codes of conduct until after the election.
 It is likely be a very big debate and likely to drown out
 discussion with the candidates.

I would partially agree.  The purpose of the candidate QA is for
prospective voters to seek out information they desire about candidates,
in order to inform their vote.  So, to the extent people are seeking
further information specifically about the candidates and their
positions, that's fine; to the extent people are looking to discuss
codes of conduct in general, or start a large discussion about what
GNOME should actually do, that should wait until we have the new board.

- Josh Triplett
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Andrea Veri]

2015-05-23 17:41 GMT+02:00 Marina Zhurakhinskaya mari...@redhat.com:

 What do you think about adopting a detailed code of conduct, similar to the 
 one used for GUADEC 2014 [3], for all GNOME events and creating a similarly 
 detailed code of conduct for the GNOME community?

Having a final version of the Code of Conduct (from now, CoC) for the
yearly GNOME events is definitely something the new Board should look
at during the next term. While we can't legally enforce anything - as
we don't have the jurisdiction to do so - it's important for new and
existing contributors to know what they should expect from an event
the GNOME Foundation organizes. The events we promote see the
participation of contributors and users from all over the world coming
from different countries, religions and habits having in common their
love for the GNOME platform and community. One of our duties, as Board
members, is to ensure these people feel comfortable participating at
the events we promote and that no harassment or other inappropriate
behaviour takes place on any of these events. In addition the CoC
should be the document where offended people can find a local contact
to report the inappropriate behaviour they were target of.

There seems to be a misunderstanding [1] on what the purpose of a CoC
is and how enforceable one might be and at what level. The GNOME
Foundation (or any other private organization) does not have the
jurisdiction to enforce a document such as the one proposed for the
GUADEC 2014 edition [2]. A breakage of the CoC does not directly
result in a civil or penal sanction of any form unless the relevant
legal entity (police, local law enforcement) verifies the occurrence
and issues it. The same applies with a different communication channel
such as the Internet where abusers might get a ban for their account
or IP without receiving any other possible legal consequence. That
said breaking any of the rules (I would define them as General
guidelines when participating to a GNOME event) won't result in a
lawsuit or other local law enforcement *unless* the behaviour is
explicitly listed as in illicit (violation of a duty, obligation or
generally considered as harmful for other people) from a law of the
State where the event is taking place. In the case of GNOME's CoC (I'm
looking at the GUADEC 2014 edition) pretty much all the offending
behaviours listed there would be considered as illicit from the vast
majority of countries in the world as they truly represent a menace to
people's dignity, integrity and freedom and thus enforceable even by
the local law enforcement.



[1] https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2015-May/msg00052.html
[2] https://2014.guadec.org/conduct/

-- 
Cheers,

Andrea

Debian Developer,
Fedora / EPEL packager,
GNOME Infrastructure Team Coordinator,
GNOME Foundation Board of Directors Secretary,
GNOME Foundation Membership  Elections Committee Chairman

Homepage: http://www.gnome.org/~av
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Josh Triplett]

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 07:11:42PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
 On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
  I'm entirely in favor of an improved code of conduct, both for events
  and in general.  And thank you for raising this issue.
  
  Some searching turned up https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct
  , but that's definitely insufficient.  (It's a nice set of sentiments,
  but not a functional code of conduct.)  By contrast, the GUADEC 2014
  code of conduct you linked to sets the higher standard I would expect,
  and that I've come to expect from other conferences as well.  I'm in
  favor of improving the general code of conduct to the same standard.
 
 Why and how is it definitely insufficient?

Marina linked to several resources about codes of conduct and their
effectiveness; specifically, see
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_conduct_evaluations .

For instance, a more effective Code of Conduct should include
information like For issues arising on mailing lists, IRC, or Bugzilla,
contact exam...@gnome.org, who can help address issues, and if
necessary, can limit or ban access to those resources.  Which I would
hope is simply a statement of what we'd *already* do; I'd be shocked,
for instance, if the IRC channel operators or server admins have never
had to ban anyone.

For the record: I'm not personally looking to put forth a proposal to
update the current community code of conduct; I'm simply stating that I
would be quite receptive to a well-considered proposal to do so.

 I quite like the Code of Conduct and I've signed it. By contrast, the
 2014 GUADEC one is a very long statement specifically about a
 conference, not about a community. I don't see how the board has _any_
 influence on the GNOME community. This while the conference one assumes
 you're attending a conference and that someone can expel you, can
 possibility contact law enforcement, etc.

And that's the upper limit of what a Code of Conduct for a mailing list,
IRC channel, Bugzilla, or other community resource should do as well:
expel someone from a list, channel, Bugzilla server, etc.  Nobody's
talking about a document that has legal effect.

While I disagree with the portion of the current CoC that says There is
no official enforcement of these principles (not least of which for
almost certainly being inaccurate), I agree with the this should not be
interpreted like a legal document.  For instance, nobody should be
saying well, they're acting terribly and being disruptive, we all know
it, but they're not violating the exact letter of the CoC, so my hands
are tied.

 I don't follow why I'd sign something can cause legal issues for me if I
 could do without that.

Nobody is asking anyone to sign anything.  A CoC would simply be a
stated policy for expected behavior on community resources, such as
mailing lists, IRC, Bugzilla, wikis, email, etc.

- Josh Triplett
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Magdalen Berns]

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org
wrote:

 On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 07:11:42PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
  On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
   I'm entirely in favor of an improved code of conduct, both for events
   and in general.  And thank you for raising this issue.
  
   Some searching turned up
 https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct
   , but that's definitely insufficient.  (It's a nice set of sentiments,
   but not a functional code of conduct.)  By contrast, the GUADEC 2014
   code of conduct you linked to sets the higher standard I would expect,
   and that I've come to expect from other conferences as well.  I'm in
   favor of improving the general code of conduct to the same standard.
 
  Why and how is it definitely insufficient?

 Marina linked to several resources about codes of conduct and their
 effectiveness; specifically, see
 http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_conduct_evaluations .

 For instance, a more effective Code of Conduct should include
 information like For issues arising on mailing lists, IRC, or Bugzilla,
 contact exam...@gnome.org, who can help address issues, and if
 necessary, can limit or ban access to those resources.  Which I would
 hope is simply a statement of what we'd *already* do; I'd be shocked,
 for instance, if the IRC channel operators or server admins have never
 had to ban anyone.

 For the record: I'm not personally looking to put forth a proposal to
 update the current community code of conduct; I'm simply stating that I
 would be quite receptive to a well-considered proposal to do so.

  I quite like the Code of Conduct and I've signed it. By contrast, the
  2014 GUADEC one is a very long statement specifically about a
  conference, not about a community. I don't see how the board has _any_
  influence on the GNOME community. This while the conference one assumes
  you're attending a conference and that someone can expel you, can
  possibility contact law enforcement, etc.

 And that's the upper limit of what a Code of Conduct for a mailing list,
 IRC channel, Bugzilla, or other community resource should do as well:
 expel someone from a list, channel, Bugzilla server, etc.  Nobody's
 talking about a document that has legal effect.


 While I disagree with the portion of the current CoC that says There is
 no official enforcement of these principles (not least of which for
 almost certainly being inaccurate), I agree with the this should not be
 interpreted like a legal document.  For instance, nobody should be
 saying well, they're acting terribly and being disruptive, we all know
 it, but they're not violating the exact letter of the CoC, so my hands
 are tied.


OK in light of these responses, I feel I should maybe better clarify that
whilst I agree this sort of stance may be a fair way to moderated
communications with non-members, I do not agree with expelling card
carrying members from lists, channels or servers under any circumstances.

If someone has committed a *serious* breach of conduct, then the board do
technically already have the power to revoke foundation membership which is
the upper limit of what the board can enforce - (what’s currently lacking
is a clear, transparent and fair process for that). In such *exceptional*
circumstances, such privileges as access to the mailing list, IRC or git
subscriptions could (in theory) justifiably be revoked under GNOME’s bylaws
and California State law. However, partial exclusion of any card carrying
member via an informal process could too easily become an affront to our
democracy, lead to censorship, discriminatory treatment or victimisation,
so therefore this is not a policy I could ever advocate, in principle.
Ultimately, people have a right to be objectionable a-holes. as long as
they are not infringing on anyone else’s rights in the process, in my view.

I hope that better clarifies my stance on this issue.

Magdalen
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Josh Triplett]

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:34:14AM +0100, Magdalen Berns wrote:
 OK in light of these responses, I feel I should maybe better clarify that
 whilst I agree this sort of stance may be a fair way to moderated
 communications with non-members, I do not agree with expelling card
 carrying members from lists, channels or servers under any circumstances.

I agree that people should not lose access to resources while remaining
a Foundation member.  An offense serious enough to permanently lose
access to those resources is an offense serious enough to revoke
someone's membership in the Foundation.

Let us hope that we don't ever have to put that into practice.

 Ultimately, people have a right to be objectionable a-holes. as long as
 they are not infringing on anyone else’s rights in the process, in my view.

