Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
IMHO talking about Facebook and who should demand them to free info is a bit out of place here. Please let's not diverge the thread into that or into a battle about how much we should promote Free Software or non Free alternatives. In my fantasies, the free software movement might be so influential that we could make demands and Facebook would have to heed them. In reality, we are not in a position to correct the social problems caused by Facebook, and I do not suggest making that our goal. But we do have a duty to make sure, if we develop software specifically to work with Facebook, that we are not promoting Facebook as a consequence. There are many social problems in life, and nobody would expect us to eliminate them all. Most of them are not our priority to work on. But even when eliminating a problem is not our priority, we should make an effort to avoid making it worse. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: pvanhoof issue (was: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap)
Take this stuff off list please. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: pvanhoof issue (was: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap)
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 19:20 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: [cut] > Thing is that Philip had been using the word 'we' quite a lot in the > recent endless discussions ... [cut] > I didn't complain so far because it wasn't always 100% clear if he > means 'all GNOME developers' by 'we' until now where he made it > perfectly clear. > Now that that is sorted out, I would like the foundation to forbid > him from doing so in future. [cut] > ... and despite all efforts from Philip & Lefty "we" have yet to > see any compelling reason to change that definition. You must mean "I" here when you ask the foundation in the same E-mail to forbid this specific usage of the word "we". On top of that are you now talking on behalf of me without my consent: You claim that I want to draw a line between GNOME and FSF. Not true. I'd also like ask Jonathon Jongsma, Zeeshan Ali and Dodji Seketeli to stop their personal attack. If you want to ignore me, then just do so. I believe your behavior already is forbidden by GNOME's code of conduct. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: pvanhoof issue
Hi, Dodji Seketeli wrote: > I feel your pain, Zeeshan, seriously. But FWIW I tend to be against that > sort of police on foundation-list, even though I agree that would give a > break to people like you and me. The lack of any police on this list is making it useless. The alternative for people who have either time or bandwidth constraints seems to be unsubscribing. Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: [...] > I'm surprised that a suggestion that a specific site be singled out by GNOME > for extra-special treatment, including warning messages, based on what > amounts to unsourced gossip, is being treated with even a moment's serious > consideration. > > This Facebook rumor seems to be not much different from last year's equally > unsupported claim that Apple maintained a secret "back-door" in OS X, for > which an apology was extracted from the FSF, presumably on the instigation > of Apple's Legal department‹and I note, without much amusement, that the > sole citation offered in support of this latest claim regarding Facebook > leads to a non-existent web page. > > I do not believe that the GNOME Foundation should sign up to be in a > position to have to apologize to Facebook, nor do I think it should be an > official position of the GNOME Foundation that "using Facebook is a harmful > practice". With free software you would have the freedom of examining the social networking software in place, if you were not satisfied with how your personal data was being handled; then you could modify it and run your own derived version. I think its clear that GNOME is a free software community/desktop and while we dont need to throw poo at proprietary vendors or proprietary social networking softwares, we at least need to represent free software, which is the one common thing that holds us all together. Therefore no it is not rude for a free software desktop to warn or alert about times when the task you want to accomplish implies using proprietary software, its expected that we represent the ethical values that hold us together as a community. > > If the GNOME community is hoping for better engagement with Facebook and the > like, want to encourage their meaningful participation in our efforts, and > hope to cultivate some appreciation on their part of community concerns, > surely claiming that they're in the business of routinely breaking Federal > law‹without compelling supporting evidence‹isn't the way to be going about > it. Im sorry in advance but this is a little overboard. First, GNOME is not issuing any such statement or claims as far as I can see and I have been following the thread, so lets not get carried away. But more importantly, No I dont think we are in the business of changing our attitude in order to gain the favour and attention of whichever corporation "x", I think we are above that and people cooperate with us when its beneficial for everyone involved, period. Regards, -Tristan > > For my part, I don't believe that spreading defamatory gossip in the name of > "freedom" is especially "ethical". Perhaps I've misunderstood Mr. Stallman's > intention in making such an apparently irresponsible claim here. > > > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
>A solution that IMHO has much better chances of success is to > create a free alternative to facebook. However, who is going to do it > and more importantly who is going to pay for this effort? :( You would have the same problem as taking on ebay or replacing the internet. The economic value of a network is armwavingly proportional to the square of the number of members. (Metcalfe's law) It would make more sense perhaps to ask why you need a centralised web site for this rather than tying it together distributed sites and people together through links in the same way that rss permits news to be aggregated without there being some central repository of the world's news. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: pvanhoof issue (was: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap)
