Re: New GNOME online code of conduct

On Wed, 2019-09-25 at 10:59 +0100, Robert McQueen wrote: > > The GNOME Foundation Board of Directors is pleased to announce our > new code of conduct for online behavior. Thanks for the announcement, Rob! For the record, the link in this announcement goes to my personal web page's scra

New GNOME online code of conduct

Dear community members, The GNOME Foundation Board of Directors is pleased to announce our new code of conduct for online behavior. The new code was developed by our own Code of Conduct Committee, led by Federico Mena Quintero, with expert advice from Otter Tech's Sage Sharp. The board vote

Re: Events Code of Conduct: CoC Working Group status

On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 13:52 +0200, Benjamin Berg wrote: > Could the Board please clarify what the status of the working group > is? Hi, Benjamin, The work of the Code of Conduct Working Group is finished now; all matters around the Code of Conduct are delegated to the Committee now. W

Events Code of Conduct: CoC Working Group status

[now from the correct address] Hi Board, quite a lot of the work on the events Code of Conduct (CoC) and some related documents like the guidelines happened in the Code of Conduct working group (WG) which was specifically formed for the purpose[1]. As such, the members of this WG should

Re: Events Code of Conduct: Effects on Hackfests

Benjamin Berg wrote: ... > You are repeatedly insisting, that the Code of Conduct (CoC) committee > will never make use of these far reaching powers (only stopping at > permanent sanctions such as "removal of Foundation membership"). All I'm saying is that, in practi

Re: Events Code of Conduct: Effects on Hackfests

is aware of a > > serious incident at their event, they ought to inform the Code of > > Conduct Committee. > > There have been discussions in the past that this may trigger data > protection and export regulations. Is there an official opinion on > whether such regul

Re: Events Code of Conduct: Ratification by the community

topic and > an earlier meeting discussing the event Code of Conduct and > ratification[3]. This ticket says that the "board needs to consider > letting the community vote eventually". The referenced meeting suggests > an "affirmation vote at GUADEC" was planned. &g

Events Code of Conduct: Ratification by the community

]. This question relates to the original Board ticket[2] on the topic and an earlier meeting discussing the event Code of Conduct and ratification[3]. This ticket says that the "board needs to consider letting the community vote eventually". The referenced meeting suggests an "affirmation

Re: Events Code of Conduct: Effects on Hackfests

he CoC committee holds the all of the above powers for all "GNOME events" (unless maybe an explicit exception has been made). Is that interpretation correct? > > The response guidelines[2] state: > > > > "It is your responsibility to make a record of any Code

Re: Events Code of Conduct: Effects on Hackfests

[I'm replying as someone who helped to draft the CoC, and who was on the board when it was approved. The CoC committee is responsible for applying the code, and we have a new board now.] Benjamin Berg wrote: ... > The Code of Conduct Committee charter[1] explicitly grants committee > m

Re: Events Code of Conduct: Effects on Hackfests

On Wed, 2018-07-18 at 10:04 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > Benjamin Berg wrote: > ... > > How does the decided event Code of Conduct and related > > policies/decisions affect Hackfests organised by community members? > > This is explained in > https://w

Re: Events Code of Conduct: Effects on Hackfests

Benjamin Berg wrote: ... > How does the decided event Code of Conduct and related > policies/decisions affect Hackfests organised by community members? This is explained in https://wiki.gnome.org/Hackfests/New#Who_is_responsible_for_what.3F There's some outstanding work to improve the re

Re: Events Code of Conduct and New Committee Ratification

On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 16:58 +0200, Benjamin Berg wrote: > > I have a number of questions about the events Code of Conduct. Is > there > another way to submit questions rather than only during the AGM? You can ask here or to code-of-conduct-commit...@gnome.org :)

Re: Events Code of Conduct and New Committee Ratification

out this new events Code of Conduct. I have a number of questions about the events Code of Conduct. Is there another way to submit questions rather than only during the AGM? The reason for asking is that in my experience the time during the AGM is stretched every year. So it seems unlikely that I

Events Code of Conduct and New Committee Ratification

Dear Foundation Members, The GNOME Foundation Board of Directors would like to announce the ratification of an Events Code of Conduct for GNOME events: https://wiki.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct/Events. This Event Code of Conduct is the product of over one year of work by the Code of Conduct Working

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

ganizers reserve the right to take any action against those who | behave inappropriately, including expulsion from the event. Actions and | incident reports will be recorded and stored by the GNOME Foundation for | the purposes described in the Code of Conduct Data Retention Policy. Be | alert to