I regret that this mail is too short to fully contain the depths of my
disagreement.  Rather than continue an extensive debate on what is
likely a fundamental point of disagreement, I'll summarize my own
position on the same point, and leave the rest for some time other than
the candidate QA period:

People can do as they like on their own systems and resources, but when
participating in the GNOME community, they should do so with respect.
Refusing to exclude anyone is itself an exclusionary policy; it selects
for the kind of people who will put up with absolutely anything, and
excludes people who do not feel comfortable in such an environment.
That creates a kind of community that I would not want to see GNOME
become; there are too many of those already, because there are too many
projects unwilling to kick out awful people.

See also
http://www.slideshare.net/dberkholz/assholes-are-killing-your-project

- Josh Triplett
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Magdalen Berns]

Hi Marina,

Thanks for your question!

What do you think about adopting a detailed code of conduct, similar to the
 one used for GUADEC 2014 [3], for all GNOME events and creating a similarly
 detailed code of conduct for the GNOME community?


I hold the view that the vast majority people will consciously do their
best to avoid drawing negative attention to themselves unless they feel
they have support. Ideally, we want to be able to do what we can to nurture
an atmosphere where members still feel free to express themselves, but also
recognise that this self expression will not be supported if it comes at
the direct expense of anyone else’s rights. We also want to be able to
provide a concrete means of reassuring contributors that their wellbeing
matters to us.

I would therefore advocate that the event CoC initiative employed last year
at GUADEC continue and I would also advocate taking the idea of a community
CoC forward in principle too. As regards the formal community CoC idea
specifically: I reckon it would likely need to contain some very considered
wording to ensure it’s not left too open to subjective misinterpretation
and it would probably be advisable for us to ensure we publish it along
with a clear and transparent complaints policy which outlines a) how
complaints are going to be handled, b) how long they are going to take to
be processed, c) who is specifically responsible for dealing with them and
d) what our approach to confidentiality is.

Anyway, I am really pleased you have raised a debate about this and I agree
that it is important. I hope that the idea gets a heathy concensus from the
rest of the community too, as I would be very willing to get behind it.

Magdalen
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Olav Vitters]

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
 I'm entirely in favor of an improved code of conduct, both for events
 and in general.  And thank you for raising this issue.
 
 Some searching turned up https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct
 , but that's definitely insufficient.  (It's a nice set of sentiments,
 but not a functional code of conduct.)  By contrast, the GUADEC 2014
 code of conduct you linked to sets the higher standard I would expect,
 and that I've come to expect from other conferences as well.  I'm in
 favor of improving the general code of conduct to the same standard.

Why and how is it definitely insufficient?

I quite like the Code of Conduct and I've signed it. By contrast, the
2014 GUADEC one is a very long statement specifically about a
conference, not about a community. I don't see how the board has _any_
influence on the GNOME community. This while the conference one assumes
you're attending a conference and that someone can expel you, can
possibility contact law enforcement, etc.

I don't follow why I'd sign something can cause legal issues for me if I
could do without that.

I think in the question the GNOME community vs foundation members are
mixed up. Those are not the same thing.

I'm a bit surprised that people see a Code of Conduct as something new.
See e.g. https://mail.gnome.org/; we already expect people to follow the
Code of Conduct.

And before someone misunderstands, I have enforced the Code of Conduct,
I've signed the existing one and agree to the thoughts behind both.

This maybe my annoyance with volunteering and then getting too much do
this or else.. that takes the fun out of it. I prefer assume people
mean well.



For lurkers:
https://2014.guadec.org/conduct/
https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct
-- 
Regards,
Olav
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Magdalen Berns]

Hi Olav,

I don't follow why I'd sign something can cause legal issues for me if I
 could do without that.


I am not sure why you are concerned that a community code of conduct could
cause legal issues for you, are you able to elaborate on that?


 I think in the question the GNOME community vs foundation members are
 mixed up. Those are not the same thing.

 I'm a bit surprised that people see a Code of Conduct as something new.
 See e.g. https://mail.gnome.org/; we already expect people to follow the
 Code of Conduct.


Marina can correct me if I am inadvertently misrepresenting her intention
here, but I think the reason she is suggestion a community code of conduct
is essentially because the mailing list code of conduct is (as the name
suggests) specific to the mailing list and there is also no official
enforcement of those sorts of principles (nor should their be, in my view).

And before someone misunderstands, I have enforced the Code of Conduct,
 I've signed the existing one and agree to the thoughts behind both.


Which CoC are you referring to here? (there's so many in this thread now, I
can't keep up! ;-))

This maybe my annoyance with volunteering and then getting too much do
 this or else.. that takes the fun out of it. I prefer assume people
 mean well.


I am aware this concern exists for some members of the community about the
principle of CoCs and I can sympathise with that worry too, but let's
explore in context: Assuming people mean well on the mailing list is really
just another way of saying don't jump to conclusions. Objectively that's
a really sensible thing to suggest people to think about doing on mailing
lists, since lots of people do often react without thinking on those
things... However, this is about how we propose to address *serious*
examples of detrimental misconduct, not trivial mailing list squabbles
which members are able to resolve between themselves.

Magdalen
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Magdalen Berns]

Hi Richard,

I agree, it is probably appropriate for those of us who have answered to
hold off on debating about CoCs for the time being. Apologies for the
noise. I'm happy to back off so other candidates can answer Marina's
question. Do carry on... :D

Magdalen

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:

 [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
 [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
 [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

 I suggest that
 we postpone discussion on codes of conduct until after the election.
 It is likely be a very big debate and likely to drown out
 discussion with the candidates.

 --
 Dr Richard Stallman
 President, Free Software Foundation
 51 Franklin St
 Boston MA 02110
 USA
 www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
 Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Cosimo Cecchi]

Hi Marina,

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Marina Zhurakhinskaya mari...@redhat.com
wrote:

 What do you think about adopting a detailed code of conduct, similar to
 the one used for GUADEC 2014 [3], for all GNOME events and creating a
 similarly detailed code of conduct for the GNOME community?


I welcomed the adoption of an event code of conduct for GUADEC 2014, and I
would support extending similar rules for events organized by GNOME.
I don't think that all events necessarily need the same level of detail
though; as an example in events that are invite-only, like hackfests, it
might be overkill or not viable for the organizers to formalize a code of
conduct, or have a team to enforce it. I also like to think that in such
settings the social situation is less prone to incidents that require a
code of conduct to resolve, as participants likely know each other already
and are pre-selected.

I'm more ambivalent about extending a community-wide code of conduct beyond
the current one; mostly because it can be hard to determine the boundaries
of the community such code would try to protect and really hard to enforce
anything on some channels in practice. The current code also does not make
distinction between disrespect/harassment (Be respectful and considerate,
even though the word harassment is not used) and etiquette best-practices
(Try to be concise), and I don't think there should be any enforcement on
the latter parts. I would be interested in understanding what kind of
improvements and goals you have in mind for such a community code of
conduct.

Cheers,
Cosimo
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

I suggest that
we postpone discussion on codes of conduct until after the election.
It is likely be a very big debate and likely to drown out
discussion with the candidates.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Josh Triplett]

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 11:41:06AM -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote:
 Thanks to all the candidates for stepping up to run for the board and
 for all the work you already do for the Foundation!
 
 Many free software organizations have adopted codes of conduct for
 their events [1] and some for their communities [2]. Detailed codes of
 conduct with specific enforcement guidelines signal to newcomers that
 the community has high standards of behavior. They give participants
 who observe or are subject to inappropriate behavior something to
 point to that shows that such behavior is outside of what is expected
 and guidelines on how to proceed in getting it addressed.
 
 What do you think about adopting a detailed code of conduct, similar
 to the one used for GUADEC 2014 [3], for all GNOME events and creating
 a similarly detailed code of conduct for the GNOME community?

I'm entirely in favor of an improved code of conduct, both for events
and in general.  And thank you for raising this issue.

Some searching turned up https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct
, but that's definitely insufficient.  (It's a nice set of sentiments,
but not a functional code of conduct.)  By contrast, the GUADEC 2014
code of conduct you linked to sets the higher standard I would expect,
and that I've come to expect from other conferences as well.  I'm in
favor of improving the general code of conduct to the same standard.

Would you consider putting forth a concrete proposal along those lines,
taking into account the models and requirements for an effective code of
conduct?  In the process, I'd also suggest extending the Applies to
for the code of conduct to include not just lists, bugzilla, and
specific individuals, but also conferences (such as GUADEC), IRC and
other communication, and members of the Foundation and the Board.

- Josh Triplett
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Lefty (石鏡 )]

On 12/15/09 4:09 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) zee...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
 Hi,
 
 Lefty wrote:
 Given the proposition that proprietary software is illegitimate, and
 the statement above, do you believe that the GNOME Foundation and
 community should distance itself from companies which produce proprietary
 software?
 
 Specifically, should the Advisory Board be dissolved, and should the
 Foundation refuse further financial support from the companies that
 are currently on the Ad Board?
 
 I for one am interested in Richard's position on this. Mine is clear: I have
 no problem at all working with companies who want to improve GNOME or the
 GNOME platform, even if they develop proprietary software. And the money they
 give to GNOME gets used to improve GNOME, so as long as there are no strings
 attached, I don't care particularly why they give it.
 