Hi, On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote: > Le dim. 28 févr. 2010 à 19:20:39 (+0200), Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) a écrit: >> Thanks for your clarification. Thing is that Philip had been using >> the word 'we' quite a lot in the recent endless discussions as part of >> his crusade to draw a thick border between Free Software and GNOME[1]. >> I didn't complain so far because it wasn't always 100% clear if he >> means 'all GNOME developers' by 'we' until now where he made it >> perfectly clear. >> >> Now that that is sorted out, I would like the foundation to forbid >> him from doing so in future. Once that is done, I can live a happy >> life by joining the ever growing 'just put pvanhoof on your ignore >> list on IRC and email' group. > > I feel your pain, Zeeshan, seriously. But FWIW I tend to be against that > sort of police on foundation-list, even though I agree that would give a > break to people like you and me. Me too! Please keep in mind that I am not suggesting any actions against Philip or anyone. All I want is for him to stop saying anything on my behalf. Other than that, he can do or say whatever he wants. > So yeah, I am part of the club you mentionned above, but just for IRC. > Maybe I should just go ahead and do the same for email. Why am I not surprised. :) -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
Hi, On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: > So say we all! Unfortunately, I don't see any free (or even close) > alternatives out there. The closest I can find are some local social > networking websites[1] but they've traditionally concentrated on > localization rather than internationalization. > > Social networking sites are not the only way to announce events. > People do this also with email. > > Perhaps with a little thought we can define a spec for how to include > the details of an event in a message in an easy-to-parse way, and > encourage people to use that rather than facebook. If by 'people' you mean people like you and me, sure! this has a very good chance of success. However, I doubt you meant that. Here is how I know this has very little chances of success: I personally know many people who prefer facebook messages over email and I am not talking about events or other messages but just plain messages to friends. A solution that IMHO has much better chances of success is to create a free alternative to facebook. However, who is going to do it and more importantly who is going to pay for this effort? :( -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: pvanhoof issue (was: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap)
Le dim. 28 févr. 2010 à 19:20:39 (+0200), Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) a écrit: > Thanks for your clarification. Thing is that Philip had been using > the word 'we' quite a lot in the recent endless discussions as part of > his crusade to draw a thick border between Free Software and GNOME[1]. > I didn't complain so far because it wasn't always 100% clear if he > means 'all GNOME developers' by 'we' until now where he made it > perfectly clear. > > Now that that is sorted out, I would like the foundation to forbid > him from doing so in future. Once that is done, I can live a happy > life by joining the ever growing 'just put pvanhoof on your ignore > list on IRC and email' group. I feel your pain, Zeeshan, seriously. But FWIW I tend to be against that sort of police on foundation-list, even though I agree that would give a break to people like you and me. So yeah, I am part of the club you mentionned above, but just for IRC. Maybe I should just go ahead and do the same for email. Cheers. Dodji ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: pvanhoof issue (was: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap)
Hi, On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Jonathon Jongsma wrote: > On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 03:11 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: >> On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 04:02 +0200, Zeeshan Ali wrote: >> > Hi everyone, >> > >> > > I don't think we need ethics-teachings about this. We GNOME >> > programmers know. We do. >> > >> > I can't say for others but I for one find it extremely insulting when >> > Mr. Van Hoof represent me without my concent. I really want to know >> > who in the the hell made him the GNOME developers' representative and >> > be able to tell others what I know and need? >> >> Saying that we don't need lessons morality is "extremely insulting" to >> you? > > I think you know perfectly well what Zeeshan is objecting to, despite > your feigned incredulity above. You repeatedly post imflammatory things > and try to pick fights with Richard Stallman and the FSF, and then you > act as if you're speaking for GNOME developers when the predictable > argument begins. I for one have basically stopped reading most > foundation-list threads because you insist on dragging every single > conversation down into the mud. Thanks for your clarification. Thing is that Philip had been using the word 'we' quite a lot in the recent endless discussions as part of his crusade to draw a thick border between Free Software and GNOME[1]. I didn't complain so far because it wasn't always 100% clear if he means 'all GNOME developers' by 'we' until now where he made it perfectly clear. Now that that is sorted out, I would like the foundation to forbid him from doing so in future. Once that is done, I can live a happy life by joining the ever growing 'just put pvanhoof on your ignore list on IRC and email' group. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 [1] Which I believe is doomed to fail since GNOME started as an effort to create a completely free (as in freedom) desktop environment and despite all efforts from Philip & Lefty we have yet to see any compelling reason to change that definition. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
