Re: Announcing GaaS (GNOME as a Service)
April 1 On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 3:40 AM, Alexandre Franke <afra...@gnome.org> wrote: > Hi, > > We’ve heard complaints about GNOME being bloated. > We’ve taken them into consideration and that’s why today we’re > announcing a new offering from GNOME - GaaS. > Some had already gotten wind of it, but today we’re making it official. > > > > Have a nice day, > > -- > Alexandre Franke > GNOME Hacker & Foundation Director > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > -- Andy Tai, a...@atai.org Year 2010 民國99年 自動的精神力是信仰與覺悟 自動的行為力是勞動與技能 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
question for candidates
Hi, I would like to post this question to the candidates: GNOME's core toolkit, gtk+, is used by numerous projects. Currently gtk+ development seems to be driven mainly by the GNOME desktop. However, gtk+ also play critical roles in other free software projects, like MATE, XFCE, and the Cinnamon desktop, and large applications like GIMP, Inkscape, etc. What are your views on the participation of the people of these projects, as stake holders in the direction of gtk+, in the GNOME Foundation? Should the GNOME Foundation encourage (reach out to) these people to get them involved in the GNOME Foundation so they also have a say and even contribute to gtk+ so gtk+ can continue to serve their needs well, important for the continuing successes of gtk+ in the free software world? -- Andy Tai, a...@atai.org Year 2010 民國99年 自動的精神力是信仰與覺悟 自動的行為力是勞動與技能 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
LXDE on top of gtk+ 3?
LXDE, a light weight desktop (not under the GNOME umbrella), is going Qt and may become part of KDE. Wonder if the GNOME/gtk community has interests in keeping a gtk+ version of LXDE goihng, on top of gtk+3... the gtk+3 version may be heavier than the gtk+2 version but will still be lightweight comparing to the fuil GNOME, I think... -- Andy Tai, a...@atai.org, Skype: licheng.tai Year 2013 民國102年 自動的精神力是信仰與覺悟 自動的行為力是勞動與技能 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Looking for community managers or enthusiasts!
Managing the community... or the community manages? On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna s...@ramkrishna.mewrote: I'm looking for some charismatic, happy GNOME folks who can help engage with our community. We've had a bad run of late with a lot of folks getting the wrong idea of what we're trying to do. I'm looking for some talented folks who can help us engage with the press, on blogs, on mailing lists and explain our vision. Send me some email, I want to hear from you! sri ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- Andy Tai, a...@atai.org, Skype: licheng.tai Year 2012 民國101年 自動的精神力是信仰與覺悟 自動的行為力是勞動與技能 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
orphaned GNOME Foundnation web site
FYI, there is an old site at http://gnome-foundation.org/ which shows information from about 2001. Maybe the URL should be auto-forward to the current site. -- Andy Tai, a...@atai.org, Skype: licheng.tai Year 2011 民國100年 自動的精神力是信仰與覺悟 自動的行為力是勞動與技能 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
seems gtk+'s object model overhead (for example, object method invocation) is too high, especially visible on mobile platforms... it should be possible to optimize to reduce this overhead... On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote: Hi, Juanjo Marin wrote: * It seems we have lost the mobile battle. Can we do something about it or simply retreat?. I like the idea of creating more components and some of this components can be added to the GNOME mobile platform. Have we lost the mobile battle? It certainly appears that GTK+ has lost the mobile battle, but all of the hard work that GNOME hackers have put into the middleware platform and components like Gstreamer, Dbus, Telepathy and Pulseaudio are now cornerstone parts of both the free desktop and the mobile platform. I would agree that the GNOME GUI platform is not exciting application developers right now, and that's something we need to fix. And it's not an easy problem. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org Andy Tai, a...@atai.org Happy New Year 2010 民國99年 自動的精神力是信仰與覺悟 自動的行為力是勞動與技能 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
Lefty, you don't go to an organization of iphone developers and use a survey to try to convert them to be Android developers. What you are doing is kind of like that here. 2010/1/15 Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for some reason to be on the same list of new members as my friend, Jim Vasile. On a different matter, I am currently conducting a brief ( 5 minute) survey on attitudes and viewpoints on FLOSS and proprietary software and I invite all to participate in it. We have on the order to 400 respondents so far, but I’d like to get as broad a level of coverage as possible. The survey can be found at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/F8DG25Q A summary of the responses received so far can be found at http://bit.ly/74WQBI Thanks in advance for your participation. I’ll be making a formal report of the results in a few weeks. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- Andy Tai, a...@atai.org Happy New Year 2010 民國99年 自動的精神力是信仰與覺悟 自動的行為力是勞動與技能 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
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 part of that. Easier for everyone. On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Lucas Rocha luc...@gnome.org wrote: Hi all, It's quite obvious that the original thread ended up branching into several separate topics. I thought it would be useful to summarize some of the key points on each topic in an attempt to bring a more practical perspective to the whole discussion. This is not an official message from 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 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
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 part of that. Easier for everyone. On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Lucas Rocha luc...@gnome.org wrote: Hi all, It's quite obvious that the original thread ended up branching into several separate topics. I thought it would be useful to summarize some of the key points on each topic in an attempt to bring a more practical perspective to the whole discussion. This is not an official message from 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 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
Not quiet... you don't join ECMA TC45 to prevent OOXML from becoming a standard. On 10/31/07, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 10:19 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote: I think that The GNOME participating in OOXML lends it a credibility it does not deserve. Joining ECMA TC45 would be like joining of the political party you dislike the most to improve their politics. To me, it's more like going to debates and challenging them. -- mvh Björn -- behdad http://behdad.org/ Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 -- Andy Tai, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