 On the other hand, I feel under no obligation to promote their non-free
 software offerings, or guilt in encouraging free equivalents of their
 proprietary components  products.
 
   I fee like you took thoughts out of my mind but unlike me were able
 to express them very nicely. :)

I'm actually still hoping to get a response on this...



___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[guido iodice]

Hi to all.

I'm not a GNOME Foundation member, then I apologize for this e-mail. But as
enthusiastic GNOME user, I would like to send you my opinion.

First at all: thank you Richard Stallman and Miguel De Icaza for GNOME idea.
Thank you Miguel for GNOME hacking and for Mono too. Thank you RMS for GCC,
Emacs and other packages of GNU system.  Especially thanks to all GNOME
hackers to improve GNOME every day.
If some of you use/develop/love some proprietary software, this not matter.
Thank you for your free code in GNOME.

As user, my vision is that free software is a competitor of non-free
software. It is simple for me: free software was born to replace proprietary
software.

Not only GNU/Linux is a competitor of Mac OS X and Windows, but all FLOSS
are a competitor of its proprietary counterparts. I.e.: Firefox is a
competitor of IE and Safari (and Chrome, that is partially non-free).
GCC is a competitor of proprietary compilers (and GCC won :-) ).
GNOME was born as a competitor of KDE because it was based on a proprietary
framework. Today GNOME and KDE are friends and both free/open source.

So the Free/Open Source Software is - taking it as a whole - a competitor of
proprietary software.

You may be not in agree with me, but many users see the issue in these
terms. They would like to have free/open tools to replace proprietary tools.
They feel free/open source software as a proprietary software
alternative/competitor/replacement.

I often read msdn blogs, google blogs, and other corporate and community
blogs and planets. I never read on msdn something to legitimate Mac. Oh
yes, you can read about MS Office for Mac, but it is different. You can read
on GNU website about GNU software for Windows or Mac too. For GNU Project it
is better to use Octave on Windows instead Matlab on Windows.

If floss is a non-floss competitor then it is logic do not advertise or
speaking favorably about non-free software in the GNOME Planet.

Obviously, it is good to analyze proprietary software and learn from it.
IMHO GNOME brings the better ideas from Windows an Mac, and it is better
than Mac and Windows.

But GNOME, on top of a free/open OS, is a replacement of Windows and Mac.
And I think that GNOME should advertise its brothers in virtualization
software, like QEMU and Virtualbox[1], not vmWare.

Then I think RMS suggestion is essentially logic and coherent with GNOME
mission and with what users expect from it.

Thank you and best regards.

Guido

http://guiodic.wordpress.com


[1] it is distributed as free software too.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership (Summary)

[Andy Tai]

It seems that a better idea is to consider the Planet not part of GNOME.
That way GNOME does not have to deal with whatever is in the planet, like
slashdot does not control and is not responsible for the messages by its
posters.

GNOME controls the official web page content.  This planet is not part of
that.

Easier for everyone.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Lucas Rocha luc...@gnome.org wrote:

 Hi all,

 It's quite obvious that the original thread ended up branching into
 several separate topics. I thought it would be useful to summarize
 some of the key points on each topic in an attempt to bring a more
 practical perspective to the whole discussion.

 This is not an official message from the Board. It's just me trying to
 make some sense out of the tons of messages in the thread and, maybe,
 bring a more useful (or at least more clear) closure to the
 discussed topics.

 -- The original topic: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Lefty (石鏡 )]

On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
 
 ...I would not encourage anyone to use
 non-free software even to get money to give to a worthy cause.

I apologize to all, but given this, there's a question that _really_ has to
be asked:

Given the proposition that proprietary software is illegitimate, and the
statement above, do you believe that the GNOME Foundation and community
should distance itself from companies which produce proprietary software?

Specifically, should the Advisory Board be dissolved, and should the
Foundation refuse further financial support from the companies that are
currently on the Ad Board?


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Juanjo Marin]

El dom, 13-12-2009 a las 13:08 +0100, Peter Hjalmarsson escribió:
 For gentoo, they have two feeds: the planet, and the universe, where
 the planet only aggregates those blog posts that are tagged with gentoo,
 and the universe aggregates the rest.
 I cannot understand why GNOME cannot have this system also?


I totally agree with Peter Hjalmarsson 

 Then for the planet you can have a code of conduct of what they are
 allowed to tag as GNOME (i.e. upcoming events in OSS-land where GNOME
 will be represented, development in projects blessed/used by GNOME,
 comments about projects being blessed/used by GNOME, projects
 interesting for people interested in GNOME),

Then Planet GNOME will be a window into the GNOME world, what GNOME
community is doing now, what their plans are and how we are conquer and
free the world ;)

This planet will be very useful because it will give a community vision
of our project. And this is useful not only for the community members,
but also for the people outside the community that want to know about
GNOME.

  and a universe with maybe
 an disclaimer that the posts there can have nothing what so ever to do
 with GNOME.
 

and Universe GNOME will be a window into the world, work and lives of
GNOME hackers and contributors. Basically Universe GNOME will be what
Planet GNOME is now, maybe without the GNOME related posts. You find
interesting people in the community and you want to know more about them
because you share a common hobby, you learn new things, he/she is
brilliant (there are many!) or whatever. 

I think foundation members, I'm not a member yet, should take into
consideration this solution IMHO.

best regards,

   -- Juanjo Marín


-- 
Juan José Marín Martínez
Tlf: 956009437 (Corp. 409437) Fax: 956009445 (Corp. 409445)
Informática. Consejería de Cultura. DP Cádiz.
Junta de Andalucía



___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership (Summary)

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
 I will, except that I don't know what the process to do that is.  Just
 post to f-l?  How would we make a decision?  Or gather 10% to put it to
 vote?

Edit the Code, if a few people complain they can remove their signatures
(and remove their blogs from PGO, if the maintainers decide that
agreeing with the Code is a precondition for blog syndication). If many
people complain, you can revert the change. No need for a song  dance.

Cheers,
Dave.

-- 
Dave Neary
GNOME Foundation member
dne...@gnome.org
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Richard Stallman]

As a specific example, to the question, Do you agree that viewing
proprietary software as 'illegitimate', 'immoral', 'antisocial' and/or
'unethical' should be a pre-condition for syndication on Planet GNOME?, so
far 151 respondents have answered No, only 19 have answered Yes. That's
about an 8-to-1 ratio.

That goes far beyond what I said, and I would not propose it.  It
seems that a significant minority have views on this issue much
stronger than mine.

What worries me is that you presented this question inaccurately here
as pertaining to my views.  The readers here have seen what I said and
can see the difference.  But if you said the same thing elsewhere,
that would constitute misrepresenting my views to the public.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
 Hi,

 Lefty wrote:
 Given the proposition that proprietary software is illegitimate, and
 the statement above, do you believe that the GNOME Foundation and
 community should distance itself from companies which produce proprietary
 software?

 Specifically, should the Advisory Board be dissolved, and should the
 Foundation refuse further financial support from the companies that
 are currently on the Ad Board?

 I for one am interested in Richard's position on this. Mine is clear: I have 
 no problem at all working with companies who want to improve GNOME or the 
 GNOME platform, even if they develop proprietary software. And the money they 
 give to GNOME gets used to improve GNOME, so as long as there are no strings 
 attached, I don't care particularly why they give it.

 On the other hand, I feel under no obligation to promote their non-free 
 software offerings, or guilt in encouraging free equivalents of their 
 proprietary components  products.

  I fee like you took thoughts out of my mind but unlike me were able
to express them very nicely. :)

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Miguel de Icaza]

Hello,

 GNOME is not connected with the anti-hunting movement; there's no
 reason it should have any position on the question.  But GNOME is part
 of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free software
 movement.  The most minimal support for the free software movement is
 to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid
 presenting proprietary software as legitimate.

Gnome supports both the free software movement as well as proprietary
developers, and that is why Gnome for years has encouraged the use of
the LGPL license for all of its libraries.

Gnome is a general purpose desktop, but it also recognizes the need for
proprietary applications to use these libraries and to build and
integrate properly with it.

Miguel.

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Richard Hughes]

2009/12/10 Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org:
 The presence of articles discussing vmware, for instance,
 conveys the message that GNOME sees nothing wrong with it.

I think you've added 1 and 1 and made 7.

Richard.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Andre Klapper]

Am Dienstag, den 08.12.2009, 15:24 -0500 schrieb Dr. Michael J.
Chudobiak:
 Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
  Say, any viewer of p.g.o can vote a post +1 or -1.  Then we can gather 
  two metrics per poster: 1) how impactful his/her posts are (avg / median 
  / max number of votes).  2) how interested are readers in his/her posts 
  (avg / median / min/max score.
  We can then have threshold to hide / collapse unpopular posts.
 
 Yes, please! Let the system fix itself through trendy crowd-sourcing, 
 rather than having a board spank people who speak foolishly!