Okay, I had hoped this might simply die out, but instead, it's becoming increasingly absurd as well as increasingly personal in tone. First, Philip didn't ask anyone to stop saying things, he expressed some dismay at what was being said, and not without reason. Beyond the suggestionwhich Philip has notedthat GNOME programmers were generally in need of "ethical" guidance from the FSF on matters involving "freedom", this thread included the suggestion that GNOME behavior should be predicated on unfounded and unsupported rumor (i.e. that Facebook is "probably" sharing all of your information with the CIA). I'm surprised that a suggestion that a specific site be singled out by GNOME for extra-special treatment, including warning messages, based on what amounts to unsourced gossip, is being treated with even a moment's serious consideration. This Facebook rumor seems to be not much different from last year's equally unsupported claim that Apple maintained a secret "back-door" in OS X, for which an apology was extracted from the FSF, presumably on the instigation of Apple's Legal departmentand I note, without much amusement, that the sole citation offered in support of this latest claim regarding Facebook leads to a non-existent web page. I do not believe that the GNOME Foundation should sign up to be in a position to have to apologize to Facebook, nor do I think it should be an official position of the GNOME Foundation that "using Facebook is a harmful practice". If the GNOME community is hoping for better engagement with Facebook and the like, want to encourage their meaningful participation in our efforts, and hope to cultivate some appreciation on their part of community concerns, surely claiming that they're in the business of routinely breaking Federal lawwithout compelling supporting evidenceisn't the way to be going about it. For my part, I don't believe that spreading defamatory gossip in the name of "freedom" is especially "ethical". Perhaps I've misunderstood Mr. Stallman's intention in making such an apparently irresponsible claim here. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
Empathy is an instant messaging client, Facebook now allows access to its chat network via XMPP. I meant that on filling your info Empathy would configure an account for you so you can chat with your friends in Facebook using a free software client, Empathy, instead of the web based chat they have. That sounds like a good feature, if joined with support for other chat systems that people use, for identi.ca, and other such sites. The line between "working with facebook" and "specifically encouraging use of facebook" is a subtle one. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
So say we all! Unfortunately, I don't see any free (or even close) alternatives out there. The closest I can find are some local social networking websites[1] but they've traditionally concentrated on localization rather than internationalization. Social networking sites are not the only way to announce events. People do this also with email. Perhaps with a little thought we can define a spec for how to include the details of an event in a message in an easy-to-parse way, and encourage people to use that rather than facebook. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Chance to comment on US government use of technology pages
I read the OSFA guidelines, http://opensourceforamerica.org/guidelines. The points it makes are good points; however, as one would expect from an organization that is aligned with open source, it omits the stronger points that should have been central. For instance, that the use of a non-free program in a state agency is a dereliction of sovereignty, and that any program the state agency distributes or recommends to the public should respect the public's freedom. It correctly states that there should be no policies to favor any particular development model (e.g., open source), but fails to call for policies to systematically move to software that respects the state's computing sovereignty (i.e., free software). We can't expect to convert OSFA into a supporter of the free software movement, but the GNOME Foundation should urge it to move at least some ways in that direction. Also, the GNOME Foundation should make its own statement of what governments ought to do (for instance, aim in the long run for zero use of proprietary software), so that people don't assume its stand is the same as what OSFA says. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
Le dim. 28 févr. 2010 à 02:43:40 (+0100), Philip Van Hoof a écrit: > I don't need the demeaning ethics-teachings that I should somehow be > religiously in love with this "free software" stuff. Why? So when you don't like/need something that others say, said others have to stop saying what they say? That's interesting. I wish you'd apply that to youself because I don't like many things you say either. Dodji ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: FOSDEM Report
Le samedi 27 février 2010 à 16:29 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) a écrit : > Hi, > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Vincent Untz wrote: > > Hi, > > Hi Vincent, > > > The GNOME presence at FOSDEM this year was quite good, and I believe > > things went (surprisingly ;-)) smoothly: > > Thanks for the nice summary. :) Thanks a lot Vincent, and thanks everyone who was involved in the booth. I was unable to help on Sunday being sick. (reason below) > > > + the beer event on Saturday evening was a good place to catch up with > > GNOME friends. > >While that event is always awesome due to many GNOME developers > socializing but I couldn't help notice that there is always some > people missing in there. Whenever I've asked the missing people, they > complain about Claustrophobic atmosphere of the bar we do this. So > just one suggestion: Could we please do it some other place next year? > Yes please. Can we do that in a smoking free environment. I was sick on Sunday then got a sinusitis that took me off for 10 days partly due to the smoke. (which is *very* bad for me, especially when I'm tired) Lionel ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
