Been more than two weeks that the petition has been up and it did not attract
support of 10% of membership as required by the charter. The request is
dropped as far as I'm concerned. Thanks everyone for the support and/or
useful discussion.
behdad
On 12/18/2009 09:27 PM, Behdad Esfahbod
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 21:27 +0100, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On 12/15/2009 10:58 AM, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le mardi 15 décembre 2009, à 11:57 +0330, Behnam Esfahbod ZWNJ a écrit :
Also, is a referendum really necessary to create a new members-only
mailing list? Noting that becoming membership
On 12/15/2009 10:58 AM, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le mardi 15 décembre 2009, à 11:57 +0330, Behnam Esfahbod ZWNJ a écrit :
Also, is a referendum really necessary to create a new members-only
mailing list? Noting that becoming membership and participation is
always optional.
It's not necessary to
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
I am being discriminated against because I can not make improvements
or discuss where the project is headed.
The definition of open source is a criterion for software licenses;
I don't think it applies to mailing list usage at all.
But I
To deny a group or a person the legitimacy to keep intellectual property
proprietary goes against criteria five of the Open Source Definition:
A statement that uses the term intellectual property is tremendously
vague, since that refers to many laws at once, and treats them as one
single
Hi there,
Right now I think we should do the vote Behdad is calling for. I'm
waiting until the discussion about it goes to sleep to make up my mind
about it (and then either add or don't add my name to the wiki page).
I think the implementation should be broader than only foundation
members. I
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org wrote:
ps. The rest is off topic. It's a bit silly that yet another off topic
thread is starting. Richard, the topic is Behdad's call for a vote. Not
your ethical believe system. No matter how important you think that is.
On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, Miguel de Icaza mig...@novell.com wrote:
Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger
connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses
properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting.
Actually, this is something
Typically, you work with a public relations firm. Media training is mostly a
bunch of pointers (Never say, 'No comment'; Never cite specific numbers,
unless you are confident you can back them up) and a bunch of structured
practice in question-and-answer situations, confrontational and non-.
We
El mié, 16-12-2009 a las 01:01 -0500, Richard Stallman escribió:
Doesn't this undermines the values of the open source community?
To cite the values of open source as an ethical standard is ironic,
because the motive for open source was to avoid presenting an ethical
standard.
You are (once
Hi,
Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, Miguel de Icaza mig...@novell.com wrote:
Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger
connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses
properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Tobias Mueller mue...@cryptobitch.dewrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1On 15.12.2009 15:50, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian-devel-private
and a kde-private.
According to Jeff in
I bet I could find such training. I'd like to do some of the media work.
I'm a natural talker, but I need some rules to make sure that I say the
right things as I can spew garbage from time to time.
sri
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier j...@zonker.netwrote:
On Wed, Dec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Heya,
On 15.12.2009 15:50, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian-devel-private
and a kde-private.
According to Jeff in 20091215033304.ge4...@node.waugh.id.au there is
gnome-private as well:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:
On 12/14/2009 09:04 PM, Stormy Peters wrote:
Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If
so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you
subscribe to foundation-list and
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 07:04:50PM -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
foundation-list and the value you see in it.
Speaking up.
I'm currently
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:30 +0100, Koen Martens wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 07:04:50PM -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
Le lundi 14 décembre 2009, à 19:04 -0700, Stormy Peters a écrit :
Also, maybe someone with list admin privileges could tell us roughly the
number of subscribers and how many of them appear to be GNOME Foundation
members.
We have 574 subscribers on the mailing list. However, there are quite a
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:04:50 -0700
Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
foundation-list and the value you see in it.
Technically I'm
:
[/me removes board hat]
Hi everyone,
I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make
foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation
members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss matters freely
without making lots of news
Hi,
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
I watch a lot of projects. In my opinion, the projects which conduct
their discussions in the open tend to be the most robust and the most
successful. Those which hold their discussions behind closed doors,
perhaps occasionally issuing a press release to tell the
El lun, 14-12-2009 a las 19:04 -0700, Stormy Peters escribió:
Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members?
If so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you
subscribe to foundation-list and the value you see in it.