Actually the system on Planet Maemo is a bit complexer and is not only
based on thumbs up / thumbs down votes. See
http://maemo.org/community/maemo-community/how_social_news_ranks_news_items/

andre

-- 
 mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed
 http://www.iomc.de/  | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
 As a specific example, to the question, Do you agree that viewing
 proprietary software as 'illegitimate', 'immoral', 'antisocial' and/or
 'unethical' should be a pre-condition for syndication on Planet GNOME?, so
 far 151 respondents have answered No, only 19 have answered Yes. That's
 about an 8-to-1 ratio.

I'm no statistician (well, not any more at any rate), but I know that
you can construct surveys to say anything. If you ask someone Do you
want to bring our boys home? in the US, people are anti-war - if you
ask Should we surrender in Iraq? they're pro-war. Leading questions
prove nothing.

Your survey, in particular, is not particularly impartial. I would say
that it is somewhere between leading and push polling. It's the type
of thing you rightly criticise when it is used by Boycott Novell.

Quite honestly, like others, I would just like to see this discussion
end. As I said before the weekend (50 emails ago), no opinions are being
changed, no new information of interest to GNOME Foundation members has
surfaced.

I'd like to ask both Lefty  Richard to refrain from mailing to this
thread again.

Thank you,
Dave.

-- 
Dave Neary
GNOME Foundation member
dne...@gnome.org
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Vincent Untz]

Le mercredi 09 décembre 2009, à 19:47 +0100, Dodji Seketeli a écrit :
 Le mer. 09 déc. 2009 à 14:45:55 (+0100), Philip Van Hoof a écrit:
  This is nonsense. The planet-gnome slogan is:
  
  Planet GNOME is __ a window into the world, work and lives __ of GNOME
  hackers and contributors.
  
  This is what made the planet a successful project, initiated by Jeff
  Waugh (who you propose for removal ^).
 
 The way I understand what Frédéric said is, there is an (yet another
 one?) interesting question not answered by the p.g.o slogan. What does the
 planet maintainers do with people who stop being involved in the project.

Quoting http://live.gnome.org/PlanetGnome

I stopped contributing to GNOME two years ago. Can I still stay there?

Sure, no problem. We still love you :-) Past contributors often stay
involved in areas that are of interest to GNOME (even if not directly
related to GNOME), so we're not worried about the content of your blog.

That being said, if the editors know of a blog from a past contributor
who's annoying to most Planet GNOME readers, we can feel free to remove
the blog after contacting the person.

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Vincent Untz]

Hey,

Le mercredi 09 décembre 2009, à 13:32 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
 On 12/09/2009 08:48 AM, Lionel Dricot wrote:
 - Each GNOME member should be able to add his feed to pgo. He might want
 to change his feed whenever he wants to take a more specialized one or not.

The consensus in the past is that we don't want to have anybody able to
change the planet configuration, and that this is what has enabled Planet
GNOME to stay (relatively) high quality.

 - Each year, a mail is sent to those member asking if they want to stay on
 pgo and if they consider themselves still on-topic.
 
 Lets limit it to a reminder that you're on PGO.  if you want to be
 removed, email xxx if we have to do something like that.

I'm fine with this idea. If Lucas and Jeff are fine, we can start doing
it, but I'm sure that help would be welcome to gather the list of mail
addresses to contact. If anybody wants to do that part of the work,
please just contact the planet editors.

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Vincent Untz]

Le vendredi 11 décembre 2009, à 17:20 +0100, Philip Van Hoof a écrit :
 I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.

So, as far as I can tell, nobody is collecting a list of members who
support such a vote proposal. I still wanted to reply there.

For many of the reasons Dave wrote, I would believe splitting up from
the GNU project is a bad idea. Let me add a few things...

The GNOME Foundation itself is a free software supporter, and advocates
for free software, and I believe this reflects the opinion of the vast
majority of the GNOME community. So I would think it's safe to say that
this is the position of the GNOME project. As such, I think the GNOME
project definitely has its place in the GNU project, whose goal is to
create a free software operating system.

That doesn't mean the GNOME Foundation fights against non-free software
by saying that non-free software is bad and should not be used nor
exist. We have a policy of having the GNOME platform LGPL, and so it can
be used by non-free applications. We're happy this way. Our way to fight
against non-free software is by writing better code, that is free.

Also, the GNU project is not the FSF. When reading the thread, I have
the feeling that some people want the GNOME project to not be part of
the FSF, or to disagree with the FSF. The GNOME Foundation is part of
the FSF, and we sometimes disagree with the FSF, and we're all fine this
way. (Note that the FSF is an advisory board member of the GNOME
Foundation, though, and it's valuable one that we're happy to have). I
think Andy wrote more on this [1], but I didn't take the time to read
his post so I won't put words in his mouth :-)

Cheers,

Vincent

[1] http://wingolog.org/archives/2009/12/13/gnu-gnome-and-the-fsf

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Vincent Untz]

Hey,

Le jeudi 10 décembre 2009, à 07:46 -0700, Stormy Peters a écrit :
 My post on hunting comes to mind. I self censor now because I didn't like
 the negative comments directed at my kids. But would you block my whole blog
 because a vocal portion of the community is anti-hunting and people in my
 family hunt?

I read a few times in this thread that people are self-censoring
themselves in their blog. It's possible to avoid that by using a
tag-based RSS feed; so if you want to blog the way you want but not have
everything appear on Planet GNOME, just contact the Planet editors, and
we'll be glad to help you do this.

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Vincent Untz]

Hi,

(This is hopefully my last mail for catching up with this thread ;-))

Le mercredi 25 novembre 2009, à 12:48 +, Lucas Rocha a écrit :
 Hi all,
 
 The Board has recently received some complaints from members of the
 community about certain the inappropriate behaviors. In the context of
 GNOME Foundation, it's really hard to argue about how we expect our
 members to behave if there is no official guidelines that members are
 supposed to comply with. The GNOME Code of Conduct[1] has been serving
 very well as an informal guideline for the community but we'd like to
 make it an official document that new Foundation members are expected
 to explicitly agree[2] with before being accepted. This way we'll have a
 common ground for dealing with certain conflict situations and avoid
 trying to base our discussions on guidelines that certain members
 haven't explicitly agreed on.
 
 Before deciding on this, we thought it would be useful to get some
 feedback from the community.

This is the first mail of the thread. And I'm really sad of the way the
thread went. I'm certainly guilty myself of not taking time to read it
and participate earlier to try to moderate things, but we should all be
able to step back and moderate a thread when it apparently needs to be
moderated...

First, let me state it: the original proposal has nothing to do with
Planet GNOME. If you have an issue with Planet GNOME, you're free to
state it publicly, of course, but you can also directly contact the
editors. We even put some documentation to answer most questions:
  http://live.gnome.org/PlanetGnome

And if you read that page, you'll see that the editors expect people on
Planet GNOME to respect the Code of Conduct. I'm not aware of a case
where we removed a post or a blog because of this, but if this needs to
happen, then fine, we'll do it.

(and yes, the editors are not perfect, and are not always replying in
time, and are doing mistakes and all that, so keep this in mind please
;-))

Now, back to the original proposal. The idea is that we want the GNOME
project to be a cool place. With great people. Where newcomers feel
welcome. And all that. I'd love a rainbow, and illimited ice cream, btw.

That what is already behind the Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct is
only stating the obvious. There's nothing revolutionary there. There are
surely some cases where it doesn't help us. We can also all have a bad
day and not respect the Code of Conduct at some point -- if this
happens, as long as we can acknowledge that we could have had a more
appropriate behavior, it's fine.

If you think that having a Yes, I agree that I should try to be polite
requirement for GNOME Foundation membership is bad, then, well, okay;
that just means you might share one of the values of the GNOME
Foundation. Is it the end of the world? No. Does that make it impossible
to contribute to GNOME? No. (Hint: you don't have to be a GNOME
Foundation member to contribute.)

This is really all about explaining to the world what are values are,
and trying to lead by the example. This is not about adding rules.

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Behdad Esfahbod]

On 12/14/2009 04:34 PM, Vincent Untz wrote:


Also, the GNU project is not the FSF. When reading the thread, I have
the feeling that some people want the GNOME project to not be part of
the FSF, or to disagree with the FSF. The GNOME Foundation is part of
the FSF, and we sometimes disagree with the FSF, and we're all fine this
way.


Humm, *now* I'm confused.  What does it mean that The GNOME Foundation is 
part of the FSF?


As for GNOME being a GNU project, what that means is explained here:

  http://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html

behdad

 (Note that the FSF is an advisory board member of the GNOME

Foundation, though, and it's valuable one that we're happy to have). I
think Andy wrote more on this [1], but I didn't take the time to read
his post so I won't put words in his mouth :-)

Cheers,

Vincent

[1] http://wingolog.org/archives/2009/12/13/gnu-gnome-and-the-fsf


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Addition to the Code of Conduct (was Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership)

[Vincent Untz]

Le mercredi 25 novembre 2009, à 17:35 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
 I also like to see two more ideas added to CoC:
 
   - Learn to agree to disagree.
 
   - Criticize ideas, not people presenting them.

I support this change.

I'm just unsure how we can update the Code of Conduct, since people
signed the old version and we obviously can't pretend they approved
those additions. Should we just version the Code of Conduct? Or is this
a non-issue?

