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
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
.
-- 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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
The message I sent to start discussion was quite
.
-- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
(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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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:
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
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
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:
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
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
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
I don't believe Frederic was pointing at Miguel. There are people who
have left the Gnome community working on products that don't use any
Gnome technology posting blog post/ads for said product on PGO.
I wonder whether these products are free software.
If not, they certainly
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
I don't believe Frederic was pointing at Miguel. There are people who
have left the Gnome community working on products that don't use any
Gnome technology posting blog post/ads for said product on PGO.
I wonder
Le 08/12/2009 16:08, sankarshan a écrit :
2009/12/8 Pierre-Luc Beaudoinpierre-...@pierlux.com:
On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 03:23 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
But I find it interesting to know, say, what Miguel is up to these
days. I don't think it's just me...
I don't believe Frederic was
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 08:19 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
I don't believe Frederic was pointing at Miguel. There are people who
have left the Gnome community working on products that don't use any
Gnome technology posting blog post/ads for said product on PGO.
I wonder whether
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 14:27 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
So, let's start (this is list done quickly by me and I haven't contacted
anybody from it), as basis:
- Robert Love
- Christopher Blizzard
- Miguel De Icaza
- Nat Friedman
- Daniel Veillard
- Edd Dumbill
- Glynn Foster
- James
I don't agree at all with the current direction of the discussion. For me,
pgo is about people.
Yes, I'm interested to learn that Nat will soon get married. Yes, I'm
interested to hear about Mandriva on Frédéric's posts because I don't use
it at all but at least I keep an eye on it thanks to his
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 14:07 +, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
about their work and appear on Planet GNOME. There's nothing wrong with
that. Same goes for Nokia and many other companies involved.
I wonder if there's a misunderstanding here. No one said that companies
shouldn't be allowed to
On 12/09/2009 09:07 AM, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
about their work and appear on Planet GNOME. There's nothing wrong with
that. Same goes for Nokia and many other companies involved.
I wonder if there's a misunderstanding here. No one said that companies
shouldn't be allowed to post.
Richard
On 12/09/2009 08:48 AM, Lionel Dricot wrote:
I don't agree at all with the current direction of the discussion. For me,
pgo is about people.
Yes, I'm interested to learn that Nat will soon get married. Yes, I'm
interested to hear about Mandriva on Frédéric's posts because I don't use
it at all
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
On 12/09/2009 01:47 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
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.
Sometimes people who are not
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:48:45PM +, Lucas Rocha wrote:
Before deciding on this, we thought it would be useful to get some
feedback from the community.
Seems thread is becoming
1) heated
2) repeating
So, see subject.
--
Regards,
Olav
___
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 13:32 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On 12/09/2009 08:48 AM, Lionel Dricot wrote:
I know some planets that choose to have a code of conduct about what
should be posted or not (like planet Ubuntu-f or planet-libre.org). They
all ended by not selecting the people on a
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?
This could be a useful feature for many reasons, but it doesn't
address the issue of articles that grant legitimacy to non-free
software.
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
Richard said that Planet GNOME shouldn't be used to promote non-free
software (i.e. software that denies freedom by witholding source code or
witholding permission to use/modify/distribute).
But mono *is* Free Software according to the FSF definition!
Yes, it is. There's
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
On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 03:23 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
But I find it interesting to know, say, what Miguel is up to these
days. I don't think it's just me...
I don't believe Frederic was pointing at Miguel. There are people who
have left the Gnome community working on products that don't
2009/12/8 Pierre-Luc Beaudoin pierre-...@pierlux.com:
On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 03:23 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
But I find it interesting to know, say, what Miguel is up to these
days. I don't think it's just me...
I don't believe Frederic was pointing at Miguel. There are people who
have
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:08 AM, sankarshan foss.mailingli...@gmail.comwrote:
[1] How does one define that they have left the GNOME community ?
If this is a concern that many have, maybe it would be simple enough to
send an annual reminder to people that are aggregated on Planet GNOME to let
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
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:
On 12/08/2009 10:08 AM, sankarshan wrote:
2009/12/8 Pierre-Luc Beaudoinpierre-...@pierlux.com:
On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 03:23 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
But I find it interesting to know, say, what Miguel is up to
On 12/09/2009 01:37 AM, Sankar P 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
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:
On 12/09/2009 01:37 AM, Sankar P 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
On 12/09/2009 01:56 AM, sankarshan wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Behdad Esfahbodbeh...@behdad.org wrote:
On 12/09/2009 01:37 AM, Sankar P 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 /
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:
Coming back to the starting point - what is the problem to which the
solution is being discussed ?
Read the thread?
I have been following the thread since the inception. The intent of
the (rhetorical ?) question was to
On 12/09/2009 02:25 AM, sankarshan wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Behdad Esfahbodbeh...@behdad.org wrote:
Coming back to the starting point - what is the problem to which the
solution is being discussed ?
Read the thread?
I have been following the thread since the inception. The
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
Hi,
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
Other than Telsa and partially Ross, have any other ones expressed to
you or publicly that they left GNOME at least partly because of the
tone of discourse?
Yes. Or rather, because of the culture which has become GNOME's over the
past 5 years or so.
And when did
Hi,
Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
Dave, you left the GIMP project because of issues with a contributor.
Do you really think that person would have been deterred from behaving
so, if he/she had signed such a document?
He would not have signed any such document - he would have found the
idea
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 22:48 +, Alan Cox wrote:
1. People speak on their own behalf, not on behalf of GNOME. Unless
they
ARE talking on behalf of GNOME (say, board, release team, etc),
Indeed
On things like the planet that can be addressed by suitable tags and
styling (as could
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
Hi,
Lucas Rocha wrote:
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
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Lucas Rocha luc...@gnome.org wrote:
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.
That seems like a cop-out to me, at least as phrased. Does this mean
if there's
Hi Lucas
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:48:45PM +, Lucas Rocha wrote:
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
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Mukund Sivaraman m...@banu.com wrote:
I think this is taking it too far. The Code of Conduct being
presented as a set of guidelines is OK, but it is not wise to make it
policy. The GNOME project is not a sect, to control what I can and
cannot say/do in
I believe that this discussion is becoming far too bloated.
How often do we have to deal with offended people? What energy will we
spend to deal with each case on a case by case basis? Answer is A.
How much energy will we spend to try to design a law/rule that might fit
every use case and will
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Lionel Dricot pl...@ploum.net wrote:
What is exactly the problem here? Sometimes some people are offended by
the content of planet GNOME? OK, it has always be the case but it's a
problem. A rare one but still a problem.
What effect will have deciding of
Hi,
Lionel Dricot wrote:
How often do we have to deal with offended people? What energy will we
spend to deal with each case on a case by case basis? Answer is A.
How much energy will we spend to try to design a law/rule that might fit
every use case and will be discussed each time we have
I'm against an enshrined code of conduct which suddenly kicks you out of
GNOME, or gets you shunned. A Terms of Service for hosted sites which gets
your account unsubscribed for that site might be better if it is very
narrowly defined, e.g. no spamming, no porn, etc. However as we move into
the
That is why the proposal that I just put on the table explicitly talks only
of official GNOME forums of communication which is, incidentally, exactly
like a terms of service.
2009/11/25 john palmieri john.j5.palmi...@gmail.com
I'm against an enshrined code of conduct which suddenly kicks you
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
