Re: GNOME dependent on Mono

2007-11-30 Thread Richard Stallman
And for as much threatening as Microsoft does around IP, they're not
particularly active in litigating on it.

When the issue is about patent law, saying intellectual property
instead of patents only tends to confuse the issue, by spuriously
extending it to copyrights, trademarks, and other totally different
laws.

The same is true for issues about any other law.  The term
intellectual property may give you a feeling of deeper
understanding, but it is a spurious feeling because that understanding
is mistaken.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Question to candidates: what about next ODF?

2007-11-30 Thread Behdad Esfahbod
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:48 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
 
 Such action for the larger free software community is one example of
 the issue that my second question was intended to raise--namely,
 issues important to the community's health in general.
 
 Some candidates answered my question it by stating the intent to
 contribute to the community through the development of GNOME
 itself--and in no other way.

I didn't say and in no other way.  You asked what should GNOME
Foundation do to help FS *in general*.  Now English is not my native
language but if I understand that correctly, I still think in general
GNOME Foundation should foster GNOME development.   Doesn't mean htat it
shouldn't help/support/endorse other causes and efforts.

If I wanted to be smart to /pass/ your test I would have said GNOME
should help spreading Free Software and software freedom to everyone, no
matter if they need or can execute their freedom, because software
freedom is good for them even if they don't know it., but I rather
avoid political debate around a pretty mud-work position candidacy.

-- 
behdad
http://behdad.org/

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
 Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759



___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Money spending, questions for the candidates

2007-11-30 Thread Diego Escalante Urrelo
Hey

On 11/30/07, Bastian, Waldo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   o. What is your opinion on an examination that could carry the
 title:
  GNOME Mobile certified software developer exam
  
 
  If the examination is offered by a third party, then I would say they
  are violating the trademark guidelines :).
  But if you suggest that GNOME via the Foundation could offer a
  certification, I wouldn't like to see that, sadly certifications tend
  to mean nothing with time due to people taking them just to pass the
  test. I think it would be more healthy to have easier ways for
  contributors to show their work and prove how much they have given to
  the project, hence showing their possible employer that they surely
  rock.

 Although the company that I work for surely employs a few rock stars,
 more often a project team or company is just looking for someone who
 knows how to use GTK+ widgets (think bellcurve). I believe the objective
 here would be to make it easier for commercial companies to develop
 solutions based on GNOME and part of the problem that such companies
 face is finding developers that are familiar with the technology.
 Reducing that hurdle will help to make the technology more popular. I
 don't think the Foundation should offer certification itself but maybe
 it could work together with an existing institute on expanding its
 training offerings around Gnome technology. Just my 2 ct.


Interesting, I feel that anyway certifications tend to get worth
nothing when people start taking them just to pass them, but still I
see your point of letting people not in GNOME but users of GNOME's
technology to prove they know that stuff.
Certification implemented as training could be a different matter, as
long as the real juice of the thing is the training.

I still don't think Foundation should get involved into saying place X
is an approbed training center, I fear that would go beyond its scope.


thanks for your comment,


Diego
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: two questions for candidates

2007-11-30 Thread Luis Villa
On Nov 30, 2007 3:51 PM, Shaun McCance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 14:54 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
  On Nov 26, 2007 10:28 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free
   Software Movement in general?
 
  I think the most pressing thing is that the Foundation and our
  partners need to investigate (with SFLC's help) the GPL v3, and decide
  whether or not to move forward on that. I've been involved with v3 for
  a long time now, and hopefully can help coordinate that effort.

 If people are going to be looking at licenses, I would very
 much like to discuss the FDL v2, and our usage of the FDL in
 general.  There are some troublesome parts whose implications
 for GNOME aren't clear to me.

My immediate gut instinct on this one is 'we're stuck with it whether
we like it or not', but you know more about the copyright ownership of
the docs than I do.

 Also, I'm not certain how the copyleft nature of the FDL will
 impact the dynamic-collection-of-pages nature of Mallard.

I'd love to look into that if I'm elected; please remind me about the
question if/when that happens. (I'm not really taking down todos quite
yet.)

