Jody Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- More importantly it is already a de-facto standard by virtue of
MS's dominant market position.
MS's next file formats might be widely used, but it's worth noting that MS
are not using the ECMA approved OOXML. They're using a slightly different
quote who=Quim Gil
Also, looking backwards we also see that our time and issues could have
been invested much better.
I think that's probably true, but I strongly disagree with your examples. I
also think that with such high expectations, we can beat ourselves up pretty
badly even when we do
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 09:32:52AM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not.
To pretend otherwise is to deny that the sun will rise in the East
tomorrow.
I'm not so sure...
http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype%3Aodt = almost 100.000 hits
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 08:31:20AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
Spreadsheets are probably much easier to support, since they have a much
more structured data (fixed table spaces, namely).
Spoken like a non-spreadsheet user. My experience suggests exactly
the opposite. Users are a lot more
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:19:23AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
Option 3 is useful only if we can veto (or organize a veto, or a stall) of
the OOXML progress toward being a standard. The current participation is
not of that manner.
I have a significant problem with the ethics of that.
Hi,
Jeff Waugh wrote:
Things change -- what was taken for granted while you were on the Board may
not be the case now.
Way to make a guy feel like his opinion is worth something Jeff.
Would you mind educating me on what's changed, please? Perhaps as a
foundation member who put a lot of time
OOXML will be a de facto standard entirely due to Microsoft's dominant
position in the computing industry... the fight is about preventing it to
be
a formal standard.
I remain open to being convinced (1) that that distinction matters and
(2) that anyone actually thinks
That is a stretch. It's undeniably that improvements made in MOOX
at my request will tangentially facilitate ISO acceptance.
Thank you. If you make a public commitment to stay out of the
activity of satisfying ISO, and to stay inactive in the committee
while its focus is
quote who=Dave Neary
Jeff Waugh wrote:
Things change -- what was taken for granted while you were on the Board
may not be the case now.
Way to make a guy feel like his opinion is worth something Jeff.
Huh? Of course your opinion is worth something, but the issue is not static.
Would
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 11:58:23PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
You said:
OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not.
The defacto standard implies there is only one, and the sentence
says it is not ODF.
That is a very good point Richard. I agree
will believe it. Not a great way to encourage respectful discussion on this
list,
Nor is putting in strange references to ultimatums off private lists.
That makes it very hard to follow, so thanks for explaining where it came
from.
As for trashing you, it seems any comment about the boards
quote who=Alan Cox
As for trashing you, it seems any comment about the boards actions or
activities that is the slighest bit negative or in disagreement with
yourself you take as a personal insult and follow up in flowery language
attempting to supress the dissent by acting hurt.
I pointed
I pointed out behaviour that I thought was inappropriate and unproductive.
So did I ...
I suggest you take a gander at the Code of Conduct
So do I ...
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
Le dimanche 04 novembre 2007 à 01:27 +1100, Jeff Waugh a écrit :
I suggest you
take a gander at the Code of Conduct, and figure a more constructive
way to contribute to the community.
Wow .. implying Alan Cox isn't a good contributor to the community
sounds weird.
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 10:01:04PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 11:53:15PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
|
ECMA = European Computer Manufacturers Association
http://www.ecma-international.org
An umbrella organisation for creating standards.
The name is now
The membership can still push for a change from not supporting to
actively opposing given the debate now is more active.
What does 'actively oppose' mean in concrete terms ?
- Asking frivolous questions ?
- Writing bad documentation ?
- Starting flame wars on the mailing
Hi,
Things I have learned during this time at the board:
1 - Voting busy candidates is risky if not counterproductive.
2 - Running for election when you are busy is risky if not counterproductive.
3 - Seven members is what you need to run efficiently a board.
4 - Even a board of busy members can
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 11:58:34PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
However, the rest of the situations are not analogous. The ECMA
committee has explicitly undertaken to make OOXML an ISO standard. If
Gnumeric had explicitly undertaken to facilitate the sale of addictive
drugs, that would
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 04:48:29PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
The membership can still push for a change from not supporting to
actively opposing given the debate now is more active.
What does 'actively oppose' mean in concrete terms ?
- Asking frivolous questions ?
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:32:23AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
I think that The GNOME participating in OOXML lends it a credibility
it does not deserve. Joining ECMA TC45 would be like joining of the
political party you dislike the most to improve their politics.
