Been more than two weeks that the petition has been up and it did not attract
support of 10% of membership as required by the charter. The request is
dropped as far as I'm concerned. Thanks everyone for the support and/or
useful discussion.
behdad
On 12/18/2009 09:27 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wro
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 21:27 +0100, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On 12/15/2009 10:58 AM, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > Le mardi 15 décembre 2009, à 11:57 +0330, Behnam Esfahbod ZWNJ a écrit :
> >> Also, is a referendum really necessary to create a new members-only
> >> mailing list? Noting that becoming memb
On 12/15/2009 10:58 AM, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le mardi 15 décembre 2009, à 11:57 +0330, Behnam Esfahbod ZWNJ a écrit :
Also, is a referendum really necessary to create a new members-only
mailing list? Noting that becoming membership and participation is
always optional.
It's not necessary to ho
To deny a group or a person the legitimacy to keep intellectual property
proprietary goes against criteria five of the Open Source Definition:
A statement that uses the term "intellectual property" is tremendously
vague, since that refers to many laws at once, and treats them as one
single
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
I am being discriminated against because I can not make improvements
or discuss where the project is headed.
The definition of open source is a criterion for software licenses;
I don't think it applies to mailing list usage at all.
But I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Heya,
On 15.12.2009 15:50, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian-devel-private
> and a kde-private.
According to Jeff in <20091215033304.ge4...@node.waugh.id.au> there is
gnome-private as well: http://mail.
I bet I could find such training. I'd like to do some of the media work.
I'm a natural talker, but I need some rules to make sure that I say the
right things as I can spew garbage from time to time.
sri
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Tobias Mueller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1On 15.12.2009 15:50, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> > No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian-devel-private
> > and a kde-private.
> According to Jeff in <20091215033304.ge4...@node.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
> How do you get media training, by the way? :)
It's usually a pre-requisite for companies (like Novell) before
they'll turn someone loose with the press. They usually have a
consultant or in-house PR folks go through some guidelines, mock
interv
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> > On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, "Miguel de Icaza" wrote:
> >> Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger
> >> connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses
> >> properly framing d
Hi,
Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, "Miguel de Icaza" wrote:
>> Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger
>> connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses
>> properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting.
>
> Actually,
El mié, 16-12-2009 a las 01:01 -0500, Richard Stallman escribió:
> Doesn't this undermines the values of the open source community?
>
> To cite the "values of open source" as an ethical standard is ironic,
> because the motive for open source was to avoid presenting an ethical
> standard.
You are
Typically, you work with a public relations firm. Media training is mostly a
bunch of pointers ("Never say, 'No comment'"; "Never cite specific numbers,
unless you are confident you can back them up") and a bunch of structured
practice in question-and-answer situations, confrontational and non-.
W
On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, "Miguel de Icaza" wrote:
>
> Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger
> connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses
> properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting.
Actually, this is something I'd suggeste
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> ps. The rest is off topic. It's a bit silly that yet another off topic
> thread is starting. Richard, the topic is Behdad's call for a vote. Not
> your ethical believe system. No matter how important you think that is.
>
> People who
Hi there,
Right now I think we should do the vote Behdad is calling for. I'm
waiting until the discussion about it goes to sleep to make up my mind
about it (and then either add or don't add my name to the wiki page).
I think the implementation should be broader than only foundation
members. I t
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 05:02:15PM +1000, brendan edmonds wrote:
> I used the term 'open source' to refer to the following criteria of
> the definition for a project to be open source
> (http://opensource.org/docs/osd).
I approved this non-member email.
However, from http://mail.gnome.org/mailman
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 13:16 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> In short: it changes the tone for the better.
I have the opposite experience of private mailing lists.
--
murr...@murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
___
foundation-list mailing li
Richard,
I used the term 'open source' to refer to the following criteria of
the definition for a project to be open source
(http://opensource.org/docs/osd).
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
I am being discriminated against because I can not make improvements
or discuss where the p
Doesn't this undermines the values of the open source community?
To cite the "values of open source" as an ethical standard is ironic,
because the motive for open source was to avoid presenting an ethical
standard.
The founders of open source split off from the free software movement
in 1998
Hello,
I believe that we should keep the foundation-list open for anyone to
read.
As Jeff said, trollumnists do not need to play by the same rules
that we do, they do not need to stick to the facts when they do not
serve their purpose. When facts get in the way, they will just invent
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Gregory Leblanc <
headmaster.albus.dumbled...@gmail.com> wrote:
> not that closing foundation list
> would make it into a small conversation.
