Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/15/09 4:09 PM, "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Dave Neary 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 sh

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

Hi, On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Dave Neary 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 proprietar

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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 proprietary > software? > > Specifically, should the Advisory Board be diss

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Non-free software can't even be "favorably mentioned"? My second suggestion was to post an official GNOME response when it is favorably mentioned. My previous suggestion was for a rule about a much narrower case. It seems you've grafted part of one onto part of the other, and now you're crit

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

As it says in the footer of Planet GNOME: ... *Planet GNOME automatically reposts blog entries from the GNOME community. Entries on this page are owned by their authors. We do not edit, endorse or vouch for the contents of individual posts." This might be adequate for legal pu

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 (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 m

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

El dom, 13-12-2009 a las 13:08 +0100, Peter Hjalmarsson escribió: > For gentoo, they have two feeds: the "planet", and the "universe", where > the planet only aggregates those blog posts that are tagged with gentoo, > and the universe aggregates the rest. > I cannot understand why GNOME cannot hav

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, "Richard Stallman" 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 software is "il

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership (Summary)

losure" to the > discussed topics. > > -- 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 (Summary)

losure" to the > discussed topics. > > -- 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 (Summary)

On 12/14/2009 07:41 PM, Lucas Rocha wrote: - Learn to agree to disagree. - Criticize ideas, not people presenting them. Pierre suggested that both items are added to the list of example behaviours under "Be respectful and considerate". This is something that should be officially proposed for gen

Code of Conduct and Foundation membership (Summary)

from the Board. It's just me trying to make some sense out of the tons of messages in the thread and, maybe, bring a more useful (or at least more clear) "closure" to the discussed topics. -- The original topic: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership The message I sent to start

Re: Addition to the Code of Conduct (was Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership)

On 12/14/2009 05:26 PM, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote: On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 22:56 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: Should we just version the Code of Conduct? Or is this a non-issue? I believe we don't need to update the Code since those 2 additions are expected behaviours from the existing "Be respect

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/14/2009 05:26 PM, Philip Van Hoof wrote: But what if advocating free software means that the minimal support GNOME should do for GNU, is to claim that proprietary is illegitimate? Exactly. I have been supporting Free Software for over ten years, and will probably do for the rest of my l

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Le lundi 14 décembre 2009, à 23:26 +0100, Philip Van Hoof a écrit : > On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 22:34 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: > > The GNOME Foundation itself is a free software supporter, and advocates > > for free software, and I believe this reflects the opinion of the vast > > majority of the GNO

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 22:34 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: > 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 prop

Re: Addition to the Code of Conduct (was Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership)

On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 22:56 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: > Should we just version the Code of Conduct? Or is this > a non-issue? I believe we don't need to update the Code since those 2 additions are expected behaviours from the existing "Be respectful and considerate" element. Maybe should these

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > 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 GNO

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Le lundi 14 décembre 2009, à 16:56 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit : > 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

Addition to the Code of Conduct (was Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership)

Le mercredi 25 novembre 2009, à 17:35 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit : > I also like to see two more ideas added to CoC: > > - Learn to agree to disagree. > > - Criticize ideas, not people presenting them. I support this change. I'm just unsure how we can update the Code of Conduct, since p

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 th

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hi, (This is hopefully my last mail for catching up with this thread ;-)) Le mercredi 25 novembre 2009, à 12:48 +, Lucas Rocha a écrit : > Hi all, > > The Board has recently received some complaints from members of the > community about certain the inappropriate behaviors. In the context of

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

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 Dav

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 th

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. >

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

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 intereste

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009/12/10 Richard Stallman : > 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 foundation-list@gno

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 f

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/13/2009 06:04 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: In the interests of a broader collection of data, I've shelled out of my own pocket to set up a professional-level SurveyMonkey account (the use of which I will happily share with the Foundation, at least until the annual subscription runs out, if it wis

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

In the interests of a broader collection of data, I've shelled out of my own pocket to set up a professional-level SurveyMonkey account (the use of which I will happily share with the Foundation, at least until the annual subscription runs out, if it wishes to conduct surveys of its own). I've set

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote: > That's where the cash for things like my FSF-E > Fellowship, EFF membership, Creative Commons membership, etc., come from, > see? > > These are worthy causes, but I would not encourage anyone to use > non-free software even to get mone

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Heya, On 13.12.2009 16:33, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > To what do you attribute this wide-spread "misunderstanding", if not > stupidity, ignorance or a general lack of adequate erudition on the part of > the audience? > Misunderstandings can be a result of