It's
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 07:58:22PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
Microsoft's goal is, by one means or another, to defeat free software
which it now considers a serious threat. Whatever they do, it will not
be a sincere standardization effort that offers no obstacle to free
software
On 11/1/07, Andy Tai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OOXML will be a de facto standard entirely due to Microsoft's dominant
position in the computing industry... the fight is about preventing it to be
a formal standard.
I remain open to being convinced (1) that that distinction matters and
(2) that
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:08:30PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
Here's something IBM's Rob Weir said about what ECMA is doing now:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The practical difficulty here is that of timing. While I have no doubt
that Jody was instrumental in getting additional technical
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:08:00PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not.
To pretend otherwise is to deny that the sun will rise in the East
tomorrow.
Please don't be defeatist!
We can and should try to make free
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 11:11:07AM -0700, Andy Tai wrote:
OOXML will be a de facto standard entirely due to Microsoft's dominant
position in the computing industry... the fight is about preventing it to be
a formal standard.
We cannot prevent the former. We can prevent the later. A more
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 09:32:52AM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
3) acknowledge it and at least attempt to make it suck less for
reimplementers, but use our presence there to highlight Microsoft's
abusive, convicted monopolistic tendencies.
+1 vote for Luis as word smith par excellance.
Not only
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 01:33:25PM -0700, Andy Tai wrote:
you don't join ECMA TC45 to prevent OOXML from becoming a standard.
- I fail to see how we have the power to materially manipulate the ISO process.
- It is already an ECMA standard.
- More importantly it is already a de-facto standard by
On 10/31/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quote who=Luis Villa
I'm hesitant to declare it a failure until I see more evidence that
delegation has been tried and failed. For example, I could do this sort of
thing without being on the board at all- no need to appoint me to the
quote who=Luis Villa
I volunteered to take leadership on this position months ago.
We chose to have a Board member as liaison to the Legal team, which was very
clearly delegated the responsibility to provide legal support and advice to
the Foundation. This is the same model as other teams, but
So, yes, I totally understand your position, but I think that falling back
on unsympathetic, dramatic criticism of the Board and ultimatums is not a
productive way of fixing the problem.
unsympathetic, dramatic criticism would be telling it as it is
of the Board would be blaming Jeff
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 02:04:14PM -0700, Andy Tai wrote:
On 10/31/07, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 11:41 -0700, Andy Tai wrote:
What was done is done. For the future...
The idea and board's decision was transcribed in board meeting minutes
and sent
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:52:51PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
It is not the membership that is really detrimental, although you can
bet Microsoft is spinning around that open source likes OOXML thanks
to that.
People can spin things however they'd like. I'll implement any
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 11:53:15PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
|
| ACTION: Behdad to contact Jody about the ECMA membership application and
| find a good candidate from Abiword to attend. Behdad to work on getting
| a press release for our membership.
From above, I don't see how the
You said:
OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not.
The defacto standard implies there is only one, and the sentence
says it is not ODF.
It is only by forcing that dichotomy that we set
ourselves up for problems when MS eventually gets OOX through
If that is the case, anyone who is represented on the ECMA committee
is helping to promote the ISO acceptance of OOXML
The latter does not necessarily follow from the former. Intentions
do matter.
Intentions do matter, especially in influencing others. But if you
don't state
I think that The GNOME participating in OOXML lends it a credibility
it does not deserve. Joining ECMA TC45 would be like joining of the
political party you dislike the most to improve their politics.
It's like starting a competing political party and going to the same
law
Not quiet... you don't join ECMA TC45 to prevent OOXML from becoming a
standard.
On 10/31/07, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 10:19 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
I think that The GNOME participating in OOXML lends it a credibility
it does not deserve.
On 10/31/07, Andy Tai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not quiet... you don't join ECMA TC45 to prevent OOXML from becoming a
standard.
OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not.
To pretend otherwise is to deny that the sun will rise in the East
tomorrow.
So our options can
Competing is a good thing, and in my opinion it's good that Microsoft
competes with us. This keeps us sharp and focused.
If you were sharp and focussed nobody would have joined anything in a way
Microsoft could twist.
Competition has never been a bad thing for mankind. In fact has it been
OOXML will be a de facto standard entirely due to Microsoft's dominant
position in the computing industry... the fight is about preventing it to be
a formal standard.
We cannot prevent the former. We can prevent the later. A more activist
opposition to OOXML is called for.
