Re: GNOME now
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Seif Lotfy s...@lotfy.com wrote: So many different point of views and ideas in the community that are not well discussed. The first thing that pops up in my head is GNOME OS. But then I am kinda lost. Maybe this is something we need to discuss here on the mailing list. Lets try to answer those 3 questions. What about one sentence per question for a start? I am avoiding a blog post since I am not sure its the best way to reach most of our contributors. Hi Seif, Thank you for your passion for GNOME and for serving the free software community. If there's anything that we've learned from decades of trying to discuss abstract ideas among free software engineers and marketing free software to outsiders, it's that blog posts and mailing list discussions are ineffective and sometimes even harmful. I believe that you really do want an answer to your three questions so I would encourage you or anyone else who wants reach consensus to put out a call for interested parties, form a working group that meets once or twice face-to-face, and then publishes the meeting notes to this list. Host the working group on VC and use something like Doodle to find a time. This thread, like so many hundreds on this topic that came before, won't be conclusive. It can't--the people you need to participate won't and, in some cases, the people who you don't want to participate will. The technology exists to have those face-to-face conversations that lead to personal relationships, a sense of community and actual authoritative decisions /without/ having to go to GNOME conferences twice a year. We can and should use something more effective than mailing lists as often (and as freely) as possible. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Readability publisher sign-up for *.gnome.org
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 13:45, Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote: People asked to have their blogs included on it and placed them on it by choice. It's under CC-NC licensing (*). So they've agreed to NC use but the foundation exploiting it commercially (or indeed any site reformatting it and making money from doing so) would appear to be a breach of copyright. We have agreed to an grant a copy of our blogs under no license whatsoever; it's a one-time grant of copy, non-transferable as long as we agree to continue to be aggregated. We are not implicitly licensing anything. The Foundation cannot grant a license to anyone else because it has none. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: About GNOME, Support GNOME
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 15:25, Allan Day allanp...@gmail.com wrote: About Support GNOME: we don't currently have this, but it seems pretty essential to me. I'm sure there are plenty of items that I've missed. Tell me what! I stopped working on the FoG videos here [1] because the FoG site was going to be redone with space for a video player. Maybe these videos are better on this page? [1] http://people.gnome.org/~jclinton/FoG/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Official announcement and invitation to GNOME 3.0 Hackfest and GNOME.Asia Summit 2011
On Jan 22, 2011 12:04 PM, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote: Le vendredi 21 janvier 2011, à 23:41 +0800, Frederic Muller a écrit : So Hackfest registration is happening here: http://live.gnome.org/Hackfests/GNOME.Asia2011 , call for papers for the conference is here http://live.gnome.org/GnomeAsia/CallForPaper and conference registration will be opening soon. What's the plan on the marketing team side? Do we have people who can go? I didn't see any replies on marketing-list to the previous mails, unless I missed something. Since the dates selected are the span of a work week I cannot go. The scheduling reprecussions would be too difficult to absorb. I would be happy to make myself available on Monday and Wednesday evening on IRC, however. If enough people can't make it and doing telepresence on a larger scale makes sense, I would be willing to take a few days off work to make that more productive. I don't think doing telepresence makes sense if there is a conference as those who would be remote would likely reduce the conference productivity as much as aid it due to synchronization overhead. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Boston Summit laptop charger found
Someone left their charger for their laptop in the MIT Media Lab space. We discovered it as we were cleaning up for the day and so it could have been left behind at any point. I have it and would gladly ship it to whomever is missing it. Just contact me off-list and describe it. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Jim Gettys j...@freedesktop.org wrote: The combination of technologies going under the name HTML 5 have made/are making web technology based applications finally competitive with those built using conventional toolkits such as Qt, GTK+, and the Windows and Mac equivalents. This provides a major opportunity; but I have seen little thought or discussion of how Gnome can/should take advantage of this. That's why Shell is JS and CSS. To everyone else, can we steer the conversation more toward what I can produce a video about regarding 3.0 30 days from today? Now is not the time to discuss ways to convert people or new features we could add for 3.x; that was a year ago. Today is crunch time. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Tobias Mueller mue...@cryptobitch.dewrote: -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.waugh.id.au there is gnome-private as well: http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-private Problem solved. This referendum would probably rename that list to foundation-private and establish with clarity what the list is to be used for. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org 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-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. Look at any world democracy or any treaty negotiation. Having a -private will improve our process. This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not about keeping secrets. It doesn't matter if someone leaks the discussion; in fact, we should always behave on -private as though it could and should happen. It objective is to cohesively attain consensus amongst ourselves without constant, distracting nit-picking by others whose weight of opinion is not as equal as ours. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.comwrote: 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 discussion a reasonable expectation that they do not have to advocate their position in public. When one is in a quiet, side-conversation amongst a few people, there's a lower probability that people will reply just so that they have the last word in a conversation. And there's a lower probability that people will feel that their good name is being drug through the mud because someone doesn't agree with their ideas. In short: it changes the tone for the better. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
