Hey,
On 11/28/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> One question to candidates:
>
> Wil you promote the Foundation's participation on the reviewing
> of ODF?
>
Why won't we?. It's on the interest of or community to promote free
standards, free softwar
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 12:15:11AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 06:23:57PM -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:34:54PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > >
> > > and I hope the Foundation will help make sure the users of
> > > GNOME
> While this is all technically true, I think it's somewhat misleading,
> based on my recollections, and what I could find in a brief browse of
> the mailing list archives.
> There was much clearer leadership in the community then, but I do not
> believe that the community came to a conclusion th
Just a couple of comments, see below.
On Nov 28, 2007 8:06 PM, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Around the time of the establishment of the GNOME Foundation, the GNOME
> community (under much clearer leadership at the time than we have now)
> basically ceded all office/productivity de
El mié, 28-11-2007 a las 20:03 -0500, Richard Stallman escribió:
> However, making GNOME depend on Mono is running a grave risk, and a
> grave mistake. If the article accurately describes the situation, I
> think we need to launch a high-priority project to reimplement Yelp in
> some other langu
> I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with great
> concern.
Unfortunately, the authors of that website are obstinate in their
indifference to the truth, and do not serve the interests of the Free
Software community. They prefer to create suspicion and insinuations than
re
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 20:03 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with
> great concern.
Yelp has had an optional Beagle dependency for at least 2 years. It's
optional, and it's not news.
If maintainers want to add optional dependencies on t
> The will is there, but like so much else we're short on man power.
There is a really important point to be made about this that hasn't come up
at all so far, to my knowledge:
Around the time of the establishment of the GNOME Foundation, the GNOME
community (under much clearer leadership a
> Right on, but you could make sure not only geeks noticed the many poison
> pills of OOXML. This discussion is an evident proof one of the poison
> pills is getting at people.
This discussion is not about supporting OOXML.
The discussion is about how to prevent OOXML from becomin
I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with
great concern.
Since I am not an expert, I cannot tell on my own if that description
of the situation is accurate. If part of it is not accurate, I hope
someone will explain. However, if it is accurate, GNOME has a serious
problem.
On Nov 28, 2007 7:15 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't see how the foundation can 'make sure' of anything in this
> > instance. It can not force developers towards or away from either
> > spec. That is simply not in it's mandate.
>
> I may be being obtuse, but wha
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 06:23:57PM -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:34:54PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > One question to candidates:
> >
> > Wil you promote the Foundation's participation on the reviewing
> > of ODF?
> >
> > I'm sure i
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:34:54PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> Hello,
>
> One question to candidates:
>
> Wil you promote the Foundation's participation on the reviewing
> of ODF?
>
> I'm sure it won't be for lack of a sponsor, but I think it is much more
> important to
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 21:34 +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> Hello,
>
> One question to candidates:
>
> Wil you promote the Foundation's participation on the reviewing
> of ODF?
I think it is a no brainier that we should support review of any version
of ODF. That being said
Hi,
Le mercredi 28 novembre 2007, à 21:34 +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> One question to candidates:
>
> Wil you promote the Foundation's participation on the reviewing
> of ODF?
>
> I'm sure it won't be for lack of a sponsor, but I think it is much more
> i
Hello,
One question to candidates:
Wil you promote the Foundation's participation on the reviewing
of ODF?
I'm sure it won't be for lack of a sponsor, but I think it is much more
important to the Free Software world to have a true Open Standard for
office documents, regardless
On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 07:53 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> Perhaps a roaming Columbus Day weekend conference (still
> in the USA) would be a good thing?
s/USA/North America/
Canada do exist. And in that case Columbus day is Thanksgiving in Canada
so it might be wise to move the date a bit.
Hub
__
Hi Jeff, all,
Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Have the board paused and thought why the Summit has to be Boston? Is it
>>> because most hackers work around Boston? May be it was the case.
>>>
>> Because there's a critical mass of developers there -- most of both the
>> Red Ha
>
>
> > Have the board paused and thought why the Summit has to be Boston? Is it
> > because most hackers work around Boston? May be it was the case.
>
> Because there's a critical mass of developers there -- most of both the
> Red Hat and Novell desktop teams.
Dan Winship points out on IRC t
> Have the board paused and thought why the Summit has to be Boston? Is it
> because most hackers work around Boston? May be it was the case.
Because there's a critical mass of developers there -- most of both the Red
Hat and Novell desktop teams.
- Jeff
--
GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Aust
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 11:20 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > The current "editorial control" is simply more or less "if you ever
> did
> > something peripherally related to GNOME, you can be on Planet,
> regardless
> > of what you post".
>
> It's somewhat more intricate than that -- I'm writing
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 17:44 +, Ghee Teo wrote:
> > Part of the issue is the Boston Summit is always in Boston where as
> > GUADEC can always get fresh enthusiastic teams to help out. This is
> > because in order to become a host city for GUADEC you already have to
> > have a team assembled to
> Part of the issue is the Boston Summit is always in Boston where as
> GUADEC can always get fresh enthusiastic teams to help out. This is
> because in order to become a host city for GUADEC you already have to
> have a team assembled to make and sell a bid. This is helped by the
> fact that ho
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 05:57 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 12:46 -0500, John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> > Even if not elected I am an available Boston resident and would
> > be more than happy to help out.
>
> I'm sure you do, and you alredy showed that by organizing the poub n
> But if you look, I asked for help about Boston Summit on the boston-social
> list as early as June:
>
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/boston-social/2007-June/msg0.html
>
> and got no reply. I mailed at least three Boston residents directly and
> got no reply either. And I gave up and J
On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 12:46 -0500, John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> Even if not elected I am an available Boston resident and would
> be more than happy to help out.
I'm sure you do, and you alredy showed that by organizing the poub night
this year. Thanks for that. But if you look, I asked for help
Hi,
Le lundi 26 novembre 2007, à 10:28 -0500, Richard Stallman a écrit :
> 1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about
> OOXML?
I might have changed a word or two, and I would have liked to see this
statement out sooner, as others said... But no big change.
> 2. How do y
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:04:14PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > Microsoft isn't defending OOXML under the terms defined by ISO.
>
> So we should be as grubby and corrupt as them?
No, we simply shouldn't be lax or complacent with a convicted entity who
has not changed its methods, as if it w
28 matches
Mail list logo
