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 ca
On 10/31/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > I am frustrated, and so I will be running for the board again.
> >
> > If elected, my almost-exclusive focus will be handling legal and
> > secretarial issues for the board. So I can't guarantee that my being on
> > the board would necessa
On 10/30/07, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I look forward to further aggravated public shaming of past incompetencies,
> > especially ones so obvious in hindsight, as it always improves motivation
>
> So you can do PR some of the time then Jeff
>
> "aggravated public shaming of past incom
On 10/30/07, Jody Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This flaming was completely and utterly predictable. I'm disappointed
> > that the board took the time to approve an action that obviously
> > exposed GNOME to PR problems without taking the (very obvious) PR
> > steps to reduce that impact.
On 10/29/07, Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, uh... this apparently didn't happen, and now we're getting flamed
> > (rightfully) for appearing to give a stamp of approval to a deeply
> > flawed standard. So... when is the board making this happen?
>
> Right. I should be blamed f
On 6/10/07, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/10/07, Jody Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 08:18:54PM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > On 6/10/07, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > 1) ECMA
>
On 10/16/07, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm certainly not against moving to STV, but that would need software,
> and considerable retraining for members not familiar with the system.
http://selectricity.org/
open + easy.
___
foundation-lis
On 9/12/07, Tristan Van Berkom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > That way you get democracy at both ends - posting and viewing.
> >
> > GNOME is not democratic. :-)
>
> Well, gnome is people that have a choice to contribute or not - making
> those people (i.e. you me and everyone else) feel accepted
On 8/6/07, Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kjartan Maraas wrote:
> > Is there a rule of thumb as to how much code is contributed before this
> > applies? I've always assumed that writing new code gives you the right
> > to add yourself, but fixing bugs in existing code is a different
On 8/3/07, Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 21:48 +0200, Juan José Sánchez Penas wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 01:40:39PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > > ownership. When multiple companies (Red Hat, Novell, Sun, ...) own
> > > copyright on a package, it's
On 8/3/07, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Thomas Wood wrote:
> > During discussions about copyright at GUADEC several people mentioned
> > that developers were not encouraged to assign copyright to the GNOME
> > Foundation.
>
> >From my point of view, "not encouraged" isn'
On 6/10/07, Jody Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 08:18:54PM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> > On 6/10/07, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 1) ECMA
> > >
> > >We have the opportunity of joining ECMA as a n
On 6/10/07, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) ECMA
>
>We have the opportunity of joining ECMA as a non-profit
>member. Jody has expressed an interest in being a representative
>for GNOME, and suggested it would also be good to get someone
>there from Abiword.
>
>ACTIO
On 3/24/07, Baris Cicek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 07:04 -0700, Elliot Lee wrote:
> > Baris Cicek wrote:
> >
> > > I'll talk w/ our local GUG about if we can organize to host GUADEC next
> > > year in Istanbul.
> >
> > Not Constantinople?
> It was called Constantinople ages
On 3/23/07, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 15:14 +0200, Baris Cicek wrote:
> > I'll talk w/ our local GUG about if we can organize to host GUADEC next
> > year in Istanbul.
>
> Please, yes.
Please, no. Not until I can come. Istanbul 2010! ;)
Luis (seriously, Ist
While I can't speak directly to the code involved, I want to say that
I'm excited by Ben's involvement- I worked with him when I was at
Harvard and he is a great guy, doing very interesting thinking. We're
lucky to have him involved, and with luck, I look forward to voting
with Helios in the next e
On 11/28/06, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > I also want to throw in a strong endorsement for Joachim.
>
> I'm a little concerned -- based on Joachim's answers and commments on this
> list -- that there would be some difficult philosophical gaps for the Board
> to bridge (or worse, t
On 8/2/06, Elijah Newren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/2/06, Andreas J. Guelzow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 20:11 +0200, Anne Østergaard wrote:
> > > I think that we have most people with us now
> >
> > How do you know?
>
> She said 'think'. (Personally, I do agree wit
On 6/2/06, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We're all sorry to see Luis leave the
board, but I have a feeling that this means we'll be hearing even more
from him in the future. I'd like to wish him all the best in his budding
legal career.
