Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote: http://live.gnome.org/ProjectPrerequisites The project must be free/open source software. That text ought to say, simply, The project must be free software. Adding open source makes the meaning less clear. There are open source licenses which are not free; /open source introduces uncertainty about whether those licenses are acceptable. Deleting those words would make it clear. The words /open source also create doubt about whether GNOME is aligned with the free software movement. Could you please fix that? The release team goes further for official modules and states: Free-ness: Apps must be under a Free or Open license This is a more serious problem, because those words definitely imply that some non-free licenses (those which are open) are acceptable. It could lead people to think they should be able to include programs which are not free software. Can someone please fix that? Perhaps it would be sufficient to link to the FSF's list of GPL-compatible licenses and recommended documentation licenses? That would clear up any possible confusion. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
A matter of intent [Was: Re: Code of Conduct final draft?]
On 8/4/06, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quote who=Quim Gil Doing the process of updating the charter would be a failure? I don't see why, this process could be healthy for the community, and the result would be stronger and more sounded. In the meantime the list of recommendations could be discussed, tested, improved, applied (it was being applied before being written in a wiki page anyway). That's precisely the point. Whether it's the charter or a new document, it is vastly more interesting to talk about the content and making it relevant to the GNOME community than argue about what it should be called and where it should go. This is just a diversion. Jeff, these things matter. What you've heard isn't whining about its name, it's genuine interest and concern about the document's *intent and purpose*, not its content. Absent a consistent, written message of intent, people will infer intent from its name. And I find it hard to comment on what should or should not be the CoC's *content* if we aren't in agreement on why it exists in the first place, or what role it will serve in our community. Putting content before purpose is to put the cart before the horse. You have said that the CoC isn't and wasn't 'rules' and claimed to have added this point to the Wiki page on June 2nd.[1] I don't think that your June 2nd change [2] actually says that this isn't and wasn't rules, and what you wrote does not appear in the latest version, nor does your intent sentiment [3]. Quim's question In a worst case scenario, do we expect the GNOME Foundation board to arbitrate if someone violates the list of behavior principles [4] is an important one, and the one I think people are getting tripped up on. Alan Cox replied That one is easy to answer - the answer is yes [5] and Quim replied I agree the board should arbitrate in a worst case scenario, with or without a list of behavior principles. [6] Murray has also said I'd like to avoid lengthy and tedious (to me) discussions about how Murray has forced everyone to be nice... If this gets a stamp of approval then those discussions might still happen.[7] To me, it sounds like at least some important people would like the CoC to be a set of enforcable rules, or at least would be open to discussing whether they should be. This would violate earlier claims to the contrary [1] and clearly expresses the sentiment that some folks would like to give this document some teeth, at least in limited circumstances. These amount to mixed messages. I and others have seen the word code and thought enforcable rules. I've then heard it's not enforcable rules, and I've added that to the wiki, and then seen it not added to the wiki. I've then heard some people say that they want it to be enforcable rules. My question is simple - which one is it? The answer is that there doesn't seem to be consensus around what the document's scope should be. And that's a problem. The CoC should have its intent written up front and center. It should be clear, so that we don't have these stumblings about its name. If it is meant to be enforcable rules, illustrate the circumstances why one would do so, and what one might do to enforce them. If it is meant to be fluffy, well-intentioned, toothless language, then put that in instead. Its intent may be derivable from the Foundation's charter, as Quim suggests. [6] If so, please re-iterate that intent in the CoC document. If its intent is up for discussion, that's great too. Then we can focus on its content. Please don't call people whiners and flamers for expressing their concerns. You merely haven't understood our concerns, and that's probably my fault for not stating them better. I hope that I've articulated them better here, and it's never been my intent to flame. Truly best regards, Dom [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnome.foundation.general/3067 [2] http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct?action=diffrev1=6rev2=5 [3] http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct?action=recallrev=28 [4] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnome.foundation.general/3255 [5] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnome.foundation.general/3257 [6] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnome.foundation.general/3265 [7] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnome.foundation.general/3261 -- Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct final draft?