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Vincent Untz]

Le lundi 14 décembre 2009, à 16:56 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
 On 12/14/2009 04:34 PM, Vincent Untz wrote:
 
 Also, the GNU project is not the FSF. When reading the thread, I have
 the feeling that some people want the GNOME project to not be part of
 the FSF, or to disagree with the FSF. The GNOME Foundation is part of
 the FSF, and we sometimes disagree with the FSF, and we're all fine this
 way.
 
 Humm, *now* I'm confused.  What does it mean that The GNOME
 Foundation is part of the FSF?

Gah. I obviously missed the not. It should read: The GNOME Foundation
is not part of the FSF. Apologies for the confusion :-)

 As for GNOME being a GNU project, what that means is explained here:
 
   http://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html

Thanks for the link, that's something I was looking for and I couldn't
find easily!

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Luis Villa]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:
 On 12/14/2009 04:34 PM, Vincent Untz wrote:

 Also, the GNU project is not the FSF. When reading the thread, I have
 the feeling that some people want the GNOME project to not be part of
 the FSF, or to disagree with the FSF. The GNOME Foundation is part of
 the FSF, and we sometimes disagree with the FSF, and we're all fine this
 way.

 Humm, *now* I'm confused.  What does it mean that The GNOME Foundation is
 part of the FSF?

 As for GNOME being a GNU project, what that means is explained here:

  http://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html

Note that we've always ignored about 90% of this page with no ill
effects for either us or GNU.

Which is really my position on the whole thing: the adults in this
project have always treated requests from GNU the same way we treat
requests from any other community member- if it makes sense, we do it;
if it doesn't make sense, we ignore it. Usually we ignore it quietly.
I will try to refrain from speculating as to why this particular
suggestion was ignored so loudly, but I'd suggest that quietly is
better.

Luis
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Addition to the Code of Conduct (was Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership)

[Pierre-Luc Beaudoin]

On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 22:56 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
 Should we just version the Code of Conduct? Or is this
 a non-issue? 

I believe we don't need to update the Code since those 2 additions are
expected behaviours from the existing Be respectful and considerate
element.

Maybe should these 2 additions be added to a list of example behaviours
that serve the code?

Pierre-Luc


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Behdad Esfahbod]

On 12/14/2009 05:26 PM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:

But what if advocating free software means that the minimal support
GNOME should do for GNU, is to claim that proprietary is illegitimate?


Exactly.

I have been supporting Free Software for over ten years, and will probably do 
for the rest of my life.  But, as an Iranian witnessing what's going on in 
Iran right now, I can't agree to any kind of anti-something or 
against-something or death-to-something.  Tolerance is key.  When someone asks 
me so why should I use GNOME instead of KDE, or why should I use Linux 
instead of Windows, my only reply is use whatever works better for you. 
I'm sick of fanaticism, and my friends in Iran are being beaten and killed 
because of it.  I can't justify being a fanatic when it comes to software freedom.


These days, Free Software does many things better than the alternatives.  Many 
of my friends use it because they find it better.  And that simply makes me 
happy.  But when someone chooses to use OS X, I respect their freedom of choice.


behdad
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership (Summary)

[Andy Tai]

It seems that a better idea is to consider the Planet not part of GNOME.
That way GNOME does not have to deal with whatever is in the planet, like
slashdot does not control and is not responsible for the messages by its
posters.

GNOME controls the official web page content.  This planet is not part of
that.

Easier for everyone.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Lucas Rocha luc...@gnome.org wrote:

 Hi all,

 It's quite obvious that the original thread ended up branching into
 several separate topics. I thought it would be useful to summarize
 some of the key points on each topic in an attempt to bring a more
 practical perspective to the whole discussion.

 This is not an official message from the Board. It's just me trying to
 make some sense out of the tons of messages in the thread and, maybe,
 bring a more useful (or at least more clear) closure to the
 discussed topics.

 -- The original topic: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Richard Stallman]

That's where the cash for things like my FSF-E
Fellowship, EFF membership, Creative Commons membership, etc., come from,
see?

These are worthy causes, but I would not encourage anyone to use
non-free software even to get money to give to a worthy cause.

However, the issue here isn't about what you use or what I use, it's
about what GNOME should say to the world about proprietary software.

The Planet is not GNOME and it is not an advocacy organ; it doesn't
advocate anything,

Maybe it wasn't set up specificy for the purpose of advocacy, but it
is a major part of GNOME's face to the world.  What it says has have a
substantial effect on what people think GNOME is all about.  This
includes its implicit messages as well as explicit statements.

The communication of a statement is not limited to what it formally
states; the fact that it was made, and made in a certain place and
time, implies other meanings.  For instance, if you talk about
something and make no criticisms, people take that to mean you have no
strong disapproval of it.

I don't know how often proprietary software is mentioned favorably
there.  If the problem happens at intervals of years, maybe very
little response is needed.  Maybe the GNOME Board should respond by
posting a response when non-free software gets favorably mentioned.



___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Richard Stallman]

We wanted Gnome to be a free software stack, and that was our 
requirement.  Gnome itself was assembled out of the available
components plus the requirements of the community that emerged early on.

GNOME was made out of available components and new components.  In
particular, we discussed plans for new libraries, and decided how to
license them.

We didn't include Red Hat in that discussion, since it was a GNU
Project matter.  However, from what you said, the decision we made
for free software reasons would also have satisifed what Red Hat wanted
for its GNU/Linux distribution.

   The individual pieces of Gnome are no longer just
used by Gnome, or designed merely to be part of Gnome, they are 
built to be reusable not only by KDE, but also by server applications, or
mobile applications;   And they are licensed to allow proprietary developers
to use them.  

I hope that you are making an overstatement when you claim that GNOME
has lost all influence over the licensing of components developed for
GNOME.  It would be a shame if GNOME can only drift with the current.

I also hope it is an overstatement to say that all GNOME components
have been licensed in ways that fail to give any advantage to free
software packages over proprietary software.  If true, that would mean
useful opportunities to boost other free software have been wasted.

But even if those things are true, they can be changed in the future.
GNOME can recover influence on licensing decisions.  New components
will surely be developed for GNOME, and GNOME can ask developers to
follow licensing practice designed to help the free software cause.

The motives for the policy we decided in 1997 or 1998 are still valid:
we want proprietary programs to be able to work with GNOME, and we
want to help free software developers compete technically with
proprietary software.

Thus, libraries needed for an app to work with GNOME should be
licensed so proprietary apps can use them.  Libraries that help people
develop apps, or help the apps work better, should be limited to use
within free software, so as to give our fellow free software
developers an advantage.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Richard Stallman]

 You're also stretching the term censorship and related terms to an
 area where it does not pertain.  For an organization to stand by its
 values, and not say things which conflict with those values, is not
 censorship.

Fine. We can simply call it prior restraint if you prefer, then.

Neither one fits.  Prior restraint is US legal terminology for a
particular kind of censorship.  For an organization to stand by its
values is not censorship at all.

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Lefty (石鏡 )]

On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
 
 Unable to come up with and too dumb are your own additions,
 which clearly were not present in the events themselves.

Clearly, a lot of misunderstanding was present in the events themselves.
To what do you attribute this wide-spread misunderstanding, if not
stupidity, ignorance or a general lack of adequate erudition on the part of
the audience?


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Jonathon Jongsma]

On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 08:33 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
 On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
  
  Unable to come up with and too dumb are your own additions,
  which clearly were not present in the events themselves.
 
 Clearly, a lot of misunderstanding was present in the events themselves.
 To what do you attribute this wide-spread misunderstanding, if not
 stupidity, ignorance or a general lack of adequate erudition on the part of
 the audience?


This is fast becoming among the least productive email threads I've read
in a long time.  Can we please bring it to a close?

Thanks
Jonathon

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Paul Cutler]

As it says in the footer of Planet GNOME:

*Planet GNOME is a window into the world, work and lives of GNOME hackers
and contributors http://planet.gnome.org/heads/.

*Planet GNOME automatically reposts blog entries from the GNOME community.
Entries on this page are owned by their authors. We do not edit, endorse or
vouch for the contents of individual posts.

It seems to me we already have a disclaimer in place.  I, for one, would
like Planet GNOME to stay as is - no voting, no censoring, no tagging.  I
*am* interested in the work and lives of GNOME hackers and contributors
whether or not their work is proprietary or free software.

I know since I was added to pgo earlier this year I tend to self-censor
myself a little bit more, but I don't want pgo to be 100% GNOME (or free
software) specific.  I appreciate knowing the hobbies of my fellow hackers,
whether it's hunting, cooking or what not.

Planet GNOME may be a GNOME activity but it's an aggregation of the
*personal blogs of GNOME contributors and we have a disclaimer in place.
I'd like to see it stay just as it is.

Paul


On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:

 Bottom line: Planet GNOME does not exist for
the sake of supporting your, or the FSF's, agenda, and you're
 attempting
to solve a non-existent problem.