I'm not a foundation member, I
Le mardi 15 décembre 2009, à 11:57 +0330, Behnam Esfahbod ZWNJ a écrit :
Also, is a referendum really necessary to create a new members-only
mailing list? Noting that becoming membership and participation is
always optional.
It's not necessary to hold a vote to create a list, but I think
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 21:05 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make
foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual
Foundation
members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss matters freely
without
Since there isn't a place to do this that I'm aware, here is my vote
against this petition. For the same reasons that many here have
already expressed, I want to keep GNOME open for everyone. And even
though GNOME != GNOME Foundation when it comes down to our code, GNOME
== GNOME Foundation when
On 12/15/2009 08:52 AM, Og Maciel wrote:
Since there isn't a place to do this that I'm aware, here is my vote
against this petition. For the same reasons that many here have
already expressed, I want to keep GNOME open for everyone. And even
though GNOME != GNOME Foundation when it comes down to
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:
Given the excellent comments so far, I'm leaning towards retracting the
proposal. However, there's quite a few others who support it now. So I let
it move forward naturally.
No, do not detract it. There's a reason
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian-devel-private
and a kde-private. Sometimes reaching concensus requires meeting
behind closed doors away from the noise of those who are not as
informed or involved as others.
Hi all,
2009/12/14 Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com:
Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
foundation-list and the value you see in it.
I am not a GNOME Foundation member,
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not
about keeping secrets.
So why not just moderate the list? In fact, I thought that
non-foundation-members were not even allowed to post here?
For instance, I don't understand why RMS's emails
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not
about keeping secrets.
So why not just moderate the list? In fact, I thought that
non-foundation-members were not
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.comwrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not
about keeping secrets.
So why not just moderate the list?
Because part of increasing signal-to-noise is giving
Hello,
I believe that we should keep the foundation-list open for anyone to
read.
As Jeff said, trollumnists do not need to play by the same rules
that we do, they do not need to stick to the facts when they do not
serve their purpose. When facts get in the way, they will just
Doesn't this undermines the values of the open source community?
To cite the values of open source as an ethical standard is ironic,
because the motive for open source was to avoid presenting an ethical
standard.
The founders of open source split off from the free software movement
in 1998
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 05:02:15PM +1000, brendan edmonds wrote:
I used the term 'open source' to refer to the following criteria of
the definition for a project to be open source
(http://opensource.org/docs/osd).
I approved this non-member email.
However, from
[/me removes board hat]
Hi everyone,
I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make
foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation
members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss matters freely
without making lots of news
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:
[/me removes board hat]
Hi everyone,
I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make
foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation
members. If we make that change
. We could figure this
out from the archives.
Thanks,
Stormy
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:
[/me removes board hat]
Hi everyone,
I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make
foundation-list archives private and membership
On 15/12/2009, at 2:49 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
[/me removes board hat]
Hi everyone,
I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make
foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual
Foundation members. If we make that change we would be able
2009/12/15 Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com:
Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
foundation-list and the value you see in it.
Hi there.
I'm not a GNOME Foundation member
2009/12/14 Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com:
Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
foundation-list and the value you see in it.
Yes.
I'm not a Foundation member, but I am on
On 12/14/2009 10:20 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
As long as GNOME is a project that matters, there will always be bozos
who will post uneducated articles about what you are doing. If your
discussions are in the open, people who really care can see what was
*really* said and help to keep those
quote who=Behdad Esfahbod
[/me removes board hat]
Hi everyone,
I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make
foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual
Foundation members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss
matters freely
On 12/14/09 7:14 PM, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier j...@zonker.net wrote:
2009/12/14 Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com:
Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
foundation-list and the
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:
[/me removes board hat]
I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make
foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation
members. If we make that change we would be able
On 12/15/2009 12:23 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
In any case, journalist-impersonators like Mr. Varghese are going to write a
load of smack, no matter what, even if they have to simply invent it. After
all, they have in the past.
Given that all the past incidents I can think of involve that same
2009/12/15 Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com:
Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
foundation-list and the value you see in it.
Pick me! :-) I just like to follow what
of the foundation?