OOXML will be a de facto standard entirely due to Microsoft's dominant position in the computing industry... the fight is about preventing it to be a formal standard. We cannot prevent the former. We can prevent the later. A more activist opposition to OOXML is called for. Option 3 is useful only if we can veto (or organize a veto, or a stall) of the OOXML progress toward being a standard. The current participation is not of that manner. People can try to make it suck less but GNOME should not be involved in that, since that makes GNOME a pawn to weaken ODF. On 11/1/07, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/31/07, Andy Tai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not quiet... you don't join ECMA TC45 to prevent OOXML from becoming a standard. OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not. To pretend otherwise is to deny that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. So our options can be: 1) pretend it doesn't exist and let Microsoft make it suck completely for anyone who has to reimplement it- which will include us at some point. 2) acknowledge it and at least attempt to make it suck less for reimplementers, and allow our presence at ECMA to be used as a pawn to weaken ODF. 3) acknowledge it and at least attempt to make it suck less for reimplementers, but use our presence there to highlight Microsoft's abusive, convicted monopolistic tendencies. I'm very disappointed that we're currently headed towards #2, which, IMHO, is probably worse than #1. But it shouldn't be that hard to push towards #3- which really is the least bad of all the options. Luis ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and totally separated from, and have nothing to do with, GNOME. On 10/30/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quote who=Richard Stallman the GNOME Foundation should make a statement opposing the acceptance of OOXML and explaining the reason for participating in ECMA. We'll be making a statement about the issue soon. Don't expect it to please everyone. - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 100% Pure Slashdot Wisdom: Source code gives a whole new meaning to free software. -- Andy Tai, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
What was done is done. For the future the board should really consider not sponsoring anyone to work on the OOXML format (and withdraw existing involvement on the behalf of the GNOME Foundation), as many people in the free software/FOSS community are working hard to try to prevent the OOXML from becoming a standard. Technical issues are just that; anyone can contribute to the specs if it is his/her interests. It should be fair to say the majority of the people in the community opposes making OOXML the standard document format. Novell can sponsor Jody even if he is a former employee. On 10/31/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quote who=Andy Tai Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and totally separated from, and have nothing to do with, GNOME. His involvement is facilitated by our membership of ECMA. We were entirely willing to do so. - Jeff ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and totally separated from, and have nothing to do with, GNOME. On 10/30/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quote who=Richard Stallman the GNOME Foundation should make a statement opposing the acceptance of OOXML and explaining the reason for participating in ECMA. We'll be making a statement about the issue soon. Don't expect it to please everyone. - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 100% Pure Slashdot Wisdom: Source code gives a whole new meaning to free software. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
OK, anyway, I think the current board extending its mandate is not a good thing because the contract with the voting body (the membership) is already defined. Maybe the next board can enjoy an extended term if approved in a election. I agree that would be a better approach. On 8/14/07, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 02:33 -0700, Andy Tai wrote: OK, simply, the stated reason for the extraordinary measure (face to face meeting timing) is not a strong one to justify touching the term limit of the board. And why do you think so? I totally understand that you may be against extending the term of the current board. That makes total sense, and there's no consensus even at the board level. But, what do you see so in need of justification for extending the term of one board (the next one) from 12 months to 17 months? How can that affect the foundation in a negative way? behdad ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
OK, simply, the stated reason for the extraordinary measure (face to face meeting timing) is not a strong one to justify touching the term limit of the board. On 8/9/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The proposal is about doing something out of the ordinary processes defined by the bylaws -- that is why we are consulting the membership. Rather than point out that the situation is extraordinary, please tell us your feelings or concerns about the proposal as a member. - Jeff ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
OK, simply, the stated reason for the extraordinary measure (face to face meeting timing) is not a strong one to justify touching the term limit of the board. On 8/9/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The proposal is about doing something out of the ordinary processes defined by the bylaws -- that is why we are consulting the membership. Rather than point out that the situation is extraordinary, please tell us your feelings or concerns about the proposal as a member. - Jeff ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
Something like GnomeMeeting (now with a newer name) can be utilized to have faces seeing faces... There was some talk of a GNOME conference in East Asia. Maybe it would be a good idea to have an annual event there in China, or Japan, or Korea, in early Spring... On 8/10/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quote who=Andy Tai OK, simply, the stated reason for the extraordinary measure (face to face meeting timing) is not a strong one to justify touching the term limit of the board. In that case -- let's try for productive input here, if possible -- how do you suggest we solve the problem? (Or describe why it's not a problem that needs to be solved.) - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 -- Andy Tai, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Joachim Noreiko
On 11/16/06, Joachim Noreiko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Name: Joachim Noreiko As a board member, I want to work to lower the barriers to entry that block potential GNOME contributors. I hope that my work on the website and documentation will play a part in that, but I also think more can be done socially. Efforts such as GNOME Love and Patch Squad need more help, for example. I want to make GNOME more coherent. I'd like to see GNOME Certification come about, and that will entail bringing the HIG up to date. I'd like to see more GNOME marketing efforts, which will mean more planning of our release right from the start of the development cycle. You seem to contradict yourself. You want lower the bar of entry but at the same time impose more bureaucratic work such as a certification scheme? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