 We launched GNOME to serve the free software movement's aims.  (We
 launched the FSF and the GNU system for the same reason.)  And Planet
 GNOME is a GNOME activity.  So it seems to me that these aims can't
 be a-priori irrelevant to Planet GNOME.
 ___
 foundation-list mailing list
 foundation-list@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Tobias Mueller]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Heya,

On 13.12.2009 16:33, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
 To what do you attribute this wide-spread misunderstanding, if not
 stupidity, ignorance or a general lack of adequate erudition on the part of
 the audience?
 
Misunderstandings can be a result of many factors, including differences
in language, culture, political views, personal believes, etc.

Having that sorted out, I don't see any good reason why this sub-thread
exists. What's the main question we're discussing here? If there is
none, I'd happily make my MUA kill it.

Cheers,
  Tobi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkslG8UACgkQPuBX/6ogjZ4EOwCeJGeQqnSgSnb+YbiySXiO+PRu
oxgAoKMVvEjpoh0SDcROy+RRzzi4kAtj
=eNZD
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Lefty (石鏡 )]

On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:

 That's where the cash for things like my FSF-E
 Fellowship, EFF membership, Creative Commons membership, etc., come from,
 see?
 
 These are worthy causes, but I would not encourage anyone to use
 non-free software even to get money to give to a worthy cause.

I knew you'd feel that way, which is why I send my money to FSF-Europe,
rather than the FSF.

 However, the issue here isn't about what you use or what I use, it's
 about what GNOME should say to the world about proprietary software.

One more time: Planet GNOME  The GNOME Foundation  GNOME

 I don't know how often proprietary software is mentioned favorably
 there.  If the problem happens at intervals of years, maybe very
 little response is needed.  Maybe the GNOME Board should respond by
 posting a response when non-free software gets favorably mentioned.

Non-free software can't even be favorably mentioned?

A discussion of the relative merits of GIMP and Photoshop is inadmissible if
it admits, however grudgingly, that Photoshop has some advantages or
features that GIMP does not...? We're disallowed from saying that Xcode on
OS X is, in fact, an excellent development environment...? No one can
comment in a positive way on a new cell phone or digital camera, without the
Board of Directors of the GNOME Foundation coming down on them?

Wow. You and I have extremely different ideas about freedom, Mr. Stallman.

 I don't know how often proprietary software is mentioned favorably
 there.

I see.

Do you actually ever _read_ Planet GNOME, Mr. Stallman...? Perhaps you
should call for a ban of the use of the term open source there, or of
Linux unless it's in specific reference to the kernel, as a minimal
requirement to support free software. Those happen a _lot_ more often.


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Lefty (石鏡 )]

In the interests of a broader collection of data, I've shelled out of my own
pocket to set up a professional-level SurveyMonkey account (the use of which
I will happily share with the Foundation, at least until the annual
subscription runs out, if it wishes to conduct surveys of its own).

I've set up a survey to collect some data on how people view the suggestions
that have been made regarding the governance of Planet GNOME, and I
encourage anyone who's interested to participate. The survey can be found at

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Z7WHPDF

So far, we've gotten over 170 responses, and public opinion doesn't seem to
be generally running in favor of Mr. Stallman's proposal, at a rate of
roughly four against to one in favor, in the best of circumstances. The
survey attempts to probe a little more deeply, but if the results are
indicative of anything, Mr. Stallman's views here represent a minority
opinion.

As a specific example, to the question, Do you agree that viewing
proprietary software as 'illegitimate', 'immoral', 'antisocial' and/or
'unethical' should be a pre-condition for syndication on Planet GNOME?, so
far 151 respondents have answered No, only 19 have answered Yes. That's
about an 8-to-1 ratio.

I'll publish more detailed results before the week is out.

On consideration, I now believe there's no need to call for a vote of the
Foundation membership.

Since the problem doesn't seem to exist, there's no need to do anything with
Planet. Similarly, I see no need to expend any further energy on the GNOME's
community's part on dealing with this. If the GNU Project finds the current
level of expression on Planet GNOME intolerably unsupportive of the free
software movement, for whatever reasons, they can certainly take whatever
steps they feel are necessary.


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Behdad Esfahbod]

On 12/13/2009 06:04 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:

In the interests of a broader collection of data, I've shelled out of my own
pocket to set up a professional-level SurveyMonkey account (the use of which
I will happily share with the Foundation, at least until the annual
subscription runs out, if it wishes to conduct surveys of its own).


Err.  Next time just let me know!

If people remember, I set up a survey system (LimeSurvey; Free Software) on my 
GNOME account to run the DVCS survey.  We later used that to do the Desktop 
Summit survey.  I'm offering it to all Foundation members now: if you need 
something surveyed Foundation-wide, just ask and I'll set you up with an account.


At some point I may hook it up to LDAP and let people freely use it.  But 
we're currently far from having a single gnome.org account...


Cheers,
behdad
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Richard Stallman]

Gnome supports both the free software movement as well as proprietary
developers, and that is why Gnome for years has encouraged the use of
the LGPL license for all of its libraries.

The decision you and I made, in the early days, was to use the LGPL
for the more basic and general libraries, so that proprietary programs
could work with GNOME, but to use the GPL for more advanced libraries
so that they would give an advantage to free applications.

We decided this, not as a way to support proprietary developers, but
rather to compete with KDE and Qt.  Proprietary software developers
could use Qt (by buying a license).  If they could not use GNOME's
basic libraries, that would put GNOME at a disadvantage, and the
result could be that KDE with proprietary Qt might triumph.

Now that Qt is free software, beating it in competition is less
crucial.  We might not have a reason to use the LGPL for some of
these libraries if we were deciding it now.

So I hope that the GNOME policy about library licensing has not moved
towards more use of the LGPL than in the past.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Richard Stallman]

Is GNOME part of any anti-proprietary software movement?

that terminology didn't come from me.  I would rather describe what we
are doing in positive terms: GNOME is part of the free software
movement, which strives to give users freedom.

I don't think so and I've never seen it like that.

I guess you have not heard how GNOME came to be.  We launched GNOME to
defend the free software community against a particular proprietary
program, Qt; against the danger that people might come to regard that
proprietary program as essential for a usable GNU/Linux system.

So GNOME not merely part of a system that we developed for the sake of
freedom.  GNOME was developed specifically to protect freedom.  There
are no clearer examples of software which exists for the sake of
freedom than GNOME.

I think the GNOME Foundation should do more to inform the community
about this.  Currently, it seems, the message is not getting across.
If people can look at Planet GNOME, and the rest of what the
Foundation says, and get the impression that neutrality on this issue
is one of GNOME's founding principles, it behooves us to do more to
inform people what the founding principles really are.

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Richard Stallman]

I believe Stormy was quite clear and on point: It sounded to me as though
she were arguing against the sort of prior restraint that you seem to be
attempting to impose here.

I think GNOME activities should not grant legitimacy to non-free
software.  This is a minimal form of support for the cause of software
users' freedom -- minimal in the sense that anything less would hardly
be support.

However, the implementational ideas you are attacking did not come
from me.

You're also stretching the term censorship and related terms to an
area where it does not pertain.  For an organization to stand by its
values, and not say things which conflict with those values, is not
censorship.

My use of Final Cut is completely legitimate.

I would not trade my freedom for convenience like that.  However the
issue here is not what you use, or what would I use; it is what GNOME
should advocate.

We're working for a world in which software users aren't asked to
choose between freedom and convenience, and GNOME should support that
goal, as well as being a collection of programs which help make it so.
Thus, GNOME should not present a program as legitimate if it requires
users to choose in that way.




___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Richard Stallman]

We _were_ attempting to finalize a Code of Conduct which could be provided
to speakers, in the hope of avoiding future instances of the sort of
harmless fun we experienced during Mr. Stallman's keynote at the Gran
Canaria Desktop Summit, as I recall.

What happened there is that some people misunderstood a joke in my
speech, and others mistakenly accused me of intentionally disparaging
people.

Rules of conduct can't prevent misunderstandings, but they can help us
deal with them better.  If those who accused me had followed the draft
Code of Conduct (http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct), particularly
this rule

Disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour or personal
attacks. Remember that a community where people feel uncomfortable
is not a productive one.

and this one

If something seems outrageous, check that you did not misinterpret
it. Ask for clarification, but do not assume the worst.

they might have responded differently to the misunderstanding,
and things would have been over very quickly.

All the points in the draft Code of Conduct seem good to me.
 
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Richard Stallman]

Stormy, we seem to be miscommunicating.  I said that people should not
promote non-free software on Planet GNOME.  You seem to be arguing
against something different.  For instance,

My post on hunting comes to mind. I self censor now because I didn't like
the negative comments directed at my kids. But would you block my whole blog
because a vocal portion of the community is anti-hunting and people in my
family hunt?

GNOME is not connected with the anti-hunting movement; there's no
reason it should have any position on the question.  But GNOME is part
of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free software
movement.  The most minimal support for the free software movement is
to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid
presenting proprietary software as legitimate.

I think Planet GNOME should have a rule to this effect.  There are
many ways to implement such a rule, of which block the whole blog is
about the toughest one we might consider.  I'd suggest rather to try a
mild approach; I'm sure that can do the job.