>
The proposal is now to create a -private list; please do not add further
confusion.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Murray Cumming
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
>> > This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not
>> > about keeping secrets.
>>
>> So why not just moderate the list?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> > This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not
> > about keeping secrets.
>
> So why not just moderate the list?
>
Because part of increasing signal-to-noise is giving those in a dis
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
>> This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not
>> about keeping secrets.
>
> So why not just moderate the list? In fact, I thought that
> non-foundation-members were not even allowed to
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not
> about keeping secrets.
So why not just moderate the list? In fact, I thought that
non-foundation-members were not even allowed to post here?
For instance, I don't understand why RMS's emails e
Hi all,
2009/12/14 Stormy Peters :
> Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
> can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
> foundation-list and the value you see in it.
>
I am not a GNOME Foundation member, but was a WSOP'06 pa
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian-devel-private
> and a kde-private. Sometimes reaching concensus requires meeting
> behind closed doors away from the noise of those who are not as
> informed or involved as others.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> Given the excellent comments so far, I'm leaning towards retracting the
> proposal. However, there's quite a few others who support it now. So I let
> it move forward naturally.
>
No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian
On 12/15/2009 08:52 AM, Og Maciel wrote:
Since there isn't a place to do this that I'm aware, here is my vote
against this petition. For the same reasons that many here have
already expressed, I want to keep GNOME open for everyone. And even
though GNOME != GNOME Foundation when it comes down to
Since there isn't a place to do this that I'm aware, here is my vote
against this petition. For the same reasons that many here have
already expressed, I want to keep GNOME open for everyone. And even
though GNOME != GNOME Foundation when it comes down to our code, GNOME
== GNOME Foundation when it
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 21:05 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> >> I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make
> >> foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual
> >> Foundation
> >> members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss matters freel
Le mardi 15 décembre 2009, à 11:57 +0330, Behnam Esfahbod ZWNJ a écrit :
> Also, is a referendum really necessary to create a new members-only
> mailing list? Noting that becoming membership and participation is
> always optional.
It's not necessary to hold a vote to create a list, but I think Be
El lun, 14-12-2009 a las 19:04 -0700, Stormy Peters escribió:
> Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members?
> If so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you
> subscribe to foundation-list and the value you see in it.
I'm not a foundation member, I
Hi,
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> I watch a lot of projects. In my opinion, the projects which conduct
> their discussions in the open tend to be the most robust and the most
> successful. Those which hold their discussions behind closed doors,
> perhaps occasionally issuing a press release to tell t
Doesn't this undermines the values of the open source community? While
where at making a private list for discussions, why not make the whole
gnome project, closed source. The news we generate from such
discussions, gives the gnome project public visibility that is needed
for gnome to grow.
The re
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:04:50 -0700
Stormy Peters wrote:
> Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
> can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
> foundation-list and the value you see in it.
Technically I'm not on the list - I
Le lundi 14 décembre 2009, à 19:04 -0700, Stormy Peters a écrit :
> Also, maybe someone with list admin privileges could tell us roughly the
> number of subscribers and how many of them appear to be GNOME Foundation
> members.
We have 574 subscribers on the mailing list. However, there are quite a
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:30 +0100, Koen Martens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 07:04:50PM -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
> > Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
> > can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
> > found
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 07:04:50PM -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
> Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
> can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
> foundation-list and the value you see in it.
Speaking up.
I'm currentl
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On 12/14/2009 09:04 PM, Stormy Peters wrote:
>>
>> Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If
>> so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you
>> subscribe to foundation-list and the value
On 12/14/09 11:35 PM, "Sergey Panov" wrote:
>
> Nothing personal, but I never trusted those corporate "Open Source
> Advocates" ... .
No offense taken, I'm sure... I fear you distrust a fair proportion of the
Foundation's Advisory Board.
> Besides, Lefty does not work for ACCESS Inc. anymore
On 12/15/2009 02:35 AM, Sergey Panov wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 01:56 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
As per Code of Conduct, please assume people mean well. Which both Lefty and
Philip do.
Sorry, if I managed to brake some CoC. I have no idea what you mean by
"mean well", but their attack on
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 01:56 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> As per Code of Conduct, please assume people mean well. Which both Lefty and
> Philip do.
Sorry, if I managed to brake some CoC. I have no idea what you mean by
"mean well", but their attack on RMS was quite tasteless.
> Philip is
On 12/15/2009 01:50 AM, Sergey Panov wrote:
Politics aside, what was "Lefty"(Open source advocate for ACCESS Co.,
Ltd.) and Philip Van Hoof (self-appointed propitiatory software
advocate) contribution to GNOME in the last year? Are those two still
members of the foundation?