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 9:31 PM, wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:15 AM Tobias Mueller wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, 2018-04-30 at 15:48 +0100, Allan Day wrote: >> > The big picture here is that the working group went to great effort to >> >

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:15 AM Tobias Mueller wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 2018-04-30 at 15:48 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > > The big picture here is that the working group went to great effort to > > make sure that everyone was able to participate, and that we had a > But it

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

Hi, On Mon, 2018-04-30 at 15:48 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > The big picture here is that the working group went to great effort to > make sure that everyone was able to participate, and that we had a But it sounds like it was made sure that "everyone" was having the same opinion rather than

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

Alexandre Franke wrote: ... > The WG is a group working on a document that invites people involved > in a conflict to seek assistance from a third party. Yet it seems > that, when a conflict arised, they didn’t call for external > arbitration, and even went as far as issuing

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

meg ford wrote: ... > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Alexandre Franke wrote: >> >> Did you mean to quote a specific part of Allan’s email? Because my >> email was about what happened during the time when discussions were >> still within the WG (and the

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

Hi, On Sun, 2018-04-22 at 13:06 +, Carlos Soriano wrote: > Another thing I want to mention is that I honestly cannot see this > proposal to have happen if it was not done with a specific set of > people that has invested so much into the big picture of what a CoC > conveys. I don't think is

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

Hi, On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Alexandre Franke wrote: > > Did you mean to quote a specific part of Allan’s email? Because my > email was about what happened during the time when discussions were > still within the WG (and the conflict that emerged from it) and yours > is

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:54 PM, meg ford wrote: > I do not completely agree with Allan's explanation here. While I have been > involved in the current discussions about the CoC proposal, it has been as a > member of the Board, not as a member of the WG. I was not involved in

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

behaviour) that it was difficult to get > > anything done within the wider working group context. > > And on Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:45 AM, he added: > > It should be noted that the board group includes every active member > > of the code of conduct working group, with the excep

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

24, 2018 at 10:45 AM, he added: > It should be noted that the board group includes every active member > of the code of conduct working group, with the exception of Ben. So > "without including the rest of the WG" translates to "without > including Ben". The WG is a

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

> It should be noted that the board group includes every active member > of the code of conduct working group, with the exception of Ben. So > "without including the rest of the WG" translates to "without > including Ben". As already stated, this was a direct re

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

very active member of the code of conduct working group, with the exception of Ben. So "without including the rest of the WG" translates to "without including Ben". As already stated, this was a direct response to repeated unacceptable behaviour on Ben's part. There is no formal p

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

Hi Tobias, On Sat, 2018-04-21 at 15:12 +0200, Tobias Mueller wrote: > [SNIP] > Am I right in assuming that you would not pursue a referendum if the > board does not further decide on the current draft? You are right that this would render many of my reasons to push for a referendum (or an

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

olutions.net> > wrote: > >> On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 19:09 -0700, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: >> > We discussed the topic of Events Code of Conduct during today's board >> > meeting. >> > >> > The board intends to consider your motion separately from the

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 4:36 AM Benjamin Berg <benja...@sipsolutions.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 19:09 -0700, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: > > We discussed the topic of Events Code of Conduct during today's board > > meeting. > > > > The board intends to con

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

Hi, On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Tobias Mueller wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, 2018-04-21 at 13:35 +0200, Benjamin Berg wrote: > > I do not think that this is just a technicality that can be taken > > lightly. Should the Board continue to discuss the proposal as is, it > >

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

Hi, On Sat, 2018-04-21 at 13:35 +0200, Benjamin Berg wrote: > I do not think that this is just a technicality that can be taken > lightly. Should the Board continue to discuss the proposal as is, it > would legitimise the misconduct of some CoC WG members. > Based on what has been exchanged here

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 19:09 -0700, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: > We discussed the topic of Events Code of Conduct during today's board > meeting. > > The board intends to consider your motion separately from the Code of > Conduct that was proposed by the working group; we will soon pr

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

Hi everyone, This is a general response to Ben's email, in my capacity as chair of the Code of Conduct Working Group. I'm only going to address the issues that have been raised in response to the group, rather than the referendum proposal, which is a question for the board. As you all know

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

Hi Philip, On Mon, 2018-04-16 at 05:37 +, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote: > Your email references vaguely some recent events. Reading between the > lines, something must have happened in the WG to make the situation > untenable for you, but I have no idea what. According to [1], the > WG's

