Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

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. > >

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

> 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

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

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

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

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

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[[[ 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

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

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).

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

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

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

> 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

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

> 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

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

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

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

> 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

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

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

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

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

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

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

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

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

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

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

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

> 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

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

"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

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

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)

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

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, >

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

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

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

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

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

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

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

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

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

- 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

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

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

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

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,

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

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

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

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

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

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

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

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

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

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

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

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

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

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.

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

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

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

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

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

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

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

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

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

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,

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

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?

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[[[ 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.

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership (Summary)

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership (Summary)

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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.

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

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

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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.

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

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

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership (Summary)

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

-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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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?

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

(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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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.

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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.

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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:

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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:

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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

  1   2   3   >