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 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 realm of who offended who it gets dicey and predicated on the sentiments of who is making the final call. We've survived the oGalaxys and Bowie Poags of the past and I don't think I have seen any worse conduct. I'm defering to the board if they really feel they need an enshrined document but there should be a vote on the final draft if we go in this direction. On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Lionel Dricot pl...@ploum.net wrote: 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 be discussed each time we have a case? Answer is B. I expect A B by at least one order of magnitude. 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 rules, CoC or punishment on that particular problem? I don't see how it could have an effect. There will still be offending stuff from time to time on pgo. This was never a problem in the past as it was handled on a case by case basis. Anyway, there are always people offended by everything. When you have to type a command once a year, you don't start developing a framework that will handle every possible situation. (it has already been done, it's called J2EE) Cheers, Lionel On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:36:41 -0700, Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com wrote: 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 public. We are talking about GNOME hosted platforms. Planet GNOME, blogs.gnome.organd the GNOME mailing lists are all forums we host and I think we can (and do) expect a certain standard of conduct on them. For example, if someone started spamming the Foundation list, we would block them. (Public does not mean you can do whatever you want. In most public places there are laws you have to follow.) Stormy ___ 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 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.orgwrote: I (fully) agree with John here. The lawyer-talk proposal of Jason is a no for me personally. It's also not the document that I've put my name under when I signed the Code of Conduct any longer if that amendment is indeed added. We would put any such official CoC up for a vote; that seems like the only reasonable course of action. So can you tell me what you don't like about it and propose some changes that make it better? Let's move this conversation forward. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.orgwrote: I don't like the entire intention of enforcement. The intention is improving our community quality. The method is what you disagree with. What alternative method would you propose? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote: To make the discussion more practical, lets take one real incident of the past: Murray's blog re Jeff. It did not include vulgar language. It did include exaggerations that turned into libel. Now how does any proposed solution deal with that? ... I like specific answer to how would your proposed solution would address this past incident, if it happened again? from anyone proposing a solution. Action: Jeff refers his complaint to the membership committee, MC agrees it was out of bounds, and sends a warning to Murray (first offence). End result: Jeff feels vindicated in his belief that he was wronged and is feels that any further attacks are unlikely as the Foundation (via MC) makes it clear, publicly, that this attack was out of bounds and that any further attack of that time will result in actual suspension of privileges. How does this not improve on what we have now? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote: On 11/25/2009 02:18 PM, Jason D. Clinton wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org mailto:beh...@behdad.org wrote: To make the discussion more practical, lets take one real incident of the past: Murray's blog re Jeff. It did not include vulgar language. It did include exaggerations that turned into libel. Now how does any proposed solution deal with that? ... I like specific answer to how would your proposed solution would address this past incident, if it happened again? from anyone proposing a solution. Action: Jeff refers his complaint to the membership committee, MC agrees it was out of bounds, and sends a warning to Murray (first offence). End result: Jeff feels vindicated in his belief that he was wronged and is feels that any further attacks are unlikely as the Foundation (via MC) makes it clear, publicly, that this attack was out of bounds and that any further attack of that time will result in actual suspension of privileges. How does this not improve on what we have now? I'm guessing that Jeff would not have bothered to play cop and the end result would have been as it is today, plus a first offence for Murray. I'm not sure the end result would have been much different. I understand your point but I do think it would have made Jeff feel a little better, even if it were someone else that referred the event to the MC. In any case, I think we are straying slight from what we actually want: to prevent such attacks from happening in the first place; by explicitly stating that all GNOME communication forums come with this implicit terms of use, we decrease the probability of bad behaviour before it ever happens. That's not to mention never having to have this thread come up again. :) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote: I also like to see two more ideas added to CoC: - Learn to agree to disagree. - Criticize ideas, not people presenting them. Back to the Murray case, with my recommendation, everything would have happened the way it did. Only that we'd try to make it more clear (on PGO in this case) that his views do not represent GNOME's or the majority of GNOME contributors. Just need to accept that it sometimes happens. What I found more disappointing in that particular incident was the flow of +1 and Thanks you messages Murray received on PGO. If that's really who we are, well, why police it? Like what I read once: Please be a dick if that's who you are. Well, I withdraw my proposed amendment to the CoC as there has been no support for it and I'm not entirely happy with it as written, either. But, while I agree that the above would be welcome additions to the CoC, I don't think this helps us answer what to do when the board is contacted. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Meeting Minutes Published - October 29, 2009
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Emmanuele Bassi eba...@gmail.com wrote: There is no official enforcement of these principles unless the CoC gets an official enforcement (and this paragraph is removed) any requirement on having members sign the CoC page is a pointless exercise. What kind of enforcement would you like to see? A public shaming? Temporarily suspension of Planet privileges? Would the membership committee be a good place to do this? I think we are all ready to make a change like this and can probably do so without much argument. (I'm just happy to see traffic on foundation-list.) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: IRC Foundation meeting?
