On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 20:19 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> hi;
>
> On 6 August 2014 19:49, Michael Hill wrote:
>
> >> "crippling weight" [citation needed].
> >
> > "This hasn't only exposed us to substantial financial risks; it has
> > caused actual financial problems for the project. This yea
> Women do represent a pretty significant portion of the general public, no?
> I think for men by men probably doesn't meet the "general public" qualifier
> there.
"Standalone OPW" is different from "from men by men", I'm afraid I don't
understand your argument here?
A problem I see in the curre
I think it might be useful to read the entire mission statement [1], which
also says:
"The GNOME foundation must not stifle the interest of outsiders. An
ill-conceived foundation could discourage outsider participation directly,
by establishing rules which limit the ability of potential contributo
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Jim Nelson wrote:
... except that all four of those projects correspond almost exactly
to the first sentence of the GNOME mission statement that Ryan
quoted: "to create a computing platform for use by the general public
that is completely free software."
I t
On 08/06/2014 08:39 PM, Jim Nelson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
>> if that were the case, then we ought to stop handling funds for all
>> the other projects for which we currently do handle funds: • Gimp •
>> GStreamer • PulseAudio (for GSoC) • PiTiVi (fund ra
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Emmanuele Bassi
wrote:
if that were the case, then we ought to stop handling funds for all
the other projects for which we currently do handle funds:
• Gimp
• GStreamer
• PulseAudio (for GSoC)
• PiTiVi (fund raising)
... except that all four of those
hi,
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014, at 01:23, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> On 7 August 2014 00:13, Andre Klapper wrote:
> > Currently there seems to be a mismatch between GNOME's mission statement
> > and OPW activities (doing program administration for other projects).
>
> if that were the case, then we ough
hi Andre;
On 7 August 2014 00:13, Andre Klapper wrote:
> Currently there seems to be a mismatch between GNOME's mission statement
> and OPW activities (doing program administration for other projects).
if that were the case, then we ought to stop handling funds for all
the other projects for whi
Currently there seems to be a mismatch between GNOME's mission statement
and OPW activities (doing program administration for other projects).
That specific aspect is rather unrelated to discussing the usefulness of
OPW, whether GNOME raises fees, whether financial graphs are easily
readable, what
hi;
On 6 August 2014 19:49, Michael Hill wrote:
>> "crippling weight" [citation needed].
>
> "This hasn't only exposed us to substantial financial risks; it has
> caused actual financial problems for the project. This year, GNOME
> temporarily ceased funding of hackfests in order to recover fro
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> we've gone from "it adds workload to the administrative assistant and
> to the board directors chasing companies for paying invoices" to
> "crippling weight" in about three emails. this is how memes propagate,
> and PR disasters are born.
hi Joanie;
On 6 August 2014 18:25, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
>>> If GNOME continued to be one of the participating organizations, but the
>>> administration -- and only the administration -- was moved to a
>>> different organization, would this negatively impact GNOME?
>>
>> it would remove a sourc
On 08/06/2014 12:55 PM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> hi Joanie;
>
> On 6 August 2014 17:50, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
>> On 08/06/2014 12:05 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
>>
>>> Do you understand that the many -isms that negatively impact GNOME and
>>> open source in general do not disappear when you sweep th
On 6 August 2014 17:55, Máirín Duffy wrote:
>
>
> On 08/06/2014 12:36 PM, Pascal Terjan wrote:
>>
>> I personnally have no problem with GNOME managing OPW but given that's
>> it getting bigger than GNOME itself it may make sense to have an
>> independant foundation.
>> Apart from that, regarding t
Ryan Lortie wrote:
...
> I got the sense during the 'open floor' of the AGM that there were a lot
> of people still wanting to ask questions before we were hurried away to
> lunch. In future years I think it might be nice to schedule the AGM
> either in a larger slot or in a slot that is more fre
On 08/06/2014 12:36 PM, Pascal Terjan wrote:
I personnally have no problem with GNOME managing OPW but given that's
it getting bigger than GNOME itself it may make sense to have an
independant foundation.
Apart from that, regarding the time consumed, is the charge enough to
hire someone part ti
hi Joanie;
On 6 August 2014 17:50, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
> On 08/06/2014 12:05 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
>
>> Do you understand that the many -isms that negatively impact GNOME and
>> open source in general do not disappear when you sweep them under the
>> rug? These are not problems that can just
On 08/06/2014 12:05 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> Do you understand that the many -isms that negatively impact GNOME and
> open source in general do not disappear when you sweep them under the
> rug? These are not problems that can just be washed away from
> disengaging OPW from GNOME.
If GNOME conti
On 08/06/2014 12:30 PM, Michael Hill wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
On 08/06/2014 11:57 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
I think that the time has come to split OPW out from the GNOME
foundation.
I can't resist saying this:
I think GNOME has a lot of problems, and O
On 6 August 2014 17:05, Máirín Duffy wrote:
>
>
> On 08/06/2014 11:57 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
>>
>> I was disappointed (but not completely surprised) to learn that,
>> although OPW has expanded to many projects beyond GNOME, GNOME is left
>> handling all of the money for all participants at all org
hi;
On 6 August 2014 17:30, Michael Hill wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
>
>> On 08/06/2014 11:57 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
>
>>> I think that the time has come to split OPW out from the GNOME
>>> foundation.
>>
>>
>> I can't resist saying this:
>>
>> I think GNOME has
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> On 08/06/2014 11:57 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
>> I think that the time has come to split OPW out from the GNOME
>> foundation.
>
>
> I can't resist saying this:
>
> I think GNOME has a lot of problems, and OPW is most certainly NOT one of
> the
I completely agree with Máirín.
yes, the OPW is imposing on the administration of our finances some
strain; the correct solution is not to just get rid of it, but figure
out a way to get more resources for handling that side. it's a matter
of fundraising, but it can be done.
the point Ryan made a
On 08/06/2014 11:57 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
I was disappointed (but not completely surprised) to learn that,
although OPW has expanded to many projects beyond GNOME, GNOME is left
handling all of the money for all participants at all organisations.
This hasn't only exposed us to substantial fina
"""
The GNOME Foundation will work to further the goal of the GNOME project:
to create a computing platform for use by the general public that is
completely free software.
To achieve this goal, the Foundation will coordinate releases of GNOME
and determine which projects are part of GNOME. The Fou
25 matches
Mail list logo