Should have announced that here first, of course
On 6/1/06, Telsa Gwynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ar Tue, May 30, 2006 at 01:04:43PM +0200, ysgrifennodd Murray Cumming:
> I don't think we need a whole organisation to police it. At the least, it
> should just be how we expect people to behave on mailing lists and IRC and
> it could be up to th
On 6/1/06, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/1/06, Anne Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> tor, 01 06 2006 kl. 09:05 -0400, skrev Luis Villa:
> > On 6/1/06, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> >
On 6/1/06, Anne Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
tor, 01 06 2006 kl. 09:05 -0400, skrev Luis Villa:
> On 6/1/06, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Luis Villa wrote:
> > > Such a plan should be written by someone
On 6/1/06, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Luis Villa wrote:
> Such a plan should be written by someone who has actually been
> involved in IRC, our mailing lists, bugzilla, etc., *as a developer*-
> which, sorry, isn't Anne. It will not work if it is not driv
On 6/1/06, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anne wrote:
[snip]
> I do not say this to start a new long debat in this tread. But it has
> become obvious that the 1% participation of women in FLOSS is
> embarrassing and we need to have a look at why this is the case and make
> some cultura
I would hate to see us resort to written, legalistic rules (which
encourage gaming and letter-of-law over spirit-of-law) when a strong
culture should suffice, particularly at our size. What it feels like
such a thing advertises is 'we're so weak we need rules where common
sense and politeness shou
On 5/16/06, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + Portland project
>- general feeling of nearly everyone was that it's sad that GNOME is
> not involved in this effort
>- would be nice to get someone to at least look at the project and
> provide feedback
>- Waldo and s
On 5/15/06, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Selon Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sul, 2006-05-14 at 19:52 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
> > Since lawyers talk .doc, and use revision control to track changes to the
> > documents, that's what we ge too.
>
> Disappointing. I hope the foundatio
On 4/17/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> > * Luis to help marketing-list prepare a press release for the
> > GNOME/W3C SVG anouncement (NOT DONE)
>
> Not sure if I should just wait for the press release, but what's this?
Heh.
On 2/27/06, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 13:48, Dave Neary wrote:
> ...
> > I think it'd be a good idea to get a proper legal opinion on defending our
> > marks, and setting up our trademark policy to be as liberal as possible
> > without
> > losing them.
>
> I a
On 2/24/06, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le mercredi 22 février 2006 à 12:12 +0100, Rodrigo Moya a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 14:24 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> > > Axis Informática
> > >
> > >
> > > * We are fine with giving them permission to sell pr
On 12/17/05, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-12-17 at 18:30 +, Alan Cox wrote:
> [snip]
> > Having a logo for a program which is a
> > "gnome program" and for "gnome developer" ought to be doable given the
> > right definition, and "foundation member" is definitely one
On 12/17/05, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sad, 2005-12-17 at 11:32 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> > IANAL (yet), but... under US trademark law (and most European
> > trademark law, as I understand it) basically all users of the mark
> > must ask us for permi
On 12/17/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/17/05, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Luis:
> >
> > IMO there may be yet another option, i.e. the 'Debian' route, where we
> > have one logo package (the default?) that&#
nd distros could vote
> with their, uh, well you know what I mean...
I believe I suggested this in my paper, though I forgot about it this
morning. I believe Debian is not substantially pleased with this
approach ATM, though I forget why- any debianites care to
elaborate/correct me?
Luis
> Lui
On 12/17/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IANAL (yet), but... under US trademark law (and most European
> trademark law, as I understand it) basically all users of the mark
> must ask us for permission before use. We cannot adopt a permission
> scheme which allows a
On 12/17/05, Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> About Ray's package and Luis Villa's post:
> http://tieguy.org/blog/index.cgi/524
>
> I think the Foundation needs official logos owned by the Foundation to
> be used by the official GNOME projects in order to give consistancy to
> the GNOME brand.
On 12/12/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/11/05, Žygimantas Beručka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sk, 2005 12 11 22:48 +0200, Baris Cicek rašė:
> >
> > > Luis Villa (119 votes) - Harvard Law School
> > > Jeff Waugh (115 votes) -
On 12/11/05, Žygimantas Beručka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sk, 2005 12 11 22:48 +0200, Baris Cicek rašė:
>
> > Luis Villa (119 votes) - Harvard Law School
> > Jeff Waugh (115 votes) - Canonical Ltd
> > Federico Mena-Quintero (106 votes) - Novell, Inc.
>
Candidacy Questions
[My apologies for answering these so late; I've been on vacation and
away from email since they were posted.]