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

As it says in the footer of Planet GNOME: *"Planet GNOME is a window into the world, work and lives of GNOME hackers and contributors . *Planet GNOME automatically reposts blog entries from the GNOME community. Entries on this page are owned by their authors. We do

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 08:33 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote: > > > > "Unable to come up with" and "too dumb" are your own additions, > > which clearly were not present in the events themselves. > > Clearly, a lot of "misunderstanding" was "present in the

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote: > > "Unable to come up with" and "too dumb" are your own additions, > which clearly were not present in the events themselves. Clearly, a lot of "misunderstanding" was "present in the events themselves". To what do you attribute this wide-spread "mi

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

> You're also stretching the term "censorship" and related terms to an > area where it does not pertain. For an organization to stand by its > values, and not say things which conflict with those values, is not > censorship. Fine. We can simply call it "prior restraint" if you

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

I made an accusation against Apple which was false, so I owed an apology. Being misunderstood, falsely accused, and vilified by some does not in my view mean I owe an apology. Instead I took steps to avoid similar misunderstandings. Your words impute spurious negative emotions to the events:

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

We wanted Gnome to be a free software stack, and that was our requirement. Gnome itself was assembled out of the available components plus the requirements of the community that emerged early on. GNOME was made out of available components and new components. In particular, we discus

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

That's where the cash for things like my FSF-E Fellowship, EFF membership, Creative Commons membership, etc., come from, see? These are worthy causes, but I would not encourage anyone to use non-free software even to get money to give to a worthy cause. However, the issue here isn't a

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Bottom line: Planet GNOME does not exist for the sake of "supporting" your, or the FSF's, agenda, and you're attempting to solve a non-existent "problem". We launched GNOME to serve the free software movement's aims. (We launched the FSF and the GNU system for the same reason.) And

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

fre 2009-11-27 klockan 10:53 +0100 skrev Murray Cumming: > On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 16:50 -0200, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > > Alternative proposal: lets deal with the problem at hand and get our > > story straight about what is planet.gnome.org, what can be posted > > there (i.e. no porn and vulgar l

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/12/09 5:33 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote: > > What happened there is that some people misunderstood a joke in my > speech, and others mistakenly accused me of intentionally disparaging > people. I personally find it telling that you somehow managed to find it within yourself to provide an a

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/12/09 5:34 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote: > > I think GNOME activities should not grant legitimacy to non-free > software. You're entitled to your opinion, but not to impose it on unwilling others. > This is a minimal form of support for the cause of software > users' freedom -- minimal in

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

We _were_ attempting to finalize a Code of Conduct which could be provided to speakers, in the hope of avoiding future instances of the sort of "harmless fun" we experienced during Mr. Stallman's keynote at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit, as I recall. What happened there is that s

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

I believe Stormy was quite clear and on point: It sounded to me as though she were arguing against the sort of "prior restraint" that you seem to be attempting to impose here. I think GNOME activities should not grant legitimacy to non-free software. This is a minimal form of support

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Is GNOME part of any anti-proprietary software movement? that terminology didn't come from me. I would rather describe what we are doing in positive terms: GNOME is part of the free software movement, which strives to give users freedom. I don't think so and I've never seen it like that.

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Gnome supports both the free software movement as well as proprietary developers, and that is why Gnome for years has encouraged the use of the LGPL license for all of its libraries. The decision you and I made, in the early days, was to use the LGPL for the more basic and general libr

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/11/2009 01:14 PM, Stormy Peters wrote: On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Dave Neary mailto:dne...@gnome.org>> wrote: There is precedent for a membership petition for an election. I ran one to have the board size reduced some years ago: http://live.gnome.org/BoardSizePetition

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hello Lefty, On Fri 11 Dec 2009 16:37, "Lefty (石鏡 )" writes: > On 12/11/09 7:12 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote: >> The most minimal support for the free software movement is >> to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid >> presenting proprietary software as legitimate. > > This

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/11/09 10:13 AM, "Les Harris" wrote: > > His position as I understand it is that it is bad publicity for the FOSS > movement if such a public facing venue like Planet GNOME is used to promote > proprietary software. I have not noted "promotion" of proprietary software on Planet GNOME. Can an

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hi, Richard Stallman wrote: > Stormy, we seem to be miscommunicating. I said that people should not > promote non-free software on Planet GNOME. [snip] > 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 m

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Dave Neary wrote: > > There is precedent for a membership petition for an election. I ran one > to have the board size reduced some years ago: > http://live.gnome.org/BoardSizePetition > > At the time I was told I needed 10% of the membership: > http://foundatio