Luis
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Money spending, questions for the candidates

2007-11-30 Thread John (J5) Palmieri

On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 20:28 +, Diego Escalante Urrelo wrote:
 Hey
 
 On 11/30/07, Bastian, Waldo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o. What is your opinion on an examination that could carry the
  title:
   GNOME Mobile certified software developer exam
   
  
   If the examination is offered by a third party, then I would say they
   are violating the trademark guidelines :).
   But if you suggest that GNOME via the Foundation could offer a
   certification, I wouldn't like to see that, sadly certifications tend
   to mean nothing with time due to people taking them just to pass the
   test. I think it would be more healthy to have easier ways for
   contributors to show their work and prove how much they have given to
   the project, hence showing their possible employer that they surely
   rock.
 
  Although the company that I work for surely employs a few rock stars,
  more often a project team or company is just looking for someone who
  knows how to use GTK+ widgets (think bellcurve). I believe the objective
  here would be to make it easier for commercial companies to develop
  solutions based on GNOME and part of the problem that such companies
  face is finding developers that are familiar with the technology.
  Reducing that hurdle will help to make the technology more popular. I
  don't think the Foundation should offer certification itself but maybe
  it could work together with an existing institute on expanding its
  training offerings around Gnome technology. Just my 2 ct.
 
 
 Interesting, I feel that anyway certifications tend to get worth
 nothing when people start taking them just to pass them, but still I
 see your point of letting people not in GNOME but users of GNOME's
 technology to prove they know that stuff.
 Certification implemented as training could be a different matter, as
 long as the real juice of the thing is the training.
 
 I still don't think Foundation should get involved into saying place X
 is an approbed training center, I fear that would go beyond its scope.
 

I also fear it would lead to favoritism though I am all for helping out
a company develop course-ware I am very much opposed to partnering with
one entity over another.
 
-- 
John (J5) Palmieri [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Question for the candidates [Was: Re: Money spending, questions for the candidates]

2007-11-30 Thread Jeff Waugh
quote who=Elijah Newren

 What will you as a candidate do to make sure we avoid this mess in the
 future?

Work with the Membership Committee to document their practices and make sure
they perform them more consistently in future years.

During the current term, I have already made that you won't have to deal
with this again for 18 months. :-)

- Jeff

-- 
GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008
 
   Itanium: A synthetic market-group tested plasticised square. - Jamie
 Wilkinson
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Question for the candidates [Was: Re: Money spending, questions for the candidates]

2007-11-30 Thread Diego Escalante Urrelo
Hey

On 11/30/07, Elijah Newren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hi,

(...)

 What will you as a candidate do to make sure we avoid this mess in the future?


I can only think of asking for question much sooner or proposing some
topics under which to fill questions. But honestly, I don't know if
anything could guarantee people participating more *before* this
period.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME dependent on Mono

2007-11-30 Thread Richard Stallman
The patent clauses of GPLv3 are designed to make Microsoft give us all
patent safety thru its involvement in distribution of SuSe GNU/Linux,
if and when programs under GPLv3 and not under GPLv2 are included in
SuSe GNU/Linux.

(If they aren't included in SuSe GNU/Linux, they don't affect Novell
at all.)
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME dependent on Mono

2007-11-30 Thread Richard Stallman
 And for as much threatening as Microsoft does around IP, they're not
 particularly active in litigating on it.

 When the issue is about patent law, saying intellectual property
 instead of patents only tends to confuse the issue, by spuriously
 extending it to copyrights, trademarks, and other totally different
 laws.

I actually meant both patents and copyrights, so I think my
characterization was accurate.

If you mean patents and copyrights, please say patents and
copyrights.  Saying intellectual property takes in a dozen other
laws (such as trademark law) that don't relate to the issue, so it can
turn accurate statements into inaccurate ones.

However, even saying patents and copyrights seems like a distraction
from the issue at hand.  Patents are relevant to the use of Mono and C#, but 
copyrights
are not.

The fact that Microsoft has not yed sued us over these patents might
be relevant -- though I've heard that Microsoft is privately
threatening companies that run free software and demanding they pay.

If Microsoft also has not sued in some case concerning copyright, that
case must be very different from this one, and I don't think it
relevant to this discussion.

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Question for the candidates [Was: Re: Money spending, questions for the candidates]

2007-11-30 Thread Elijah Newren
Hi,

As warned about earlier in this election (by someone with better
foresight than I have), when there isn't an organized call for
questions people will fire off zillions of them at random.  This puts
an unreasonable burden on not only the candidates who feel obligated
to spend time responding to an unbounded and haphazard collection of
interrogations, but also similarly burdens the general community with
too much email.

