Hi all,
Some of you may have noticed a new teaser on the front page of www.gnome.org
today - it's about an event we're holding next Thursday, April 19th in Santa
Clara, California, USA.
If you're a GNOME lover living nearby, come down to see us. There will be a
bunch of hackerly GNOME folks
Dan Winship wrote:
Jeff Waugh wrote:
Those paying close attention over the last 12 months will have a fair idea
what this is about, but please resist the temptation to reply to this post
about it, as we're hoping to keep it under wraps until Thursday. :-)
Or, if the GNOME
On 4/13/07, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 13:42 -0400, Dan Winship wrote:
Seriously though, this surprise announcement stuff is exactly the sort
of behavior that the community despises when Novell[1] and Red Hat[2] do
it, and now we're doing it to
As a footnote, I'm pretty sure one of the original reasons we created
the board back in the day was to be able to do things like this - give
GNOME a way to coordinate press releases without breaking them (press
releases simply don't work if discussed in public in advance). Another
reason for
On 4/13/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quote who=Jonathon Jongsma
There may be legitimate reasons for some degree of secrecy, but there is
no information for us as foundation members to judge for ourselves whether
that secrecy is warranted. It essentially all boils down to: trust
Hi,
Dan Winship wrote:
Or, if the GNOME Foundation is going to start behaving like Apple, how
about we set up a gnomerumors web site and forum, where people can
post rumors anonymously and try to figure out what the Board is up to
before the official announcements?
While the board (and many
quote who=Jonathon Jongsma
Yes, you did give some of these examples, and I agree that there are
situations within these broad categories that would require some level of
secrecy. But the fact that we don't know any of the details means that
there is still not enough information for me to
El sáb, 14-04-2007 a las 04:12 +1000, Jeff Waugh escribió:
I am particularly sensitive to the issues you've raised here, and they've
been at the top of my mind working on this over the last 9 or so months. I
am satisfied that it has been consultative (with a particular subset of the
Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
El sáb, 14-04-2007 a las 04:12 +1000, Jeff Waugh escribió:
I am particularly sensitive to the issues you've raised here, and they've
been at the top of my mind working on this over the last 9 or so months. I
am satisfied that it has been consultative (with a
quote who=Federico Mena Quintero
El sáb, 14-04-2007 a las 04:12 +1000, Jeff Waugh escribió:
I am particularly sensitive to the issues you've raised here, and
they've been at the top of my mind working on this over the last 9 or so
months. I am satisfied that it has been consultative
On 4/13/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quote who=Jonathon Jongsma
I'm saying that I believe the secrecy is clearly and *obviously* warranted
in these cases, simply due to the nature of the examples. We can't give you
sensitive employment information after the fact so you can determine
11 matches
Mail list logo