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > On 12/11/09 9:32 AM, "Behdad Esfahbod" wrote: >> >> Quick procedural note: If you really want to pursue this, according to the >> bylaws you need support of 5% of the membership IIRC to put something to >> vote. >> I'm not sure the vote wo

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hi, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > On 12/11/09 9:32 AM, "Behdad Esfahbod" wrote: >> Quick procedural note: If you really want to pursue this, according to the >> bylaws you need support of 5% of the membership IIRC to put something to >> vote. >> I'm not sure the vote would be binding though. > > Is th

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > On 12/11/09 9:32 AM, "Behdad Esfahbod" wrote: > > > > Quick procedural note: If you really want to pursue this, according to > the > > bylaws you need support of 5% of the membership IIRC to put something to > vote. > > I'm not sure the vo

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/11/09 9:32 AM, "Behdad Esfahbod" wrote: > > Quick procedural note: If you really want to pursue this, according to the > bylaws you need support of 5% of the membership IIRC to put something to vote. > I'm not sure the vote would be binding though. Is there anything in the bylaws as to h

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 12:32 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > On 12/11/2009 11:32 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > > Philip van Hoof writes > >> > >> I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project. > > > > I'd second this. > > Quick procedural note: If you really want to pursue this, acco

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/11/2009 11:32 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: Philip van Hoof writes I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project. I'd second this. Quick procedural note: If you really want to pursue this, according to the bylaws you need support of 5% of the membership IIRC to put somet

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/11/09 8:40 AM, "Dave Neary" wrote: > > Don't we have more concrete issues to address? We _were_ attempting to finalize a Code of Conduct which could be provided to speakers, in the hope of avoiding future instances of the sort of "harmless fun" we experienced during Mr. Stallman's keynote

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 17:40 +0100, Dave Neary wrote: Hi Dave! (Are you coming to FOSDEM? We need another of those IRL chats, no?) > Philip Van Hoof wrote: > > I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project. > > Such a vote, whatever the outcome, would have little effect on th

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hi, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project. Such a vote, whatever the outcome, would have little effect on the GNOME project. The debate during the vote could cause a lot of harm & discord for the GNOME community. An outcome whereby GNOME is n

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Philip van Hoof writes > > I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project. I'd second this. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

(repost, I didn't use the right E-mail address) On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 10:12 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > 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 going directly aga

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 10:12 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > 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 going directly against it; that is, to avoid presenting > proprieta

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hi, Lionel Dricot wrote: > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:12:16 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: >> 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 > > Is GNOME part of any anti-proprietary software movement? I do

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/11/09 7:12 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote: > > Stormy, we seem to be miscommunicating. I said that people should not > promote non-free software on Planet GNOME. You seem to be arguing > against something different. I believe Stormy was quite clear and on point: It sounded to me as though s

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:12:16 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > 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 Is GNOME part of any anti-proprietary software movement? I don't think so and I've never seen

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Stormy, we seem to be miscommunicating. I said that people should not promote non-free software on Planet GNOME. You seem to be arguing against something different. For instance, My post on hunting comes to mind. I self censor now because I didn't like the negative comments directed at

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Behdad Esfahbod a écrit : On 12/07/2009 01:32 PM, Frederic Crozat wrote: Le 27/11/2009 10:53, Murray Cumming a écrit : On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 16:50 -0200, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: Alternative proposal: lets deal with the problem at hand and get our story straight about what is planet.gnome.org

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Planet GNOME is about people and we display everyone's full blog feed as it represents them. There are people that work on proprietary software as well as GNOME and that's who they are. I don't think we should reject people because they don't agree with us 100% of the time. My post on hunting come

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Le 09/12/2009 20:35, Brian Cameron a écrit : I think we are mashing together a bunch of issues. So, in effect, are we looking for: [0] a way to measure what could be appropriate content for Planet GNOME [1] a way to prevent non-free or equivalent software being "marketed" via the Planet [2] a

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

> Richard said that Planet GNOME shouldn't be used to promote non-free > software (i.e. software that denies freedom by witholding source code or > witholding permission to use/modify/distribute). But mono *is* Free Software according to the FSF definition! Yes, it is. There's no

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

The people who work at VmWare also very often posted (and still post) about their work and appear on Planet GNOME. They should not do this, unless VmWare becomes free software. GNOME should not provide proprietary software developers with a platform to present non-free software as a good

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Is it possible to provide filters so that people who are interested in different types of blog entries can focus on what is interesting to them? This could be a useful feature for many reasons, but it doesn't address the issue of articles that grant legitimacy to non-free software. Th

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 13:32 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > On 12/09/2009 08:48 AM, Lionel Dricot wrote: > > I know some planets that choose to have a "code of conduct" about what > > should be posted or not (like planet Ubuntu-f or planet-libre.org). They > > all ended by not selecting the people