You also find people asking additional questions based on
misunderstandings due to the fact that they simply weren't able to
keep up with all the other email (I have seen this in multiple
threads, not just this one.)

What will you as a candidate do to make sure we avoid this mess in the future?

Elijah


[With apologies to Philip--it wasn't really his fault since no one
asked the general membership for questions in an organized
fashion...but while his email probably makes some interesting points
it very much qualifies as excessively long and spurred my comments.]
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Question for the candidates [Was: Re: Money spending, questions for the candidates]

2007-11-30 Thread Jeff Waugh
quote who=Jeff Waugh

 Work with the Membership Committee to document their practices and make
 sure they perform them more consistently in future years.

Miss one word and it changes the entire tone... and help make sure. They
have done a great job this year, though as a result of numerous changes to
the volunteer team a couple of things have been dropped on the floor (such
as question gathering from the community and linking to the election rules
in the announcement). Easy to fix for the future.

It's generally a pretty thankless task, so... thanks to the membership
committee! :-)

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/
 
   You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to
   walk away, and know when to run. - Kenny Rogers, The Gambler
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


RE: Money spending, questions for the candidates

2007-11-30 Thread Behdad Esfahbod
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 20:30 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
 
 I think the foundation could setup (orchestrate) meetings (or interops
 or however you want to call them) with the different teams. Gather the
 right people and put them together from time to times.

The foundation tries to do that, and you will see more of these meeting
this coming year.  Note however that while the board tries to be
proactive in proposing meetings, foundation members / hackers are the
ones who should ask foundation / board for funding.  I don't remember
ever seeing any such proposal from your side.

For reference, GNOME Foundation this year funded a java-gnome summit and
an a11y summit.  As I said, expect more next year.

-- 
behdad
http://behdad.org/

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
 Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759



___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME dependent on Mono

2007-11-30 Thread jamie
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 15:44 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote:

 
 We want to add support for Tracker as a search backend.  Tracker
 is implemented in good old C, and it finally seems to be getting
 some uptake.  It just takes some manpower.
 

With XESAM coming along, you wont need to have libtracker or libBeagle
as a dependency (really these two should be deprecated as nautilus, yelp
and Gtk file chooser can all use libxesam instead)

Nor will beagle and tracker (and other indexers) have to write their own
indexers for yelp as we will move towards having index-independent third
party indexers for both individual entities as well as crawlers for
container objects that contain lots of sub-entities (lime mbox, rss feed
etc)

Ideally the authors of yelp will be able to write their own indexer
plugin that all indexers can use

As soon as Xesam 1.0 is out (hopefully before xmas) the next thing will
be 1.1 which will have the above plug-in functionality defined

As always, lack of time is making progress on Xesam slow atm but its
getting there

jamie


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Money spending, questions for the candidates

2007-11-30 Thread Dave Neary

Hi,

Philip Van Hoof wrote:
 o. Given that the Foundation of GNOME has plenty of money, will you if
elected vote to spend this money on important projects?

I just want to put this in perspective: the foundation has $200,000 in
the bank, with guaranteed income of $100,000 a year approx. One employee
costs at least $70,000 per year, and depending on the role up to
$100,000 or more.

Manpower is expensive :)

 - Development on language bindings, like a binding generator for
   for example Android and other mobile targets (plenty of our
   components don't require Gtk+ yet could run on this target)
 
 - Funding development on development tools (like the new Anjuta)
 
 - Development on a WinCE port of Gtk+
 
 - Development on a P.I.P.S. (Symbian with POSIX) port of Gtk+

There are some good project ideas there, and there are certainly bodies
who might be prepared to subsidise them. Someone (?) needs to go hunt
for money for one or more of those projects to make them happen.

Cheers,
Dave.

-- 
Dave Neary
GNOME Foundation member
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME dependent on Mono

2007-11-30 Thread John (J5) Palmieri

On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:48 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
 That is a decision left entirely up to those who create such Free Software.
 I don't believe that we can tell them what to do or how to do it. We can 
 ask
 politely.
 
 We are talking at cross purposes.  The issue I raised is not whether a
 person _can_ write a program in C#; Microsoft might try to stop him,
 but we will not.  The question is whether these programs are treated
 as part of GNOME, and to what extent other parts of GNOME use them,
 and what other GNOME developers are asked to do in regard to them.
 