> 1) Why are you running for Board of Directors?
Because I care very deeply about the future of GNOME and the future of
Free Software (which I feel are fairly intimat
On 11/17/05, Dominic Lachowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> > I count 12: Jeff, Federico, Behdad, German, Christian, Vincent, Luis,
> > Jonathan, Bastien, Anne, Quim, Dave (me)
>
> Only 8 have sent any mail to foundation-announce, which is required by
> the election's rules. So Jeff's,
On 11/16/05, Andreas J. Guelzow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-16-11 at 13:14 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> >
> > Quim Gil wrote:
> > > Gosh, we are not the EU Parliament or the US Congress. Neither have we
> > > 28 candidates to choose from. If we keep kicking off candidates for
> > > proc
Luis Villa
Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard Law School
It should be noted that I maintain some organizational ties to Fedora
and SUSE (neither paid), and am an Ubuntu user, so maybe I should
count 1/3rd for affiliations for each of those ;)
Why I want to be on the board:
Because
Hadn't realized this was available on the web. Thanks for passing it
along, Dave.
Luis
On 11/8/05, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/index.html
>
> Karl Fogel wrote a book on producing free and open source software,
> which discusses everything fr
On 11/4/05, Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm thinking of running for election and I have only one doubt about
> affiliation.
>
> I'm a full time member of a micro cooperative company (5 partners as
> average). We develop work in various projects relating to free software.
> Should I state
On 10/26/05, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 3. Are there any other changes, rather than reducing the number of elected
> > board members, that would address some of the problems Neary is raising?
>
> The alternative that I support is a more structured decision making process,
> with a st
On 10/26/05, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that they don't have enough chances because a lof of members
> vote during elections as if it were a popularity contest. And they
> probably do this because they don't see what actions the board is
> doing or should do, and who would be
On 10/20/05, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, October 20, 2005 16:08, Luis Villa wrote:
> > Do we need an affiliations page listing our various foundation-level
> > affiliations? Obviously we talk about our sponsors (and call FSF and
> > debian spons
Do we need an affiliations page listing our various foundation-level
affiliations? Obviously we talk about our sponsors (and call FSF and
debian sponsors when they aren't really quite), but we have other
affiliations ( http://www.oss-institute.org/ for example), and it
seems like it would be good t
On 9/29/05, Mark McLoughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [1] - Yes, its not entirely accurate. Some people on the hypothetical
> board-of-seven may not have run for election at all if the board size
> was smaller.
You know that's inaccurate, Mark. Everyone who has good friends on the
board knows t
On 9/13/05, Tim Ney, GNOME Foundation <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Weaknesses: (no particular order)
> > * reduced spending this year on 'core' expense of getting contributors
> > to the conference
>
> Some GUADEC costs associated with Stuttgart were lower than
> Kristiansand, but not because th
On 9/14/05, Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Let's be very clear- we have a conference for hackers that interests
> > several hundred people, and we have a separate conference for business
> > and government that interests dozens, and there is very little overlap
> > between those two gro
On 9/15/05, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It sounds like increasing the size of the board by 3 people could
> achieve both of the goals that Dave was talking about: to get more
> things done, and to have more contested seats **(provided enough people
> decide to run so as to make
On 9/14/05, Daniel Veillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:01:38PM +0200, David Neary wrote:
> > I'm in favour of reducing the board to 7 people. I would like to see us
> > have a referendum on the issue next month.
> >
> > The board has huge problems being pro-active. Any
On 9/12/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey, all-
>
> I'm going from 'affiliated with my couch' to taking a technical
> lead/consulting/occasional admin position at the Berkman Center for
> Internet And Society at Harvard Law School.[1] The pos
Hey, all-
I'm going from 'affiliated with my couch' to taking a technical
lead/consulting/occasional admin position at the Berkman Center for
Internet And Society at Harvard Law School.[1] The position won't
leave me much time for GNOME stuff, but at least enough to continue
fulfilling my duties
On 9/7/05, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Besides these obvious flaws, I'd really hate to see fundamental
> > tinkering with things like this while we still don't have a basic idea
> > of what the heck GUADEC is and who it is meant to be for.