Option 3 is useful
Microsoft's goal is, by one means or another, to defeat free software
which it now considers a serious threat. Whatever they do, it will not
be a sincere standardization effort that offers no obstacle to free
software implementions.
This is just your opinion, Richard. Not
OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not.
To pretend otherwise is to deny that the sun will rise in the East
tomorrow.
Please don't be defeatist!
We can and should try to make free software read OOXML, because that will be
a useful feature -- but that
Hi Bjorn,
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
On 10/31/07, Jody Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is uncomfortable acting as a representative of the foundation in
a role that many members do not agree should exist. My private
preferences should not negatively impact the foundation, or go
against the
On 10/31/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quote who=Luis Villa
I am frustrated, and so I will be running for the board again.
If elected, my almost-exclusive focus will be handling legal and
secretarial issues for the board. So I can't guarantee that my being on
the board would
Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and totally
separated from, and have nothing to do with, GNOME.
On 10/30/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quote who=Richard Stallman
the GNOME Foundation should make a statement opposing the acceptance of
OOXML and
quote who=Luis Villa
I am frustrated, and so I will be running for the board again.
If elected, my almost-exclusive focus will be handling legal and
secretarial issues for the board. So I can't guarantee that my being on
the board would necessarily have prevented this particular problem,
quote who=Andy Tai
Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and totally
separated from, and have nothing to do with, GNOME.
His involvement is facilitated by our membership of ECMA. We were entirely
willing to do so.
- Jeff
--
GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia
quote who=Luis Villa
I'm hesitant to declare it a failure until I see more evidence that
delegation has been tried and failed. For example, I could do this sort of
thing without being on the board at all- no need to appoint me to the
board. But frankly I have not felt like my attempts to help
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 10:19 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
Are you also Novell's representative on TC 45 if I may ask?
Jody no longer works for Novell. Novell has its own representative on
TC-45.
Hub
___
foundation-list mailing list
Hi,
Jeff Waugh wrote:
A related issue: I think we've pretty much shown that the seven person Board
thing is a bit of a failure. Even if you're not elected or didn't run, we
could appoint you to the Board for this function. :-) We ought to consider
adding a couple of people to the Board.
On 6/10/07, Jody Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a non-profit we (GNOME) would not have voting privileges.
The membership will serve as a mechanism to allow interested
foundation members to join ECMA committees. I'm advocating this in
relation to ECMA376/TC45 aka MS
quote who=Dave Neary
What we've shown is not having a full-time director has been a mistake
It has actually been a very helpful learning experience -- understanding
what the purpose of that role should be, by grokking the gaps. It's less
obvious what that role ought to be now that we're so far
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 15:15 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
What we've shown is not having a full-time director has been a mistake,
and I would urge the next board to invest financially in the hiring of
someone.
Perhaps you could sweet talk some corporation to lend/sponsor some
desirable person to
If that had been possible I would have done it that way, and avoided
the political fallout for GNOME. Unfortunately, there is no
provision for individual members of ECMA.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:12:26PM -0700, Andy Tai wrote:
Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and
What was done is done. For the future the board should really consider not
sponsoring anyone to work on the OOXML format (and withdraw existing
involvement on the behalf of the GNOME Foundation), as many people in the
free software/FOSS community are working hard to try to prevent the OOXML
from
quote who=Andy Tai
For the future the board should really consider not sponsoring anyone to
work on the OOXML format
No one was sponsored to work on the OOXML format.
(and withdraw existing involvement on the behalf of the GNOME Foundation),
as many people in the free software/FOSS
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 08:30 +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Nonsese, says you. I had direct access to Microsoft representatives as
well, and even a Microsoft expert. Microsoft decided to spend their
money and time for two and half weeks calling me a liar, on blogs and
even on a
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 10:19 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
I think that The GNOME participating in OOXML lends it a credibility
it does not deserve. Joining ECMA TC45 would be like joining of the
political party you dislike the most to improve their politics.
To me, it's more like going to
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:18:38PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 10:19 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
I think that The GNOME participating in OOXML lends it a credibility
it does not deserve. Joining ECMA TC45 would be like joining of the
political party you dislike
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:14:11PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 08:30 +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Nonsese, says you. I had direct access to Microsoft representatives as
well, and even a Microsoft expert. Microsoft decided to spend their
money and time for
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 03:06:42PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:30:43AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:56:31PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 02:55:07PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30,
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:17:05PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
The idea and board's decision was transcribed in board meeting minutes
and sent to this least a few months ago. A mild discussion started and
there was no strong opposition to the membership. I don't think just
because a fool
We'll be making a statement about the issue soon. Don't expect it to please
everyone.