 The GNOME Foundation ought to have something to say about that.

And it does through the Release Team.  I have personally witnessed and
participated in numerous consensus meetings on the Release Team where
pros and cons are heavily weighed.  Mono has been a hot button for
awhile there.  It was only two releases or so ago that Tomboy was
allowed in and that was after hard thought about the mono dependency.
Vincent Untz already posted the policy that came out of that discussion
(http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2007-November/msg00332.html)

-- 
John (J5) Palmieri [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME dependent on Mono

2007-11-30 Thread Richard Stallman
Also to not clutter mailboxes even more, I don't see how an optional
dependency on anything can be worse than the fact that GNOME optionally
compiles on MS Windows systems.

That GNOME can work on Windows has no effect on what GNOME does in a
GNU/Linux system.  However, a dependency for GNOME when running on
GNU/Linux does have an effect on what GNOME does in a GNU/Linux
system.

A mandatory dependency is automatically crucial.  If the dependency is
optional, then it is not necessarily important.  But it is not
necessarily unimportant either.  Its importance is determined by the
practical details of the situation.  Thus, having some applications
written in C# is not an automatic disaster, but the more they are
the more the problem.


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME dependent on Mono

2007-11-30 Thread Shaun McCance
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 15:44 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote:
 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.
  
  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.
  
  I have always supported the development of free platforms for C#, just
  as I've supported the development of free platforms for any language
  that users use.  I also wouldn't argue that people should not use C#
  with a free platform for secondary applications.
  
  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 language.

Sorry, I wanted to be absolutely clear on something here:
Yelp itself is not written in C#, and does not run on top
of Mono.  Yelp is written primarily in C, with some XSLT
for document transformation and some C++ for Gecko stuff.

There is no need to re-implement Yelp.  But if anybody
wants to, hey, have fun.

 Others have commented, but here's the detailed explanation
 of how things work and where we're heading from somebody
 who actually co-maintains Yelp:

[snip other stuff I said]

--
Shaun


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Question to candidates: what about next ODF?

2007-11-30 Thread Richard Stallman
 The reason this is not so is that Microsoft is trying to spin the
 apparent support of GNOME into proof that OOXML is not bad for
 free software.

Such a risk is always there.  People who base their information on what
one side of a story says are doomed to hear everything but truth in 99%
of situations.

If that occurred only at random due to carelessness, we could dismiss
it that way.  However, it seems that Microsoft pays people to
systematically give officials one-sided pictures.  We should follow
the advice of people in the anti-OOXML campaign when they report
on what they see.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME dependent on Mono

2007-11-30 Thread Joe Shaw
Hi,

On 11/29/07, Vincent Untz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Le jeudi 29 novembre 2007, à 18:03 -0500, Joe Shaw a écrit :
  It's been frustrating over the past few years that GNOME hasn't taken
  a firm position on the issue.  I have personally felt very in limbo
  because my application is in C#, and it would make me much more
  comfortable if the community and/or the foundation came out strongly
  in support of it as a first-class language and environment, or to
  reject it from ever becoming a core piece of the platform.

 It depends what you call platform :-) If it's the GNOME Developer
 Platform, it is my understanding that there's a consensus we want to
 keep the platform in C.

Indeed, I wasn't totally clear on this.

I do believe things get a little muddied when we start talking about
things like daemons, D-Bus interfaces, etc.  My understanding is that
we want the Platform in C because it makes it usable from all
applications and bindable into other languages.  But libbeagle is a C
library that talks over a IPC to a C# running daemon.  Does that make
it suitable for platform?  Can D-Bus interfaces become part of the
platform?

 The main issue here is that each time a
 mono-based app is proposed, there are comments only made on the fact
 that it's mono-based. Also, quite often, there are comments for python
 apps because it's slow, memory-hungry, etc.

Indeed, the technical arguments are sane and good criteria to
determine a module's suitability.  But the philosophical and moral
objections, to borrow a phrase, are what seem to create a double
standard in my eyes.

Thanks,
Joe
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME dependent on Mono

2007-11-30 Thread Alan Cox
 With Novell's customers getting exclusive patent protection for mono, it
 seems unfair for everyone else who have a heightened risk. 