> > I think the GUADEC planners need to co
While I'm flaming away elsewhere, I thought it might be constructive
to write down some of the thinking that has led me to the conclusions
that we are drifting very badly with GUADEC right now. A simplistic
SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis might
let me get some of this
On 9/8/05, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Tim Ney, GNOME Foundation a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 16:05 +0200, Quim Gil wrote:
> >>For some the GUADEC is an opportunity to meet, for others is a way to
> >>get new contributors, for others is a way to get some money for the
On 9/8/05, Tim Ney, GNOME Foundation <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 09:34 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
>
> > a large portion of the attendees were either completely uninterested
> > in the first two days, or completely uninterested in the 3rd.
>
> The evaluation forms submitted st
On 9/5/05, David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would like to propose changing the name of GUADEC. There are many
> reasons to do this, here are 5:
>
> 1. There is no link to GNOME in the name, or to being a conference
In both the current name and the proposed name, you have a G, that's
Hi, Tim-
Thanks for the feedback.
On 8/18/05, Tim Ney, GNOME Foundation <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 16:03 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
>
> > in 2004, Ad Board was a little under a fifth of our revenues; down
> > from a little under half in 2003 and 2
On 8/18/05, Tim Ney, GNOME Foundation <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 11:14 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
>
> > Another one is travel and trade show budgets- I know we sent Tim to
> > LWE SF in 2004, for example- is that money under conference/trade
&g
On 8/12/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/12/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think people will have to tell us what they think needs explaining.
One other question: how did we do at the end of the year, compared to
our predicted budget
[For informative purposes of the foundation, I figured I'd answer
these as best as possible for the previous three years.][This would
all have been easier had the data been presented as a .gnumeric file
instead of pdf :)
On 8/12/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * what per
On 8/12/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think people will have to tell us what they think needs explaining.
Another one is travel and trade show budgets- I know we sent Tim to
LWE SF in 2004, for example- is that money under conference/trade
shows? travel? This is un
On 8/9/05, Owen Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 09:17 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 17:14 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > > Budget information is trickling out, and we're engaging in concrete
> > > > plans to do things
On 7/29/05, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Luis Villa a écrit :
> > The titular membership is only a proxy
> > for the actual, important membership, since we need one for voting for
> > the board. I've yet to see any other useful reason
On 7/24/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me be clear- I'm not *against* increased membership, per se; in
> particular being more representative is probably worthwhile. But I'd
> much prefer to (1) work on increasing the size of the community[2] and
On 7/24/05, David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Luis Villa wrote:
> > Given that the membership is charged with making important decisions
> > about the direction of the foundation and the stewardship of the
> > foundation's resource
On 7/21/05, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know who the best people to talk to about this are, but it would
> be great to have a membership drive for the foundation in September or
> October.
Not to be a pain in the ass, Dave, but...
Given that the membership is charged with maki
On 7/13/05, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is that necessarily
> > going to please 100% of ISVs? No. (Possibly not even 50%.) Will it be
> > useful anyway? IMHO, yes. While we should definitely get Bryan's input
> > and attempt to accomodate it as much as practicable, lets please not
>
On 7/13/05, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Heya,
>
> Dudes, you should work with Brian Cameron from Sun on this - I'm pretty
> sure he'll pick up this thread, but he's done a HUGE amount of work in
> this space already.
>
> I personally think a step by step effort working down through
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:19:55 +0100 (BST), Alan Horkan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We sincerely apologize if you receive more than one copy of this
> > announcement.
>
> The foundation list seem like as good a place to ask as any so here's my
> question: For future reference what one list wo
This is great, Anne. Congrats on any part you played in this.
Luis
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:20:36 +0100, Anne Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> DENMARK will ask for software patents directive to become B-item in European
> Council of Ministers
> --
> Press release:
>
> Victory for de
If the thread must be continued, please don't cc ad-board. I've
dropped them from this reply.
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:13:03 -0600, Shaun McCance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 17:07 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> > I have no particular horse here, but I wil
I have no particular horse here, but I will note that if we want to
use wiki for serious documents, we must have high quality RCS, and
mediawiki and whatever ubuntu use have that, and live.gnome.org does
not, which is a serious bummer.
Also, Jeff, AFAICT, mediawiki (being the engine behind the big
FYI, effective the end of this week I'll be resigning from Novell and
becoming a true independent, aka 'unemployed'. :) It is my hope that
this will free up more energy and time for work on core GNOME, so I
expect that if there is any impact on my relationship with GNOME, it
will be a very positive
101 - 177 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
