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 Sul, 2005-09-11 at 12:57 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> Indeed. But the article discusses how magazines cannot
> distribute RHEL.
RHEL is a support and service arrangement with attached product, so no a
magazine could never distribute it. Centos is just code and they do
> Funnier is that y
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 9/9/05, Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, David Neary wrote:
> >
> > > Let's say that it was a mistake, or that distributing the foot under the
> > > GPL is incompatible with defending it as a trademark - what remedy d