Thats something to take up with the FSF. The implementation of the GPLv3
is badly flawed by allowing that activity to continue. The original act
was Novell's, but the ongoing problem is caused by the FSF. And the
sooner the FSF realise that and issue a GPL v3.1 removing that exemption
the better.

The FSF not Gnome wrote Novell the get out clause.

Alan
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Question to candidates: what about next ODF?

2007-11-30 Thread Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:41:24AM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
 quote who=Richard Stallman
 
  The reason this is not so is that Microsoft is trying to spin the apparent
  support of GNOME into proof that OOXML is not bad for free software.
 
 Microsoft haven't done so publicly thus far, but the risk is there, and we
 will endeavour to make it absolutely clear that our participation does not
 imply endorsement, contribution or support. We've taken one step already
 with our statement on our participation, and you are sure to see more in the
 future.

I've heard Stephen McGibbon himself say to Portuguese TC-173 such
suggestions. He made a quick list to show there is support from the Free
Software community, and one of the references was de Icaza *from*GNOME*,
another was a lawyer who has worked with OSI, Jody, etc...

Just so you may know for sure that in closed circles they *are* spinning
it.

Rui

-- 
Keep the Lasagna flying!
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 42nd day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


RE: Money spending, questions for the candidates

2007-11-30 Thread Philip Van Hoof

On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 00:43 -0800, Bastian, Waldo wrote:
   o. What is your opinion on an examination that could carry the
 title:
  GNOME Mobile certified software developer exam
  
 
  If the examination is offered by a third party, then I would say they
  are violating the trademark guidelines :).
  But if you suggest that GNOME via the Foundation could offer a
  certification, I wouldn't like to see that, sadly certifications tend
  to mean nothing with time due to people taking them just to pass the
  test. I think it would be more healthy to have easier ways for
  contributors to show their work and prove how much they have given to
  the project, hence showing their possible employer that they surely
  rock.
 
 Although the company that I work for surely employs a few rock stars,
 more often a project team or company is just looking for someone who
 knows how to use GTK+ widgets (think bellcurve). I believe the objective
 here would be to make it easier for commercial companies to develop
 solutions based on GNOME and part of the problem that such companies
 face is finding developers that are familiar with the technology.

Exactly.


 Reducing that hurdle will help to make the technology more popular. I
 don't think the Foundation should offer certification itself but maybe
 it could work together with an existing institute on expanding its
 training offerings around Gnome technology. Just my 2 ct.

Indeed.



-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be




___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Money spending, questions for the candidates

2007-11-30 Thread John (J5) Palmieri

On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 02:51 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
 Hi there,
 
 The questions:
 
 o. Given that the Foundation of GNOME has plenty of money, will you if
elected vote to spend this money on important projects?
 
Being mostly interested in mobile targets and GNOME Mobile, I could
certainly come up with some projects that might both increase
deployment of our GNOME technologies on mobile devices and increase
the amount of contributors.
 
Both reasons are, I think, part of the reason why our Foundation
exists. 
 
 - Development on language bindings, like a binding generator for
   for example Android and other mobile targets (plenty of our
   components don't require Gtk+ yet could run on this target)
 
 - Funding development on development tools (like the new Anjuta)
 
 - Development on a WinCE port of Gtk+
 
 - Development on a P.I.P.S. (Symbian with POSIX) port of Gtk+
 
 - Improve the existing Win32 target of Gtk+
 
 - Employ a maintainer and/or additional developers for Gtk+'s
   development

So your questions come from the false notion that the Foundation has
plenty of money.  While we are better off than years past we are in no
way flush with resources.  We are looking at hiring a full time
administrator and perhaps an admin at some point but doing so will be
scrutinized to make sure we are properly allocating our resources.

For the above scenarios Philip presents, I don't think these types of
spending are in the Foundation's interest in funding as he puts it.
Helping out when asked by a developer with hardware, contacts with
relevant companies or funding to attend conferences are more in-line
with how we should allocate resources.  Even then a developer would have
to come with a detailed proposal which shows the benefits of such
expenditures.  There are a million things we can put resources into but
we only have a limited amount to go around so we need to carefully
select which expenditures will give us the most bang for the buck as
they say.

