Hi,
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Olav Vitters o...@bkor.dhs.org wrote:
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
At the risk of sounding like a bad person...
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 6:33 PM, James Henstridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the same arguments about not locking out candidates stand when
you generalise single seat instant run-off to multiple seat single
transferable vote: if the
Hi,
As warned about earlier in this election (by someone with better
foresight than I have), when there isn't an organized call for
questions people will fire off zillions of them at random. This puts
an unreasonable burden on not only the candidates who feel obligated
to spend time responding
On 8/7/07, Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Waugh wrote:
So here's the proposal: I'd like to suggest we shift the election cycle back
six months, landing the process in May and June [1]. More controversially, I
reckon the best way to achieve this without a lot of pain would be to
On 6/18/07, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
KDE. When both sides mentioned that the logistics of such an event
seemed quite difficult, someone pointed out that helping with this
kind of collaboration is one of the reasons for the existence of the
Linux Foundation. So, there may
On 12/4/06, Andrew Sobala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has 82 signatures. Last year 169 members could be bothered to vote
for the board. It sounds like we've pretty much got community adoption
now, or will in a couple of days ;-)
Additionally, the mailing list consensus is that no top-down
On 10/25/06, Quim Gil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you ever thought the board needs more transparency you should have a
look at http://live.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/2006ActivityWatch
Hopefully this page will help communicating better the board activities.
All the information is taken from the
On 6/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 look at all arbitrary to me. Behdad and
On 6/5/06, David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
So, the board can decide how many people it wants to have elected and
then it can add an arbitrary number of additional members after the
election. Why do we have elections in the first place?
The board must have
On 12/11/05, Baris Cicek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GNOME Foundation Membership Elections Committee is pleased to
announce the preliminary results for the Board of Directors.
Candidates in order of votes received, with affiliations:
Luis Villa (119 votes) - Harvard Law School
Jeff
On 11/26/05, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quote who=Richard M. Stallman
Does ISV stand for Independent Software Vendor? If so, the term
is often misleading, because the most important developers of GNOME
applications--those developing free software--are mostly not vendors.
We use
On 11/25/05, Jonathan Blandford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Additionally, we need to push our ISV platform. This is one of the
biggest issues facing us, and as big an effort as getting GNOME 2.0 out
was. We should start another group to work on this (similar to the
release team) and for this
On 11/11/05, Quim Gil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Being a candidate
-
If you are a member of the GNOME Foundation and are interested in
running for election, you may
(...)
before November 14th 2005 (23:59 UTC).
This is my first election period in the GNOME
On 10/9/05, Ross Golder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The wording of David's original call seemed clear enough to me:
If you would like this issue to be debated, and decided, by the
foundation membership, please add your name to the page.
That may have been the wording in his email, but not on
On 9/9/05, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, David Neary wrote:
Let's say that it was a mistake, or that distributing the foot under the
GPL is incompatible with defending it as a trademark - what remedy do
you think we should consider?
Seems like that's what
On 9/6/05, Rob Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
General Upgraded Android Designed for Efficient Calculation.
Grandiose Ubiquitous Acronyms Designed to Eradicate Conflict
...or maybe at least the flamewars, though there might be a bug in
their current implementation. ;-)
16 matches
Mail list logo