Hi Jeff, I'm not sure it was suggested to solve a particular social problem in the community (because while we have some behavioural problems, they're not at all crippling the project in any way) but in a somewhat metatastic fashion, it was suggested to solve the problem that we don't have a CoC. :-) This of course depends on whether you see inherent value in documenting our shared values - I do, and I think Murray does. [Acting as a historian, not actually espousing an opinion] At some point, Murray proposed the CoC as a means of doing something so that it doesn't look like we're doing nothing with regard to GNOME's relative dearth of female involvement. Since the ML archives got hosed, I can't provide a link to my post or Murray's reply thereto. But he mentions it in this post and other preserved posts: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-May/msg00060.html [Now espousing an opinion] From where I sat, it sure looked like GNOME's female underrepresentation was a catalyst for writing the CoC, and was argued as such throughout the thread by its proposer. Why did we need a CoC now, since we haven't had a formal one for, what, 9 years? Clearly, some issue other than we lack a CoC was the motivation behind proposing the CoC. Still, I think that the CoC is a good idea. I just don't think that it's even remotely useful to refer to it as a solution to GNOME's female underrepresentation without even anectdotal evidence to back up that claim. It only muddies the issue. Be excellent to one another is good enough to stand on its own. Best, Dom -- Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct final draft?
Jeff, As an aside, it was never intended to be legislation or rules, and every time it's painted as such, it says more about the poster's attitude than the CoC's intent (not that you have done so in this mail, but others have done so recently on the list). If it's not intended to be legislation or rules, I'd suggest not calling it a code. It's got legislation and rules builtin to its name. If your argument is that these are shared community values, better to call it that instead. Unless you want these to be enforced community rules, in which case, call a spade a spade and don't be ashamed of it. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=code code: a set of rules or principles or laws (especially written ones) Best, Dom -- Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct final draft?
Hi Bill, I think the second term in your Princeton Wordnet citation is the one we are aiming for: e.g. principles. Great. All I mean to say is that I disagree with Jeff's belief that their misinterpreting it shows more about them than the CoC itself. People assuming that code means code aren't off their rockers. If it means that we need to come up with a better word that more clearly describes the CoC's intent, such as declaration of principles, great. Let's call it that instead and move on. But let's not insult people who hear code and think laws along the way. That would be against articles 1 and 3 of our declaration of principles. Best, Dom -- Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Temporaray enlargement of the GNOME Board with 2 persons
Hi Anne, I think that I need not tell you, that the two candidates in question are highly respected for their long time great contributions to the GNOME project and the GNOME community spirit. Being responsible for having proposed this temporary compromise solution, I naturally hope for your blessings. Please react within 10 days if you have problems with enlarging the board by inviting Behdad Esfahbod and Germán Poó-Caamaño to join the GNOME Board of Directors for the rest of 2006. [snip] PS The board is putting great efforts into delegating tasks as we know that there are many members eager to give a hand. In fact we almost always get a yes when we ask. I appreciate the board's efforts, hard work, and dedication. I applaud the board's recent resolve to delegate more things, including delegating the TM document to me. I hope not to disappoint you. However, I still haven't heard a good explanation as to *why* the board needs more members to fulfill its duties. Or why 2 is the magic number. Or why the new positions would only be temporary. What problems is the board facing that cannot be handled by the current members plus delegation as appropriate? Or if certain members can't meet their obligations due to outside or future committments (as was Luis' case recently) - over-qualified and passionate as they are - is the correct solution to resign and let other people replace them? In my opinion, you've asked us to voice an opinion without presenting information necessary to forming a qualified opinion. This is made even more difficult (IMO, of course) since no board meeting minutes have been released since March 22, which is fast approaching 3 months ago. I don't know all of the problems facing the board. I'm not sure that I'm entitled to know them. But from what little information I have, I can't help but feel that the board has gotten more opaque and overworked since its recent reduction to 7 members. (For the record, I still dislike that no good argument was made then as to what problems the previous board was facing, and why getting rid of 4 people would have solved those problems. IMHO, history now repeats itself.) If adding 2 more members will help solve the board's problems in ways that delegation or attrition alone can't, then great. Let's do it. But please, make an argument in the next 3 days as to why adding these people will help solve the problem. Best, Dom -- Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Temporaray enlargement of the GNOME Board with 3 persons