I hope it will displease those that seek to cite the GNOME Foundation
to advocate greater use of OOXML.
___
foundation-list mailing list
Are you seriously suggesting that it's in the best interests of our
users, of GNUmeric users and Abiword users, not to be able to open OOXML
files? I disagree with your statement that most in the community want
the standardisation process to fail - I would suggest that most want
I look forward to further aggravated public shaming of past incompetencies,
especially ones so obvious in hindsight, as it always improves motivation
So you can do PR some of the time then Jeff
aggravated public shaming of past incompetencies
I have another word for that newspeak ...
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:00:58AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
2) OOX is a file format that is in use, and we will have to interact
with it. The opportunity to improve the spec and have MS answer
questions and clarify necessary details should not be wasted.
Microsoft has done it's very
Although I disagree with the tone and content of your email, an
announcement is pending about a related issue, which may address
concerns (legitimate or not) raised about GNOME's involvement in
TC45-M. Participation in the TC45-M process does not imply
approval or support for
Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and totally
separated from, and have nothing to do with, GNOME.
On 10/30/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quote who=Richard Stallman
the GNOME Foundation should make a statement opposing the acceptance of
OOXML and
quote who=Luis Villa
So, uh... this apparently didn't happen, and now we're getting flamed
(rightfully) for appearing to give a stamp of approval to a deeply flawed
standard. So... when is the board making this happen?
Although I disagree with the tone and content of your email, an
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 23:06 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
On 6/10/07, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/10/07, Jody Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 08:18:54PM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
On 6/10/07, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) ECMA
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 23:46 -0400, Corey Burger wrote:
On 10/29/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quote who=Luis Villa
So, uh... this apparently didn't happen, and now we're getting flamed
(rightfully) for appearing to give a stamp of approval to a deeply flawed
standard. So...
On 6/10/07, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/10/07, Jody Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 08:18:54PM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
On 6/10/07, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) ECMA
We have the opportunity of joining ECMA as a non-profit
quote who=Luis Villa
This flaming was completely and utterly predictable. I'm disappointed that
the board took the time to approve an action that obviously exposed GNOME
to PR problems without taking the (very obvious) PR steps to reduce that
impact.
Based on the genesis of the open letter,
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 19:02 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
This combined conference topic was brought up at DAM-4 last week in
the Desktop Organization Panel session with jrb and I in the panel
from GNOME and Lars and George (don't remember the last names) from
Lars Knoll.
KDE. When both
On 6/18/07, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
KDE. When both sides mentioned that the logistics of such an event
seemed quite difficult, someone pointed out that helping with this
kind of collaboration is one of the reasons for the existence of the
Linux Foundation. So, there may
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 19:02 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
FWIW...
On 6/13/07, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Cooper wrote:
* People aren't exactly falling over themselves to host and organise
these things
Agree - while we constantly pitch that organizing GUADEC can
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 17:11 -0500, Diego Escalante Urrelo wrote:
On 6/14/07, Bruno Boaventura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 23:24 +0300, Lucas Rocha wrote:
There's a *big* difference between willing to increase collaboration
between GNOME and KDE and merging their main
Hi
I'm not poo-pooing the idea completely, but let me ask the question: do
you think many people will be able to take 2 consecutive weeks to go to
two conferences? I know I wouldn't (the boss would probably think I was
nuts, and the wife would kill me). I'm wondering if there are a lot of
Hi all,
There's a *big* difference between willing to increase collaboration
between GNOME and KDE and merging their main conferences in one. I
think this merge would bring really bad effects on our community.
- Our conference would lose GNOMEsh identity. This is a subtle but
essential aspect of
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 12:55 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
I'd *love* to get to the stage where we could outsource the conference, but
the
last time we did that and outsourced an expo day, it was a bit of a disaster.
Financially we're probably not in the position to do
In relation to Hubert's comment I'm interested to hear your view on the
Microsoft Open Specification Promise (OSP) that Microsoft applies to
OOXML since last October.
I had not heard of that before yesterday. Today I obtained a copy.