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 20:49 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
[/me removes board hat]
Hi everyone,
I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make
foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation
members. If we make that change we
On 12/15/2009 01:50 AM, Sergey Panov wrote:
Politics aside, what was Lefty(Open source advocate for ACCESS Co.,
Ltd.) and Philip Van Hoof (self-appointed propitiatory software
advocate) contribution to GNOME in the last year? Are those two still
members of the foundation?
As per Code of
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 01:56 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
As per Code of Conduct, please assume people mean well. Which both Lefty and
Philip do.
Sorry, if I managed to brake some CoC. I have no idea what you mean by
mean well, but their attack on RMS was quite tasteless.
Philip is a
On 12/14/09 11:35 PM, Sergey Panov si...@sipan.org wrote:
Nothing personal, but I never trusted those corporate Open Source
Advocates ... .
No offense taken, I'm sure... I fear you distrust a fair proportion of the
Foundation's Advisory Board.
Besides, Lefty does not work for ACCESS Inc.
Hi,
Bill Haneman wrote:
The way this is currently worded makes it sound as though signing
indicates a desire to reduce the Board size. I don't think that was
what you intended, but it's kept me from signing.
The wiki says: The people below, members of the GNOME Foundation,
request that a
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
Hi Jonathan,
To my mind, it's clear that it's an issue which has been debated, and
that there's a split on the issue in the community. And a number of
people I respect support the idea of a referendum. So I don't think
there'll be a problem getting 37 people or whatever to sign up for it.
Hi Dave,
All this seems to be taking quite a bit of energy. The topic has been
discussed at length, for some time now. If no consensus has been
reached, perhaps its just time to move on?
It seems to me that reducing the board size is being made out to be
some panacea for improving
Hi Mark,
I fully recognise that this would have resulted in my not being elected
last year. I also think that's a complete straw-man argument, for the
reason you state.
I agree it's taking far too much energy - part of that is that we're
working *around* the board, not with it. I'm not
On Wed, 2005-28-09 at 17:55 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 16:37 -0600, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
On Wed, 2005-28-09 at 18:26 -0400, Jonathan Blandford wrote:
However, the board didn't agree on even having a referendum this
evening
(this is the problem
IMO the main Board problems are task assignment and delegation.
Reducing the size of the Board won't directly help delegation, and
reducing the available resources by having fewer Directors will only
worsen task assignment/completion problems. I think many respondants
realize that delegation
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 14:52 +0100, Bill Haneman wrote:
IMO the main Board problems are task assignment and delegation.
Reducing the size of the Board won't directly help delegation, and
reducing the available resources by having fewer Directors will only
worsen task assignment/completion
Robert Love wrote:
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 16:17 +0100, Bill Haneman wrote:
The Board, of course.
To themselves? That isn't really delegation.
No, assign to themselves, and delegate to others. That includes the
formation of various action groups/committees etc. This idea has
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 14:52 +0100, Bill Haneman wrote:
IMO the main Board problems are task assignment and delegation.
Reducing the size of the Board won't directly help delegation, and
reducing the available resources by having fewer Directors will only
worsen task assignment/completion
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 that
Hi,
I would like to propose reducing board size to 7 people. The board do
not want to decide on this reduction, but will respect the decision of
the membership by referendum.
However, the board didn't agree on even having a referendum this evening
(this is the problem which reducing board
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 21:32 +0200, David Neary wrote:
Hi,
I would like to propose reducing board size to 7 people. The board do
not want to decide on this reduction, but will respect the decision of
the membership by referendum.
However, the board didn't agree on even having a
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 06:26:19PM -0400, Jonathan Blandford wrote:
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 21:32 +0200, David Neary wrote:
Hi,
I would like to propose reducing board size to 7 people. The board do
not want to decide on this reduction, but will respect the decision of
the membership by
On Wed, 2005-28-09 at 18:26 -0400, Jonathan Blandford wrote:
However, the board didn't agree on even having a referendum this evening
(this is the problem which reducing board size will fix).
That's not a fair characterization, Dave.
Perhaps Dave's statement is a very appropriate
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 16:37 -0600, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
On Wed, 2005-28-09 at 18:26 -0400, Jonathan Blandford wrote:
However, the board didn't agree on even having a referendum this evening
(this is the problem which reducing board size will fix).
That's not a fair
67 matches
Mail list logo