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 7:40 AM Benjamin Berg wrote: > Dear Board, > > Codes of Conduct (CoC) and especially the policies surrounding them are > a very political issue (which easily becomes emotional). Unfortunately, > in my view, the CoC Working Group (WG) was unable

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

code of conduct, and one is the Abstractions code of conduct. The former is general; the latter is a lot more concrete. (Sorry, I don't have URLs.) -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org

Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

Dear Board, Codes of Conduct (CoC) and especially the policies surrounding them are a very political issue (which easily becomes emotional). Unfortunately, in my view, the CoC Working Group (WG) was unable to set these politics aside enough to create a proposal that finds a balance in the wide

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

Hi Lefty, On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Lefty <le...@shugendo.org> wrote: > My constructive criticism is that you not take your code of conduct > guidance from people who are unrepentant poster children for the need for a > code of conduct. > > http://geekfe

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

> On Sep 14, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.org> wrote: > > Here's a code that I helped write: > http://abstractions.io/policies/#code-of-conduct . > > I tried to avoid vague, subjective rules > that could be interpreted in many ways. Thanks, Richard!

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

t people should be taking their conduct tips from "Beloved > Saint IGNUtious" and the Shrine of the EMACS Virgins.., > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Sep 14, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.org> wrote: >> >> Here's a code that I helped write: &

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: > My practical question is, which of those lists _do his messages > actually get through to_? > > I should send my reactions to the lists that his messages > actually reach, and not to those his messages do not reach. I would

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > I don't know, but maybe he's just not subscribed. If so, his posts > won't

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 08:29:50PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > We should judge proposals based on what they say and their effects, > not based on personalities. FYI: Those messages were moderated (IIRC Lefty is), there's nobody really actively looking at moderated emails (various reasons).

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 20:33 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > Ironically, I was serving as his conduit into the list(s). > I will certainly stop. > > Which of these lists is he banned from?  Both? I don't know, but maybe he's just not subscribed. If so, his posts won't appear until approved by a

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

> My guess is that Lefty is replying publicly, that his posts are not > being allowed through the list for some reason, and that Richard > understandably does not realize nobody else can see the posts he is > replying to. Ironically, I was serving as his conduit into the list(s). I will

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

> I do not understand.  What I am doing is sending the reply to a > message to the same lists that the other message went to.  I do that > because these messages attack me and I deserve a chance to respond. I assumed that you were accidently moving a conversation from the private ML to the

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: > > Can you please stop leaking half a conversation from a private mailing > > list to a public one? Thank you. > > I do not understand. What I am doing is sending the reply to a > message to the same lists that the

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

> Can you please stop leaking half a conversation from a private mailing > list to a public one? Thank you. I do not understand. What I am doing is sending the reply to a message to the same lists that the other message went to. I do that because these messages attack me and I deserve a

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

realize nobody else can see the posts he is replying to. > > > > > > > > My constructive criticism is that you not take your code of > >   > conduct guidance from people who are unrepentant poster > > children > >   > for the need for a code of c

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Jens Georg wrote: >> >> I do agree that seeing only part of the conversation isn't >> particularly helpful, > > > Sorry for not making this clear, that was the point I was trying to make > here. Nothing else. Indeed, now an apology from me, if it

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

I do agree that seeing only part of the conversation isn't particularly helpful, Sorry for not making this clear, that was the point I was trying to make here. Nothing else. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Jens Georg wrote: > Can you please stop leaking half a conversation from a private mailing list > to a public one? Thank you. I have to interject here. What it sounds like is that one foundation list member (doesn't matter who it is) is getting

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

Can you please stop leaking half a conversation from a private mailing list to a public one? Thank you. My constructive criticism is that you not take your code of > conduct guidance from people who are unrepentant poster children > for the need for a code of conduct. He's exagge

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

> My constructive criticism is that you not take your code of > conduct guidance from people who are unrepentant poster children > for the need for a code of conduct. He's exaggerating about me, but that's the smaller error. His fundamental error is in the general premise that he

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

"Lefty" has resumed his old practice of attacking anything that is associated with me, mainly as a way of associating my name with a cloud of vague disapproval. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org) Skype: No

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

Here's a code that I helped write: http://abstractions.io/policies/#code-of-conduct . I tried to avoid vague, subjective rules that could be interpreted in many ways. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Liam R. E. Quin <l...@holoweb.net> wrote: > On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 12:07 -0700, Nuritzi Sanchez wrote: > > proposing to draw up a standard code of conduct for GNOME events. > > You could maybe start with the libregraphicsmeeti