I am not sure whether the license applies to
Hi,
- Quim Gil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
About the KDE GNOME event, probably the best way to progress is by
doing progressive approaches. Jumping from the current situation to a
joint conference sounds a bit like going from self-esteem to the 32nd
position of the Kama Sutra in one go.
Le lundi 11 juin 2007, à 22:39 +0300, Quim Gil a écrit :
As others have suggested, a successful combined room in FOSDEM would
be already a big (and useful) step. Trying to put together GUADEC and
aKademy befor trying smaller challenges in save contexts would be very
risky.
We already had a
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 11:04 -0400, Claudio Saavedra wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 16:01 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
Another option that could be considered is back-to-back co-location.
You
get a lot of the same advantages in terms of cheaper financials, yet
since they will be run
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 22:39 +0300, Quim Gil wrote:
About the KDE GNOME event, probably the best way to progress is by
doing progressive approaches. Jumping from the current situation to a
joint conference sounds a bit like going from self-esteem to the 32nd
position of the Kama Sutra in one
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 12:43 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 22:39 +0300, Quim Gil wrote:
About the KDE GNOME event, probably the best way to progress is by
doing progressive approaches. Jumping from the current situation to a
joint conference sounds a bit like going from
Le mardi 12 juin 2007 à 12:43 +0200, Rodrigo Moya a écrit :
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 22:39 +0300, Quim Gil wrote:
About the KDE GNOME event, probably the best way to progress is by
doing progressive approaches. Jumping from the current situation to a
joint conference sounds a bit like going
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 13:02 -0700, Corey Burger wrote:
On 6/11/07, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 22:39 +0300, Quim Gil wrote:
About the KDE GNOME event, probably the best way to progress is by
doing progressive approaches. Jumping from the current
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 06:44 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 12:43 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 22:39 +0300, Quim Gil wrote:
About the KDE GNOME event, probably the best way to progress is by
doing progressive approaches. Jumping from the current
quote who=Luis Villa
Of course, I'd be more comfortable with it if we put out a press release
saying something to the effect of 'we see no way to avoid implementing
OOXML without screwing our users, so we're joining ECMA to make sure it
sucks as little as possible. All other things being
quote who=Lucas Rocha
I think it would make sense to have both conferences scheduled in way that
it would be easier for us, GNOMErs, to attend both. But I don't think we
should have only one merged KDE/GNOME conference. Even though we aim to
increase the collaboration with KDE, we're still
Hi,
Lucas Rocha wrote:
4) GNOME and KDE Conference
There has been some discussion about a possible merge of GNOME
and KDE conferences. This has been discussed at the advisory
board level, along with the KDE e.v. members list. If there is
considerable opposition from both sides,
Another option that could be considered is back-to-back co-location. You
get a lot of the same advantages in terms of cheaper financials, yet
since they will be run sequentially at the same location you don't get
the collisions and 'noise' of sharing one venue at the same time. And
interested
Hi,
Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
Another option that could be considered is back-to-back co-location. You
get a lot of the same advantages in terms of cheaper financials, yet
since they will be run sequentially at the same location you don't get
the collisions and 'noise' of
You are asking the wrong question. The correct question is 'do you think
more people than today would be able/interested in attending both
conferences if they are hosted in the same location back-to-back?'
And the answer to that question is:
Yes, I do.
Christian
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 16:01
Richard Stallman wrote:
However, it may be true that we don't have much of a choice in this
matter. Certain aspects of OOXML are patented by Microsoft, in the US
and some other countries. Microsoft offers a gratis patent license,
on conditions that do not allow free implementations. To
, UMG - Hillsboro,
Oregon
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hubert Figuiere
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:50 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: foundation-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
Richard Stallman
About the KDE GNOME event, probably the best way to progress is by
doing progressive approaches. Jumping from the current situation to a
joint conference sounds a bit like going from self-esteem to the 32nd
position of the Kama Sutra in one go.
As others have suggested, a successful combined
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 22:39 +0300, Quim Gil wrote:
About the KDE GNOME event, probably the best way to progress is by
doing progressive approaches. Jumping from the current situation to a
joint conference sounds a bit like going from self-esteem to the 32nd
position of the Kama Sutra in one
On 6/11/07, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 22:39 +0300, Quim Gil wrote:
About the KDE GNOME event, probably the best way to progress is by
doing progressive approaches. Jumping from the current situation to a
joint conference sounds a bit like going from
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