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Lionel Dricot]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:12:16 -0500, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:

 GNOME is not connected with the anti-hunting movement; there's no
 reason it should have any position on the question.  But GNOME is part

Is GNOME part of any anti-proprietary software movement?

I don't think so and I've never seen it like that. If it's the case, then
GNOME should reject contribution from any contributor that work with or for
proprietary software. We should also be sure that any GNOME technology is
definitely not possible to use within a proprietary software.

 of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free software
 movement.  The most minimal support for the free software movement is
 to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid
 presenting proprietary software as legitimate.

Supporting something was never meant as fighting something else. *Never*

That's maybe your may of supporting free software but it's not mine,
meaning neither yours or mine is the official vision of GNOME. And it's
definitely not *THE* way of supporting free software.


 
 I think Planet GNOME should have a rule to this effect.  There are
 many ways to implement such a rule, of which block the whole blog is
 about the toughest one we might consider.  I'd suggest rather to try a
 mild approach; I'm sure that can do the job.

As I said earlier, I think that the less rules, the better. But it seems
that we have different goals. I don't believe that planet.gnome should be
planet.anti-proprietary-software. I think it should be the planet of the
people involved in the GNOME project, punt on de lijn.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Lefty (石鏡 )]

On 12/11/09 7:12 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:

 Stormy, we seem to be miscommunicating.  I said that people should not
 promote non-free software on Planet GNOME.  You seem to be arguing
 against something different.

I believe Stormy was quite clear and on point: It sounded to me as though
she were arguing against the sort of prior restraint that you seem to be
attempting to impose here.

 GNOME is not connected with the anti-hunting movement; there's no
 reason it should have any position on the question.

GNOME is not connected with the anti-VMWare movement, nor (that I'm aware
of) any anti-proprietary software movement.

 But GNOME is part
 of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free software
 movement.

It does support free software, and does an effective job of it.

 The most minimal support for the free software movement is
 to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid
 presenting proprietary software as legitimate.

This is simple nonsense. Software is software, and people write about what
they do. 

I use free software, and I also use things like Final Cut Pro, for which
there's no equivalent. You seem to feel I should be barred from writing
anything about film-editing, since it involves proprietary software.

My use of Final Cut is completely legitimate. There's no equivalent piece of
free software, and even if there were, surely my tools are my choice, are
they not? Your attempts to control what gets posted are completely out of
line.

 I think Planet GNOME should have a rule to this effect.  There are
 many ways to implement such a rule, of which block the whole blog is
 about the toughest one we might consider.  I'd suggest rather to try a
 mild approach; I'm sure that can do the job.

This suggestion, which verges on a demand for censorship in the name of
freedom, is completely appalling. I have no interest in seeing Planet GNOME
turned into a outpost of Bad Vista, thanks.

If muzzling people is a condition of being part of the GNU project, then
maybe we should rethink _that_ aspect of things. Maybe the FSF should start
its own planet and set its own rules there rather than attempting to impose
its various litmus tests on the contributors to Planet GNOME.

I haven't got even the slightest interest in seeing this job get done,
and I'd be opposed to anyone's trying it.


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

Lionel Dricot wrote:
 On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:12:16 -0500, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
 GNOME is not connected with the anti-hunting movement; there's no
 reason it should have any position on the question.  But GNOME is part
 
 Is GNOME part of any anti-proprietary software movement?

I don't think this discussion is particularly helpful.

It does not look likely that anyone's mind will be changed, or that
Planet GNOME's policy will evolve.


All that we can hope for and advocate is that people whose blogs are
aggregated to Planet GNOME are people who adhere to the principles of
the free software movement. And if that's the case, there is no reason
that they would use their (Planet GNOME aggregated) blog to promote
software which does not measure up against those principles.

If people feel that they cannot separate their professional lives from
their personal lives on their blog, then perhaps it is appropriate that
they tag posts to do with their professional work on non-free software
with a different tag to that which is aggregated on Planet GNOME.


Cheers,
Dave.

-- 
Dave Neary
GNOME Foundation member
dne...@gnome.org
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Philip Van Hoof]

On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 10:12 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

 But GNOME is part of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free 
 software movement. The most minimal support for the free software movement
 is to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid presenting
 proprietary software as legitimate.

I understand your position. I think you might not understand the
position of a lot of GNOME foundation members and contributors.

Their position isn't necessarily compatible with your position that
GNOME should avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate.

The way I see it is that most members want GNOME to stay out of that
philosophic discussion. Although GNOME usually advises to work
upstream and to do things opensource when possible, as much as
possible. This is just a personal point of view, of course.

You, as one of the key FSF people, appear to be keen[1] on enforcing a
strict policy on how GNU's member-projects should behave. So ...

I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.

 I think Planet GNOME should have a rule to this effect. 

I think it's clear that I disagree. Philosophically.

 There are many ways to implement such a rule, of which block the 
 whole blog is about the toughest one we might consider.  I'd suggest
 rather to try a mild approach; I'm sure that can do the job.

Let's first get a consensus from our members on GNOME's status as being
or not being a well-behaving GNU project, or having its own identity.


Cheers,

Philip


[1] You write minimal support. Minimal to me means: either you do
this, or you're out. Feel free to correct me.

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Philip Van Hoof]

(repost, I didn't use the right E-mail address)

On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 10:12 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

 But GNOME is part of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free 
 software movement. The most minimal support for the free software movement
 is to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid presenting
 proprietary software as legitimate.

I understand your position. I think you might not understand the
position of a lot of GNOME foundation members and contributors.

Their position isn't necessarily compatible with your position that
GNOME should avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate.

The way I see it is that most members want GNOME to stay out of that
philosophic discussion. Although GNOME usually advises to work
upstream and to do things opensource when possible, as much as
possible. This is just a personal point of view, of course.

You, as one of the key FSF people, appear to be keen[1] on enforcing a
strict policy on how GNU's member-projects should behave. So ...

I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.

 I think Planet GNOME should have a rule to this effect. 

I think it's clear that I disagree. Philosophically.

 There are many ways to implement such a rule, of which block the 
 whole blog is about the toughest one we might consider.  I'd suggest
 rather to try a mild approach; I'm sure that can do the job.

Let's first get a consensus from our members on GNOME's status as being
or not being a well-behaving GNU project, or having its own identity.


Cheers,

Philip


[1] You write minimal support. Minimal to me means: either you do
this, or you're out. Feel free to correct me.

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Lefty (石鏡 )]

Philip van Hoof writes
 
 I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.

I'd second this.



___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

Philip Van Hoof wrote:
 I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.

Such a vote, whatever the outcome, would have little effect on the GNOME
project.

The debate during the vote could cause a lot of harm  discord for the
GNOME community.

An outcome whereby GNOME is no longer a GNU project could cause a lot of
harm to the free software and open source movements in general - there
would be massive negative publicity.

Since there is very little up-side and substantial down-side, both real
and in terms of image (which is an important consideration, I think), I
do not think that we should vote on this issue.

Don't we have more concrete issues to address?

Cheers,
Dave.

-- 
Dave Neary
GNOME Foundation member
dne...@gnome.org
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Philip Van Hoof]

On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 17:40 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:

Hi Dave!

(Are you coming to FOSDEM? We need another of those IRL chats, no?)

 Philip Van Hoof wrote:
  I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.
 
 Such a vote, whatever the outcome, would have little effect on the GNOME
 project.

I'd agree.

 The debate during the vote could cause a lot of harm  discord for the
 GNOME community.

I actually do agree, yes.

I don't think being afraid of that is sufficient reason to sidestep this
issue We're an intelligent group of people. We can deal with this.

 An outcome whereby GNOME is no longer a GNU project could cause a lot of
 harm to the free software and open source movements in general - there
 would be massive negative publicity.

I agree but we cannot be blind when the leader of the Free Software
Foundation is requesting that the minimal thing GNOME should do, is to
support it by, and I quote, avoiding presenting proprietary software as
legitimate.

I fully understand that ignoring Richard's request is the easy way. But
his request cannot be ignored any longer. He really wants this as a
minimal commitment from GNOME.

No matter what feels good for us. We've been ignoring this for too long.

Such a commitment is, as far as I understand our community, not entirely
compatible with the current mindset of a lot of its members, so ...

I think we should be intellectually honest; by doing this vote.

 Since there is very little up-side and substantial down-side, both real
 and in terms of image (which is an important consideration, I think), I
 do not think that we should vote on this issue.
 
 Don't we have more concrete issues to address?

I ask the same about the apparent necessity to address certain moral
issues like policing the behaviour of our members and introducing a set
of punishments for bad behaviour.

That doesn't mean it can't be discussed. It can.


Cheers,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Lefty (石鏡 )]

On 12/11/09 8:40 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
 
 Don't we have more concrete issues to address?

We _were_ attempting to finalize a Code of Conduct which could be provided
to speakers, in the hope of avoiding future instances of the sort of
harmless fun we experienced during Mr. Stallman's keynote at the Gran
Canaria Desktop Summit, as I recall.

It seems that Mr. Stallman would prefer to discuss ways and means to
throttle contributors to Planet GNOME of whose postings he happens not to
approve, however.