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 12:07 -0700, Nuritzi Sanchez wrote: >  proposing to draw up a standard code of conduct for GNOME events. You could maybe start with the libregraphicsmeeting.org policy, http://libregraphicsmeeting.org/lgm/public-documentation/code-of-conduc t/ Liam -- Liam R. E. Quin

Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process

This is terrific to see. I'm sorry that I probably don't have time to help out much, but look forward to the final result. Luis On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:49 PM Nuritzi Sanchez < nurit...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: > Dear Foundation Members, > > GNOME has never had a standard

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

People can do as they like on their own systems and resources, but when participating in the GNOME community, they should do so with respect. Refusing to exclude anyone is itself an exclusionary policy; it selects for the kind of people who will put up with absolutely anything, and excludes

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

of what is expected and guidelines on how to proceed in getting it addressed. What do you think about adopting a detailed code of conduct, similar to the one used for GUADEC 2014 [3], for all GNOME events and creating a similarly detailed code of conduct for the GNOME community? Most

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

- Original Message - From: Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org To: Marina Zhurakhinskaya mari...@redhat.com Cc: foundation-list foundation-list@gnome.org Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 1:06:49 PM Subject: Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 11:41

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

Hi! On Sa, 2015-05-23 at 11:41 -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: What do you think about adopting a detailed code of conduct, similar to the one used for GUADEC 2014 [3], for all GNOME events and creating a similarly detailed code of conduct for the GNOME community? It's a complicated

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

, IRC, Bugzilla, wikis, email, etc. Except the board did ask the GUADEC 2014 attendees to sign something. There was a box that needed to be checked to register for the conference. I was talking about a hypothetical improvement to the community code of conduct, not to the conference code

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: Nobody is asking anyone to sign anything. A CoC would simply be a stated policy for expected behavior on community resources, such as mailing lists, IRC, Bugzilla, wikis, email, etc. Except the board did ask the

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

about adopting a detailed code of conduct, similar to the one used for GUADEC 2014 [3], for all GNOME events and creating a similarly detailed code of conduct for the GNOME community? First of all, it is important for people participating in the community activities, be them online (mailing list

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

Hi Marina, I think we all agree we want a welcome community, and that means searching for the commune divisor and not allowing anything outside that. As far as I saw, all the previous answer from the candidates share the same opinion. I would actually like to have a code of conduct for every

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 05:15:29PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] I suggest

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

2015-05-23 17:41 GMT+02:00 Marina Zhurakhinskaya mari...@redhat.com: What do you think about adopting a detailed code of conduct, similar to the one used for GUADEC 2014 [3], for all GNOME events and creating a similarly detailed code of conduct for the GNOME community? Having a final

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 07:11:42PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: I'm entirely in favor of an improved code of conduct, both for events and in general. And thank you for raising this issue. Some searching turned up https

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 07:11:42PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: I'm entirely in favor of an improved code of conduct, both for events and in general

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:34:14AM +0100, Magdalen Berns wrote: OK in light of these responses, I feel I should maybe better clarify that whilst I agree this sort of stance may be a fair way to moderated communications with non-members, I do not agree with expelling card carrying members from

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

Hi Marina, Thanks for your question! What do you think about adopting a detailed code of conduct, similar to the one used for GUADEC 2014 [3], for all GNOME events and creating a similarly detailed code of conduct for the GNOME community? I hold the view that the vast majority people

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: I'm entirely in favor of an improved code of conduct, both for events and in general. And thank you for raising this issue. Some searching turned up https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct , but that's definitely

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

Hi Olav, I don't follow why I'd sign something can cause legal issues for me if I could do without that. I am not sure why you are concerned that a community code of conduct could cause legal issues for you, are you able to elaborate on that? I think in the question the GNOME community vs

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

Hi Richard, I agree, it is probably appropriate for those of us who have answered to hold off on debating about CoCs for the time being. Apologies for the noise. I'm happy to back off so other candidates can answer Marina's question. Do carry on... :D Magdalen On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 10:15 PM,

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

Hi Marina, On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Marina Zhurakhinskaya mari...@redhat.com wrote: What do you think about adopting a detailed code of conduct, similar to the one used for GUADEC 2014 [3], for all GNOME events and creating a similarly detailed code of conduct for the GNOME community

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] I suggest that we postpone discussion on codes of conduct until after the election.

code of conduct question for Board candidates

it addressed. What do you think about adopting a detailed code of conduct, similar to the one used for GUADEC 2014 [3], for all GNOME events and creating a similarly detailed code of conduct for the GNOME community? Thanks, Marina [1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment

Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

of what is expected and guidelines on how to proceed in getting it addressed. What do you think about adopting a detailed code of conduct, similar to the one used for GUADEC 2014 [3], for all GNOME events and creating a similarly detailed code of conduct for the GNOME community? I'm entirely

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/15/09 4:09 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) zee...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote: Hi, Lefty wrote: Given the proposition that proprietary software is illegitimate, and the statement above, do you believe that the GNOME Foundation and

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hi to all. I'm not a GNOME Foundation member, then I apologize for this e-mail. But as enthusiastic GNOME user, I would like to send you my opinion. First at all: thank you Richard Stallman and Miguel De Icaza for GNOME idea. Thank you Miguel for GNOME hacking and for Mono too. Thank you RMS for

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership (Summary)

. -- The original topic: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote: ...I would not encourage anyone to use non-free software even to get money to give to a worthy cause. I apologize to all, but given this, there's a question that _really_ has to be asked: Given the proposition that proprietary

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

this system also? I totally agree with Peter Hjalmarsson Then for the planet you can have a code of conduct of what they are allowed to tag as GNOME (i.e. upcoming events in OSS-land where GNOME will be represented, development in projects blessed/used by GNOME, comments about projects being

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership (Summary)

Hi, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: I will, except that I don't know what the process to do that is. Just post to f-l? How would we make a decision? Or gather 10% to put it to vote? Edit the Code, if a few people complain they can remove their signatures (and remove their blogs from PGO, if the

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

As a specific example, to the question, Do you agree that viewing proprietary software as 'illegitimate', 'immoral', 'antisocial' and/or 'unethical' should be a pre-condition for syndication on Planet GNOME?, so far 151 respondents have answered No, only 19 have answered Yes.

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hi, On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote: Hi, Lefty wrote: Given the proposition that proprietary software is illegitimate, and the statement above, do you believe that the GNOME Foundation and community should distance itself from companies which produce

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hello, GNOME is not connected with the anti-hunting movement; there's no reason it should have any position on the question. But GNOME is part of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free software movement. The most minimal support for the free software movement is to refrain from

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009/12/10 Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org: The presence of articles discussing vmware, for instance, conveys the message that GNOME sees nothing wrong with it. I think you've added 1 and 1 and made 7. Richard. ___ foundation-list mailing list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Am Dienstag, den 08.12.2009, 15:24 -0500 schrieb Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak: Behdad Esfahbod wrote: Say, any viewer of p.g.o can vote a post +1 or -1. Then we can gather two metrics per poster: 1) how impactful his/her posts are (avg / median / max number of votes). 2) how interested are

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hi, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: As a specific example, to the question, Do you agree that viewing proprietary software as 'illegitimate', 'immoral', 'antisocial' and/or 'unethical' should be a pre-condition for syndication on Planet GNOME?, so far 151 respondents have answered No, only 19 have

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Le mercredi 09 décembre 2009, à 19:47 +0100, Dodji Seketeli a écrit : Le mer. 09 déc. 2009 à 14:45:55 (+0100), Philip Van Hoof a écrit: This is nonsense. The planet-gnome slogan is: Planet GNOME is __ a window into the world, work and lives __ of GNOME hackers and contributors. This

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hey, Le mercredi 09 décembre 2009, à 13:32 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit : On 12/09/2009 08:48 AM, Lionel Dricot wrote: - Each GNOME member should be able to add his feed to pgo. He might want to change his feed whenever he wants to take a more specialized one or not. The consensus in the

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Le vendredi 11 décembre 2009, à 17:20 +0100, Philip Van Hoof a écrit : I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project. So, as far as I can tell, nobody is collecting a list of members who support such a vote proposal. I still wanted to reply there. For many of the reasons

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hey, Le jeudi 10 décembre 2009, à 07:46 -0700, Stormy Peters a écrit : My post on hunting comes to mind. I self censor now because I didn't like the negative comments directed at my kids. But would you block my whole blog because a vocal portion of the community is anti-hunting and people in

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

of GNOME Foundation, it's really hard to argue about how we expect our members to behave if there is no official guidelines that members are supposed to comply with. The GNOME Code of Conduct[1] has been serving very well as an informal guideline for the community but we'd like to make it an official

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/14/2009 04:34 PM, Vincent Untz wrote: Also, the GNU project is not the FSF. When reading the thread, I have the feeling that some people want the GNOME project to not be part of the FSF, or to disagree with the FSF. The GNOME Foundation is part of the FSF, and we sometimes disagree with

  1   2   3   4   >