 - Pay people to travel to schools and universities to educate 
   students about GNOME (serious educating, not just doing cheap
   presentations)

Again we should fund peoples travels but creating jobs can lead to major
issues.  First and foremost is we don't have the money to do this.  The
second is, jobs, outside of the day to day administration of the
Foundation would create conflict with people in the community who don't
get payed.  Even the job of system administration could cause conflict
and the benefits need to be weighed in light of these issues. In other
words leave most of the hiring up to the various companies that use
GNOME and only hire within the Foundation after careful consideration of
the issues.  

 - ... (for making these decisions we need people who'll make real
   and hard decisions)

And even hard decisions some may not like to hear.  

 o. What is your opinion on an examination that could carry the title:
GNOME Mobile certified software developer exam

It is hard to have an opinion on a title.  Who is going to make this
exam?  What does it certify?  Does it conflict with our partners
programs or favor one partner over another?  

 o. How are you planning to help the GNOME community overcome the fact
that we have relatively few technical leadership?

I think we have huge technical leadership.  I think leaders pop up every
day in different areas.  I think the Board's role in developing leaders
in general is to identify potential leaders and help them contribute to
GNOME through resources like travel and conference sponsorship, by
delegating tasks to them and by providing other resources such as
hardware/hosting to those who can not procure it themselves.

- By waiting for the integration our softwares to turn into
  something that looks a lot like that O.S. called CHA-OS?

I have no idea what you are asking here.

- By letting companies like Nokia, Novell, ... set our goals?
  I think this is what's happening right now. Might be fine imo.

Well it is individuals within those companies along with individuals who
don't have corporate ties who set direction.  Add into the mix the wider
Free/Open communities which sets various norms and a more dynamic
picture emerges on how GNOME direction is set.

  Note that, however, our users sometimes get confused by this:
 
o. People thinking that Miguel De Icaza, Novell and GNOME are one
   entity. (I love your work Miguel, don't get me wrong. A lot of
   GNOME people do)

Some people will think what they want to think and you will never be
able to change their views however we could be more transparent than
press releases and meeting notes.  

o. Too late announcing of GNOME developers joining the OOXML
   discussions (I think it's great that we are among the people
   defining this, don't get me wrong. But our technical
   

RE: Money spending, questions for the candidates

2007-11-30 Thread John (J5) Palmieri

On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 00:43 -0800, Bastian, Waldo wrote:
   o. What is your opinion on an examination that could carry the
 title:
  GNOME Mobile certified software developer exam
  
 
  If the examination is offered by a third party, then I would say they
  are violating the trademark guidelines :).
  But if you suggest that GNOME via the Foundation could offer a
  certification, I wouldn't like to see that, sadly certifications tend
  to mean nothing with time due to people taking them just to pass the
  test. I think it would be more healthy to have easier ways for
  contributors to show their work and prove how much they have given to
  the project, hence showing their possible employer that they surely
  rock.
 
 Although the company that I work for surely employs a few rock stars,
 more often a project team or company is just looking for someone who
 knows how to use GTK+ widgets (think bellcurve). I believe the objective
 here would be to make it easier for commercial companies to develop
 solutions based on GNOME and part of the problem that such companies
 face is finding developers that are familiar with the technology.
 Reducing that hurdle will help to make the technology more popular. I
 don't think the Foundation should offer certification itself but maybe
 it could work together with an existing institute on expanding its
 training offerings around Gnome technology. Just my 2 ct.
 
 Cheers,
 Waldo

Waldo, this was a very astute observation.  Thanks.

-- 
John (J5) Palmieri [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME dependent on Mono

2007-11-30 Thread Joe Shaw
Hi,

On 11/30/07, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 And for as much threatening as Microsoft does around IP, they're not
 particularly active in litigating on it.

 When the issue is about patent law, saying intellectual property
 instead of patents only tends to confuse the issue, by spuriously
 extending it to copyrights, trademarks, and other totally different
 laws.

I actually meant both patents and copyrights, so I think my
characterization was accurate.

Joe
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME dependent on Mono

2007-11-30 Thread Jeff Waugh
quote who=Shaun McCance

 And all of this could have been explained just as simply if the folks at
 boycottnovell.com had simply emailed us and asked for details, instead of
 posting unsubstantiated drivel.

Pretty much the crux of the issue with that website. Despite transparency
into the community that they would never get with companies, they do not
actually do any primary research, and have come up with some doozies about
things they simply don't understand.

- Jeff

-- 
GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008
 
Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it.
   Geniuses remove it. - Alan J. Perlis
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list