I understand your interest in pouring oil on troubled waters here, Dave,
but neither Philip nor I are the ones who raised this issue.



___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Behdad Esfahbod]

On 12/11/2009 11:32 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:

Philip van Hoof writes


I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.


I'd second this.


Quick procedural note: If you really want to pursue this, according to the 
bylaws you need support of 5% of the membership IIRC to put something to vote. 
 I'm not sure the vote would be binding though.


I thought I point that out since that's your rights as members of the 
foundation.  That said, I agree with Dave.


behdad
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Philip Van Hoof]

On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 12:32 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
 On 12/11/2009 11:32 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
  Philip van Hoof writes
 
  I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.
 
  I'd second this.
 
 Quick procedural note: If you really want to pursue this, according to the 
 bylaws you need support of 5% of the membership IIRC to put something to 
 vote. 
   I'm not sure the vote would be binding though.

Okay, thanks for the information.

 I thought I point that out since that's your rights as members of the 
 foundation.  That said, I agree with Dave.

I'll support whoever proposes this as a vote. Being a member I'd like to
propose this vote (but apparently I need '5% - 1 person' of the other
members, I don't know how they can officially support the proposal).

As a reply to the legitimate concerns you and Dave have:

o. I don't think being afraid of that is sufficient reason to sidestep
   the issue. We're an intelligent group of people. We can deal with
   this.

o. I think we should be intellectually honest. We owe it to ourselves.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Les Harris]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org wrote:
 On 12/11/09 9:32 AM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:

 Quick procedural note: If you really want to pursue this, according to the
 bylaws you need support of 5% of the membership IIRC to put something to 
 vote.
   I'm not sure the vote would be binding though.

 Is there anything in the bylaws as to how this support might be collected
 and demonstrated? If not, I doubt _anything_ will ever get put to a vote...

Presumably it is assumed you use the resources provided by the gnome
project including but not limited to mailing lists and irc.  Also the
Foundation publishes a full membership list with contact information.
According to that list there are 357 members of the GNOME foundation.

If you can't get 17 or 18 people to agree that your idea is worthy
enough to put up to a vote given the community orientated nature of
the GNOME project, then maybe the idea isn't worth considering or at
least not a priority for the project.

 I don't think anyone--with the possible exception of Mr.
 Stallman--subscribes to the notion that the GNOME Foundation approves of,
 endorses, or supports every posting syndicated to Planet GNOME. Nor have I
 noticed conspicuous calls on Planet for this sort of rule to address a
 looming threat posed by the inappropriately unfree.

I do not believe RMS thinks this is so.  His position as I understand
it is that it is bad publicity for the FOSS movement if such a public
facing venue like Planet GNOME is used to promote proprietary
software.  Obviously we all have our own positions which is what this
discussion has been addressing.

Les
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Stormy Peters]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:


 There is precedent for a membership petition for an election. I ran one
 to have the board size reduced some years ago:
 http://live.gnome.org/BoardSizePetition

 At the time I was told I needed 10% of the membership:


http://foundation.gnome.org/about/charter/ says 10%. I couldn't find a
reference to either number in the bylaws.

Stormy
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

Richard Stallman wrote:
 Stormy, we seem to be miscommunicating.  I said that people should not
 promote non-free software on Planet GNOME.
[snip]
 But GNOME is part
 of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free software
 movement.  The most minimal support for the free software movement is
 to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid
 presenting proprietary software as legitimate.
 
 I think Planet GNOME should have a rule to this effect.  There are
 many ways to implement such a rule, of which block the whole blog is
 about the toughest one we might consider.  I'd suggest rather to try a
 mild approach; I'm sure that can do the job.

To put this discussion in perspective, the question does not come up
very often (if at all).

The last case I can think of where a proprietary piece of software got
substantial attention on pgo was the release of the free ($0) VMWare
client 3 years ago I think?

Aside from that, proprietary software is mentioned all the time, but I
would not consider mentioning (say) that Adobe Acrobat Reader is using
GTK+ on Linux is promoting Adobe - if anything, it's promoting GNOME.

The problem is restricted to sporadic mentions of new releases of
proprietary software using substantial components of the GNOME platform,
developed by people who are members of the GNOME community. As you say
in the last paragraph above, a mild case by case approach is more than
sufficient to handle the problem.

Cheers,
Dave.

-- 
Dave Neary
GNOME Foundation member
dne...@gnome.org
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Andy Wingo]

Hello Lefty,

On Fri 11 Dec 2009 16:37, Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org writes:

 On 12/11/09 7:12 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
 The most minimal support for the free software movement is
 to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid
 presenting proprietary software as legitimate.

 This is simple nonsense. Software is software, and people write about what
 they do. 

 I use free software, and I also use things like Final Cut Pro, for which
 there's no equivalent. You seem to feel I should be barred from writing
 anything about film-editing, since it involves proprietary software.

 My use of Final Cut is completely legitimate. There's no equivalent piece of
 free software, and even if there were, surely my tools are my choice, are
 they not? Your attempts to control what gets posted are completely out of
 line.

The four points in the code of conduct are:

# Be respectful and considerate
# Be patient and generous
# Assume people mean well
# Try to be concise

Lefty I think you are doing well regarding the fourth :) I would submit
that Richard has behaved in accordance with these rules[*], but always
after I read your mails or blogs on the subject, it ends up sounding
very combative.

I know you probably don't mean it that way, and I don't want to put you
on edge. I'm just sayin'.

And in the interest of *topic*, well, I think we have strayed from the
initial proposal.

Best regards,

Andy

[*] I consider the GCDS incident as adequately atoned for by Richard's
apology. YMMV.
-- 
http://wingolog.org/
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Behdad Esfahbod]

On 12/11/2009 01:14 PM, Stormy Peters wrote:



On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org
mailto:dne...@gnome.org wrote:


There is precedent for a membership petition for an election. I ran one
to have the board size reduced some years ago:
http://live.gnome.org/BoardSizePetition

At the time I was told I needed 10% of the membership:

http://foundation.gnome.org/about/charter/ says 10%. I couldn't find a
reference to either number in the bylaws.


You're right.  My bad.  I was misremembering.  The bylaws say 5% is needed to 
call for a meeting, something like that.


behdad



Stormy

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Frederic Crozat]

Le 09/12/2009 20:35, Brian Cameron a écrit :



I think we are mashing together a bunch of issues. So, in effect, are
we looking for:

[0] a way to measure what could be appropriate content for Planet GNOME
[1] a way to prevent non-free or equivalent software being marketed
via the Planet
[2] a way to handle the consequences if there is either inappropriate
content
[3] a way to handle the consequences if there is a pitch for software
that is orthogonal to GNOME values


Is it possible to provide filters so that people who are interested in
different types of blog entries can focus on what is interesting to
them? Some people may only be interested in seeing technical
information, and others may not want to see distro-specific things,
etc.


If it is done on the browser side (which cookies and some JS magic), it 
would exclude RSS readers. And to have it at the Atom/RSS level, it 
would mean having two different planets configuration.


--
Frederic Crozat
Mandriva
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Stormy Peters]

Planet GNOME is about people and we display everyone's full blog feed as it
represents them. There are people that work on proprietary software as well
as GNOME and that's who they are. I don't think we should reject people
because they don't agree with us 100% of the time.

My post on hunting comes to mind. I self censor now because I didn't like
the negative comments directed at my kids. But would you block my whole blog
because a vocal portion of the community is anti-hunting and people in my
family hunt?

Now, if they aren't doing any GNOME work and all they talk about it
non-free, non-GNOME software, that's different.

Stormy

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:

The people who work at VmWare also very often posted (and still post)
about their work and appear on Planet GNOME.

 They should not do this, unless VmWare becomes free software.  GNOME
 should not provide proprietary software developers with a platform to
 present non-free software as a good or legitimate thing.

 Perhaps the statement of Planet GNOME's philosophy should be
 interpreted differently.  It should not invite people to talk about
 their proprietary software projects just because they are also GNOME
 contributors.
 ___
 foundation-list mailing list
 foundation-list@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

[Julien Puydt]

Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :

On 12/07/2009 01:32 PM, Frederic Crozat wrote:

Le 27/11/2009 10:53, Murray Cumming a écrit :

On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 16:50 -0200, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:

Alternative proposal: lets deal with the problem at hand and get our
story straight about what is planet.gnome.org, what can be posted
there (i.e. no porn and vulgar language etc.) and how we can help
to enforce a reasonably exact policy on an exact resource which
is planet.gnome.org.


planet.gnome.org is hard to moderate. Editors can only remove an entire
blog. It would be easier if the software allowed the existing editors to
remove a single blog post.


Let's be honest too : there are a bunch of people which used to be
active GNOME members, who changed their focus to other projects and are
still in Planet GNOME for no reason. Maybe PGO editors should start
cleaning the old cruft (no offense intended)..


But I find it interesting to know, say, what Miguel is up to these days.
I don't think it's just me...


What about a Planet Old Gnome Farts ? People would get there from PGO 
one year after their last active contribution.


JP

PS: this idea is a little rough and may need some patching... at least 
the name, please!


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list