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Diego Escalante Urrelo die...@gnome.orgwrote: The Board would like to know if there's interest for such a meeting. The agenda would be composed of proposed items. A proposed time for this would be September 24th at 17 UTC. Yes, but please choose a date on a Saturday so as to get the most participation. It's nice that some people get paid to work on GNOME but most of the foundation membership doesn't. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: So what do people *except* me want from the foundation?
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote: What do you expect from the foundation? Leadership. I want there to never be another DVCS mutli-year long flame war. The only reason it ended is that Red Hat has the people, servers and bandwidth to JFDI for something of that magnitude. That worked that time. But Red Hat shouldn't be forced in to taking three-four employees off their other responsibilities to prevent GNOME from tearing itself apart. We need a way to make authoritative decisions in a healthy way and then to share the responsibility of making it happen without giving the appearance of back-room dealings or rule by fiat. Consensus building and making travel happen (to affordable locations) are the only two things I want to see the Foundation doing. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: The Travel Committee is ready!
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Diego Escalante Urrelo die...@gnome.org wrote: http://live.gnome.org/Travel (carefully!) Could you add information to this page about the agreed upon reimbursement rates? There was a discussion about this in February and it seemed that there was some argument as to whether it should be 70%. Or case-by-case. Or something else. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Travel assistance for Gran Canaria
When I last asked about this on Feb. 11th, the response was wait a week or two: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-February/msg00013.html I asked again two weeks ago in the GUADEC IRC channel and someone--I can't recall who--said that something was in progress. So what's up? The registration site says it's for both registration and travel assistance but I don't see anything during the registration process related to travel assistance (other than having a travel agency make the bookings for you). I'd like to buy plane tickets and lodging but have no idea what the travel assistance process is or whether I qualify. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Olav Vitters o...@bkor.dhs.org wrote: That isn't a contest. It is a survey. Please don't read more in to my email than I intended. There's no need to get defensive. http://www.gnome.org/~shaunm/survey/first-picks-permutations.png It seems to me that a lot of brain power, sysadmin time, and general I am a sysadmin and disagree with your notion that sysadmin time is somehow saved. I'd rather asses such things myself. Further, sysadmin time is not so important. Thank you for voicing your opinion. just all move on? Further, your explanation is incomplete. As you said, the graph is about people knowing two DVCS systems. I wouldn't say I knew 2. Those 6 are incomplete. I highlighted this statistical analysis because those 6 contain the subset of 4 vocal users demanding that we /also/ support bzr. Now before you reply: we have a clear need for git to work (ranked 1st 50% of the time, etc). But if you say move on, how do you think a switch is made? Magic? Please don't be patronizing. I'm not an idiot. Anyway, I'd rather add John Carr to the sysadmin team. I plan to make a proposal to switch GNOME to a DVCS where Git works using Johns suggestion. Then other sysadmins[1] can suggest whatever proposal they want. These proposals can be investigated on merit and then a one can be chosen (chosen as in: go ahead and try if this would work, not go ahead blindly; everything must be tested before a cutover). John's idea is a good one but it patently loses on technical merit. As stated by John here, git will only be support in a degraded, bastardized form because he chose bzr as the repository format: http://blogs.gnome.org/johncarr/2008/12/11/dvcs-for-gnome/#comment-172 Are we really going to go back to the days of CVS where file moves aren't supported? It strikes me that this very vocal minority--John and Robert Carr, Karl Lattimer and Rob Taylor (whom are four of the six people I mentioned above)--are potentially delaying even longer what we've wanted for more than two years, now. It is from these same people that came the suggestion that git users were a rapid, vocal minority. Why are we letting them derail this process? Moving will not be easy, obviously. But doing it John's way will be, in my technical analysis, an order of magnitude more painful. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:48 AM, John Carr john.c...@unrouted.co.uk wrote: I'm not a complete idiot - if it was going to be a degraded, bastardized form of Git I wouldn't waste my time on it. I suppose I might be an evil genius stalling for Bazaar DS9 to be written (sorry for the very bad joke that probably only i get...). I don't think you're an idiot. I think you're quite smart. Can you please tell us exactly what your words, This is a price that a maintainer pays for using Git and one reason why eventually they might decide to (and have the option to) switch to using Bazaar, mean and to which git features you are planning on this statement applying to encourage people to use bzr? Or do you mean that you taking that sentence back? Also, can you tell us if Canonical is directing you to work on this? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) zee...@gmail.com wrote: How about we set-up a task-force of volunteers who would want to help in the move, each volunteer promising at least 3 hours a week? 3 hours is a very small amount of time but I am hoping that we'll be able to gather at least 10 volunteers and together we can do it, even using our spare time. I can commit that much time as long as there's clear delegation of work by--preferably--the sysadmin team. I don't want to sit on a committee that does a lot of deciding and no actual doing. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Luca Ferretti elle@libero.it wrote: bzr allows lightweight checkouts [1]. What about git? Yes, it does. This is not an issue. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