Well, I think it should be three people. Those two guys, and me :) Seriously though, you can't arbitrarilly pick two people and not expect everyone else to be arbitrarilly picked. It doesn't seem to be entirely arbitrary. The 3 appointees were the next 3 highest vote-getters in the 2005 elections. http://foundation.gnome.org/vote/results.php?election_id=2 candidacy statement for the next election. But, they can't be members of the board without an election. The Foundation's charter apparently says (in at least two places) that they can appoint members without an election: http://foundation.gnome.org/about/charter/ New seats on the board may be made available as the project grows, subject to approval by the board or referendum of the membership. Between elections, board vacancies or new board slots shall be filled by appointment by the board of directors. The charter is, of course, amendable via referendum. I like all of the people appointed and appreciate that they were all the next highest vote-getters in the 2005 election. They'd do a great job on the board. But I must admit, it feels a little strange that a third of the foundation's board would be appointed if this were to pass. Would it be preferable if instead some of the work were farmed out to willing volunteers, rather than expanding the board's size? Why should we prefer the board's size to grow rather than taking this proposed alternative? Best, Dom -- Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Women in GNOME (Was: Code Of Conduct)
I think it is a natural step to take after the EU and FLOSSPOLS report has shown that women are being excluded from the community.- This rubs me the wrong way. It's not like we're actively working to exclude women, Asians, or Martians from GNOME. Nor are we actively trying to make GNOME a boys-only club. Simply put, there's no conscious, malicious intent behind the disproportionate male/female ratio, or Western/Asian ratio. And I think that this matters... If we want to se some change in attitudes and behavior in GNOME and FLOSS, and se more women involved in the future in all parts and capacities of our projects, we need to find out why only a little more than 1% of are women. ... because I don't believe that actively pursuing diversity for its own sake is a valid goal. I may sound myopic here, but I don't see what the goal of recruiting women qua women or Asians qua Asians gains us as a community. I refuse to measure diversity based on one's genitals or skin color. [However, (for example) recruiting Asians as an attempt to understand their needs, skills, and mentality in order to acquire a greater Asian market share, however, could be ok. Asians are the means. A rockin' version of GNOME on lots of Asian computers is the end.] Instituting open-door policies, non-discriminatory policies/codes of conduct, and the like are worthwhile goals in-and-of themselves. They advertise what the core tenets of our community are, and this is something we should become better at. But one should not necessarily abandon established (nay, endearing) traits of our community just to grow it larger. You'd give up something concretely cool about the community for some undefined, possibly non-existant benefit. And that ain't diversity, it's its opposite. I'd rather see us resolve to do a better job of marketing how open, cool, and charismatic we are as a community, and let the chips fall where they will. Get the word out to as many people as practicable, welcome everyone, and let the diversity come to us as an organic result of our general openness and coolness. Where we have some specific goal in mind, change as necessary to meet that goal. But don't change for change's sake alone. Recruit interesting people. Recruit smart, talented people. Recruit people useful for your ends. Welcome all people. But don't recruit genitals and skin colors. They're neither interesting nor useful for free software's purposes. Justice is blind, and so should we be. Best, Dom -- Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Boilerplate copyright agreement for commercial exploitation
- A .doc file may render in many different ways, especialy if it contains macros. Which is definitive, the contract as rendered by MS Word or by Abiword or by OpenOffice ? Stick to your open formats argument; it serves you better. ODT makes no guarantees that the documents will look the same across renderers or platforms. If the apps used exactly the same layout algorithms with the same fonts, ligature handling, etc. then sure. But they don't. If you want visual consistency without regard for semantic markup, use a format that was designed for it, like PDF or TIFF. If you want semantic markup that will be handled uniformly across editors, use ODT. Best, Dom -- Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Boilerplate commercial trademark license (Was: Boilerplate copyright agreement for commercial exploitation)