END OF THREAD PLEASE (was: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership)

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:48:45PM +, Lucas Rocha wrote: > Before deciding on this, we thought it would be useful to get some > feedback from the community. Seems thread is becoming 1) heated 2) repeating So, see subject. -- Regards, Olav ___ foun

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/09/2009 01:47 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote: > The way I understand what Frédéric said is, there is an (yet another > one?) interesting question not answered by the p.g.o slogan. "What does the > planet maintainers do with people who stop being involved in the project". > > Sometimes people who a

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

I think we are mashing together a bunch of issues. So, in effect, are we looking for: [0] a way to measure what could be appropriate content for Planet GNOME [1] a way to prevent non-free or equivalent software being "marketed" via the Planet [2] a way to handle the consequences if there is eit

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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 is what made the planet a successful project, initiated by Jeff > Waugh

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/09/2009 08:48 AM, Lionel Dricot wrote: I don't agree at all with the current direction of the discussion. For me, pgo is about people. Yes, I'm interested to learn that Nat will soon get married. Yes, I'm interested to hear about Mandriva on Frédéric's posts because I don't use it at all

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/09/2009 09:07 AM, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: about their work and appear on Planet GNOME. There's nothing wrong with that. Same goes for Nokia and many other companies involved. I wonder if there's a misunderstanding here. No one said that companies shouldn't be allowed to post. Richard

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 14:07 +, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: > > about their work and appear on Planet GNOME. There's nothing wrong with > > that. Same goes for Nokia and many other companies involved. > > I wonder if there's a misunderstanding here. No one said that companies > shouldn't be allowe

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

> about their work and appear on Planet GNOME. There's nothing wrong with > that. Same goes for Nokia and many other companies involved. I wonder if there's a misunderstanding here. No one said that companies shouldn't be allowed to post. Richard said that Planet GNOME shouldn't be used to prom

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

I don't agree at all with the current direction of the discussion. For me, pgo is about people. Yes, I'm interested to learn that Nat will soon get married. Yes, I'm interested to hear about Mandriva on Frédéric's posts because I don't use it at all but at least I keep an eye on it thanks to his

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 14:27 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote: > So, let's start (this is list done quickly by me and I haven't contacted > anybody from it), as basis: > > - Robert Love > - Christopher Blizzard > - Miguel De Icaza > - Nat Friedman > - Daniel Veillard > - Edd Dumbill > - Glynn Foster

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 08:19 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > > I don't believe Frederic was pointing at Miguel. There are people who > > have left the Gnome community working on products that don't use any > > Gnome technology posting blog post/ads for said product on PGO. > > I wonder wh

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Le 08/12/2009 16:08, sankarshan a écrit : 2009/12/8 Pierre-Luc Beaudoin: On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 03:23 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: But I find it interesting to know, say, what Miguel is up to these days. I don't think it's just me... I don't believe Frederic was pointing at Miguel. There are

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: >    > I don't believe Frederic was pointing at Miguel.  There are people who >    > have left the Gnome community working on products that don't use any >    > Gnome technology posting blog post/ads for said product on PGO. > > I wonder whet

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

> I don't believe Frederic was pointing at Miguel.  There are people who > have left the Gnome community working on products that don't use any > Gnome technology posting blog post/ads for said product on PGO. I wonder whether these products are free software. If not, they certainly sh

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > On 12/09/2009 02:25 AM, sankarshan wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Behdad Esfahbod >>  wrote: >> Coming back to the starting point - what is the problem to which the solution is being discussed ? >>> >>> Read the thre

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/09/2009 02:25 AM, sankarshan wrote: On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: Coming back to the starting point - what is the problem to which the solution is being discussed ? Read the thread? I have been following the thread since the inception. The intent of the (rhe

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: >> Coming back to the starting point - what is the problem to which the >> solution is being discussed ? > > Read the thread? I have been following the thread since the inception. The intent of the (rhetorical ?) question was to bring forth

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/09/2009 01:56 AM, sankarshan wrote: On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: On 12/09/2009 01:37 AM, Sankar P 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 numbe

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > On 12/09/2009 01:37 AM, Sankar P 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 in

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 12/09/2009 01:37 AM, Sankar P 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 readers in his/her posts (avg / median / min/max score. We can t

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > On 12/08/2009 10:08 AM, sankarshan wrote: >> >> 2009/12/8 Pierre-Luc Beaudoin: >>> >>> On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 03:23 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: But I find it interesting to know, say, what Miguel is up to these days. I don't

  1   2   >