As per Code of C
I am one of those old farts on foundation list (first e-mail in my gfnd
folder is from Sep 19 2000). I left foundation because I thought I was
not contributing (I did some i18n work, while I had free time). I was
following the recent controversy closely. I am with Dave Neary on a
subject of that cr
2009/12/15 Stormy Peters :
> Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
> can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
> foundation-list and the value you see in it.
Pick me! :-) I just like to follow what happens since I spend most
On 12/15/2009 12:23 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
In any case, journalist-impersonators like Mr. Varghese are going to write a
load of smack, no matter what, even if they have to simply invent it. After
all, they have in the past.
Given that all the past incidents I can think of involve that same per
On 12/14/09 8:28 PM, "Behdad Esfahbod" wrote:
>
> My proposal is mostly about recognizing that some discussions are
> better done among contributors only, and not the public. And only if a
> reasonable part of the community thinks that it's a good idea.
I understand the motivations, but I tend
On 12/14/2009 10:51 PM, brendan wrote:
Doesn't this undermines the values of the open source community? While
where at making a private list for discussions, why not make the whole
gnome project, closed source. The news we generate from such
discussions, gives the gnome project public visibility
...
> From: Behdad Esfahbod
>
...
> On 12/14/2009 09:04 PM, Stormy Peters wrote:
> > Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If
> > so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you
> > subscribe to foundation-list and the value you see in it.
>
> I
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> [/me removes board hat]
> I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make
> foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation
> members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss ma
On 12/14/09 7:14 PM, "Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier" wrote:
> 2009/12/14 Stormy Peters :
>> Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
>> can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
>> foundation-list and the value you see in it.
Actuall
> [/me removes board hat]
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make
> foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual
> Foundation members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss
> matters freely without making lots of
On 12/14/2009 10:20 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
As long as GNOME is a project that matters, there will always be bozos
who will post uneducated articles about what you are doing. If your
discussions are in the open, people who really care can see what was
*really* said and help to keep those boz
On 12/14/2009 10:14 PM, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:
2009/12/14 Stormy Peters:
Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
foundation-list and the value you see in it.
Yes.
I'm not a
2009/12/14 Stormy Peters :
> Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
> can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
> foundation-list and the value you see in it.
Yes.
I'm not a Foundation member, but I am on the advisory board.
On 12/14/2009 10:08 PM, Glynn Foster wrote:
The net effect of that perceived transparency is that many discussions
happen on private IRC messages or direct mail and never make it to
foundation-list in fear of long threads and negative publicity.
I would submit that they would happen regardless
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> I understand that it may seem disrespectful to ask people to leave. An
> alternative would be to introduce a foundation-private list. One way or the
> other, maybe that's a better idea. Humm. Yes, that is better. I'll amend
> my reque
On 15/12/2009, at 4:01 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
Remember gnome-hackers? Mails get leaked all the time, and I doubt
moving foundation-list private would make any difference.
Sure. But at least someone needs to leak it. Currently any heated
discussion is like a goldmine begging the trolls
On 12/14/2009 09:04 PM, Stormy Peters wrote:
Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If
so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you
subscribe to foundation-list and the value you see in it.
I understand that it may seem disrespectful to ask p
On 12/14/2009 09:28 PM, Glynn Foster wrote:
On 15/12/2009, at 2:49 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
[/me removes board hat]
Hi everyone,
I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make
foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual
Foundation members. If we
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Glynn Foster wrote:
> Remember gnome-hackers? Mails get leaked all the time, and I doubt moving
> foundation-list private would make any difference.
If a foundation member feels strongly enough about a topic to 'leak' a
thread from the proposed private foundation
2009/12/15 Stormy Peters :
> Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
> can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
> foundation-list and the value you see in it.
Hi there.
I'm not a GNOME Foundation member but on the last few mo
On 15/12/2009, at 2:49 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
[/me removes board hat]
Hi everyone,
I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make
foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual
Foundation members. If we make that change we would be able to
d
On 12/14/2009 08:54 PM, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
[/me removes board hat]
Hi everyone,
I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make
foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation
members
Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
foundation-list and the value you see in it.
Also, maybe someone with list admin privileges could tell us roughly the
number of subscribers and h
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> [/me removes board hat]
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make
> foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation
> members. If we make that change we would be
[/me removes board hat]
Hi everyone,
I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make
foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation
members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss matters freely
without making lots of news that m
69 matches
Mail list logo