I've updated the topic; the document in quesiton concerns commercially licensing the Foundation's trademarks, not its copyrights. To get back on topic, I think that a few substantive terms of the contract merit clarification. Section 18, LICENSEE .. agrees to cooperate in any action or proceeding brought to enforce LICENSOR'S exclusive rights to its Marks - In this context, what might cooperate entail? Or is this a legal term of art that I should just accept? Given that this contract is non-exclusive, and that payments only accrue at time of sale, what are the concrete benefits conferred upon the Foundation by Section 11 aka Licensee's duty to exploit? Or is this standard licensing boilerplate that I should just accept? There are also some silly formatting issues that I probably should have caught when I was tidying up the license agreement. Section 5''s title should be bolded. Section 9.02's Insert contact here should be ALL CAPS and highlighted in yellow. Best, Dom On 5/14/06, Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, We've had a number of contacts in recent months asking about the possibility to make GNOME t-shirts for commercial resale, and we've been stuck for a contract that we can get people to sign which formulates a number of basic requirements of a commercial trademark agreement - namely: - Quality control - Defense against abuse - Licensing fees We were working on an agreemetn for an official GNOME store last year which fell through at the last minute, and during that process we came up with a contract which has gone through a few iterations with both German and US lawyers, so it should hold up pretty well. It's worth noting that the contract is for commercial exploitation of the GNOME trademark. We will need some other kind of contract if we decide to push usage of the trademark in, say distros. And for the moment, we're not at that stage. This is a contract we will be asking companies making GNOME merchandise to sign (or at least use as a starting point for discussions). The key points of the contract for me are: - The foundation has a quality control veto over the merchandise - The foundation gets a discount on the sale price of the items for its own use (resale, promotion) - The foundation gets a cut of the proceeds of sales (a percentage - typically for merchandising agreements, the percentage is between 10 and 20 percent of gross (that is, for a t-shirt selling at €15, between €1.50 and €3.00) - The foundation has some way of verifying how much we're owed, and terminating trademark agreements in the event of defaulting on payments Can I get comments and feedback on this? Are there clauses in there that we should consider removing because they're too draconian? Or are there other things that we have forgotten? Since lawyers talk .doc, and use revision control to track changes to the documents, that's what we ge too. Works great in Abiword. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary Lyon, France ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: trademarks [was Re: Minutes of the Board meeting 2006/Feb/15]
On 2/28/06, Owen Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure that going over https would make it any more legally binding... If I said https, then I'd agree with you, but I didn't. I said secure, but perhaps that was the wrong word. The semantic I'm looking for is there is some way to verify that the submitter is who she says she is, in a legally binding sense. You know, more than just an accept button and some text fields that anyone can fill in with any values they like. Best, Dom -- Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Board meeting 2006/Feb/15
On 2/27/06, Bill Haneman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We can't have it both ways. Either we keep the GNOME trademarks, which requires us to enforce them, or we abandon them. That's probably not entirely true. The Foundation can probably come up with a set of TM guidelines where - in certain circumstances and if certain criteria are met - a TM grant automatically and implicitly is issued. In such a scenario, the TMs would stil be legally enforcable in cases where those criteria aren't met. What those criteria would be, I don't know exactly. But it's something that's probably worth pondering over for a bit. Best, Dom -- Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Endorsements one by one [was Re: Endorsing David Neary]
Well that's totally against the spirit of voting. Current counts may change people's idea and might get them affected and they would vote strategically instead of on their own free will. I'm sure that a large percentage of foundation memebers voted strategically; they just did so blindly and of their own free will. I don't know about other countries, but during elections in the US, precincts report back data as they process it, and that data is broadcast on the news. They'll say 55% of people voted for candidate X and 40% for candidate Y with 20% of the votes counted so far. Whether this is useful, harmful, or just airtime filler, I don't know. The sociologist in me would be interested in seeing a histogram of when people voted. My intuition is that the 2 week voting period is longer than it needs to be, though we'll likely (always) see a surge of voting towards the end. Actually what Stallman and others did during voting is campaigning and this should have ended before voting get started. It's very likely that some people on the middle of their voting see these endorsements and vote them to fill their seven people limit (because of their respect to Stallman or other endorser, not because they personally want the one in board) even though they do not know who those guys are. Since when is listening to and trusting another person's informed opinions wrong? And since when does campaigning not happen on election day ;-) If I hadn't formed my own opinion and I trusted Richard enough, I might follow his lead. I don't see anything wrong with deferring to another person's good judgement. Nor do I see anything wrong with a person convincing you to vote for candidate X when you're on your way to the polls. You're always free not to listen and free to inform (or not inform) yourself however you like to before you vote. That's just democracy in action. Best. Dom ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: The changing of the board
On 11/28/05, Anne Østergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Normally the old board can only do day to day business if needed. Once a new board has been elected I think that it is the new board that should rightly take all major decisions such as hiring new staff. At least this is customary in all the boards that I have served on. Governments also follow this rule. Certain legislators will refuse to vote in lame duck sessions, but it is by no means customary, let alone a rule. You're elected for your term, you serve out your term. Please don't jump the gun and start governing before you're a board member-elect, much less a board member. Best, Dom ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Fwd: Re: Beginning of the 2005 GNOME Foundation elections]
Jeff, On 11/16/05, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: something so fundamental to the process: Yes, people do run for election so that those they do not trust are not elected. Surprise? Not even remotely. By itself, this is unsurprising. But coupled with: 1) The small number of people who have run for the board, and my opinion of their general qualifications and 2) These people's own admissions of not getting anything done and inability to effect change (usually advertized in their candidacy statements) it's hard to view it as anyhing but insulting. Vote for me. I haven't gotten anything done, and I probably won't get anything done next time. But at least I'm not $CANDIDATE is a lousy platform. Consider that and the fact that the board has gotten smaller so that the above class of people no longer feel compelled to run in order to keep vagrants off the board. I personally read the recent referendum as Let's make the board smaller so that the seat-fillers can leave, rather than let other qualified people try their hand at it. Yes, this is how democracy works. Surprising? No. But all the same, I won't begrudge Andreas' gripings. His is a small complaint when compared to the big middle finger given by some who have run in the past... Best, Dom ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Advisory referendum, not decision [Was: Beginning of the 2005 GNOME Foundation elections]
On 11/17/05, David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Jeff Waugh wrote: That said, the referendum was *advisory* only, as it falls to the directors alone to make a change to the number of seats on the board. It has yet to be announced (by the board) that the number of seats will actually change. :-) The board has previously said that we would abide by the decision of the referendum (in the board meeting where it was proposed), so I don't consider any announcement necessary. I'm calling shenanigans. Everyone go get your brooms. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Candidacy: Dominic Lachowicz
I'm a long-term member of the GNOME community and employed by the Teragram Corporation (who are neither affiliated with nor interested in GNOME). I maintain several largish GNOME and non-GNOME modules such as librsvg and AbiWord. As Dave Neary so recently pointed out, I can be pedantic sometimes. I promise to be a helpfully pedantic board member, ensuring that things get done on time and that they get done right. I subscribe to the Python mindset. I believe in forming rough consensus and acting by convention whenever appropriate. My presence within the board will hopefully be one of mediating the board's many goals, injecting a healthy dose of realism into them, building a roadmap to those goals, and then making sure that we succeed. To do so, the board will need increased transparency and greater accountability. I feel that these traits will become increasingly important with the transition from 11 to 7 board members and that I can deliver on my goals. (This email will likely be blocked by foundation-announce's mailman, since my only Hotmail account is subscribed there. Christian Schaller says that due to the extension, this nomination should still be valid for the next couple of minutes. If not, my apologies in advance, and please consider my nomination withdrawn.) Best wishes, Dom ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
