Re: minutes of last four board meetings

2008-12-16 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi,

On Thu 11 Dec 2008 07:11, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org writes:

 I've posted the minutes of the last four meetings to
 http://live.gnome.org/FoundationBoardPublic/Minutes

Excellent, thanks. May I ask that they also be mailed out to the list,
both these ones and the future ones. That way they can spark discussion
as they have in the past.

Let me know what you think,

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi Lucas,

On Wed 25 Nov 2009 13:48, Lucas Rocha luc...@gnome.org writes:

 In the context of GNOME Foundation, it's really hard to argue about
 how we expect our members to behave if there is no official guidelines
 that members are supposed to comply with. The GNOME Code of Conduct[1]
 has been serving very well

It's a very nice document, a lovely credo.

 we'd like to make it an official document

Sounds like a good idea, to give it more moral authority.

 that new Foundation
 members are expected to explicitly agree[2] with before being
 accepted. This way we'll have a common ground for dealing with certain
 conflict situations and avoid trying to base our discussions on
 guidelines that certain members haven't explicitly agreed on.

I realize you haven't really touched on punishment, but since it's
come up in other parts of this thread:

The board already has the power to expell or suspend a member who fails
to observe the rules of conduct promulgated from time to time by the
Board (Bylaws VI 7(c)). But that's a bit extreme of course.

It's good that we are concerned about maintaining our high level of
discourse, but I am surprised at the clamoring by some for teeth
behind the code of conduct. There are teeth enough already. And in the
case of any particular venue, there is typically a responsible party --
p.g.o. with its maintainers (as you know :), mailing lists with their
respective maintainers, etc. Maintainers should communicate their
expectations to their contributors and users. People who don't like that
can find another project/venue.

It's only IRC and DDL that are really the outliers, it seems, and there
there is enough social pressure, combined with ignore/kill lists, that I
don't really see all the fuss.

Finally, a quote from the foundation charter:

  [T]he foundation can have no real powers of enforcement; compliance
  with foundation decision should be an act of good-faith. If we've lost
  consensus to the point where we're regularly forcibly ejecting people
  from the foundation and co-opting their projects, we're sunk anyway.

Happy hacking,

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi Behdad,

On Wed 25 Nov 2009 23:19, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org writes:

 On 11/25/2009 05:13 PM, Andy Wingo wrote:
 It's only IRC and DDL that are really the outliers, it seems, and there
 there is enough social pressure, combined with ignore/kill lists, that I
 don't really see all the fuss.

 And foundation list?  Just saying each maintainer should solve this on
 their own does not make the problem go away, it just puts the burden on
 multiple people.

You're right that there's this case too, and I'm sure there's more. I do
think that officially endorsing the CoC (ideally via some kind of
referendum) would be nice as an overall statement of this is what we
believe, for the reasons Lucas gave.

But on the enforcement side, I guess what I'd like is for this feedback
mechanism to be on a more human scale. In the end, maintaining a project
is as much a social task as a technical one. Maintainers are there
because they merit it; they are the heart of GNOME, much more so than
the board. Their views don't need procedures to enforce themselves.

I'm not sure what incidents are being discussed specifically here, but
if they are about the planet, I don't think the maintainers need to
exercise board power.

Cheers,

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-11 Thread Andy Wingo
Hello Lefty,

On Fri 11 Dec 2009 16:37, Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org writes:

 On 12/11/09 7:12 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org 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 is simple nonsense. Software is software, and people write about what
 they do. 

 I use free software, and I also use things like Final Cut Pro, for which
 there's no equivalent. You seem to feel I should be barred from writing
 anything about film-editing, since it involves proprietary software.

 My use of Final Cut is completely legitimate. There's no equivalent piece of
 free software, and even if there were, surely my tools are my choice, are
 they not? Your attempts to control what gets posted are completely out of
 line.

The four points in the code of conduct are:

# Be respectful and considerate
# Be patient and generous
# Assume people mean well
# Try to be concise

Lefty I think you are doing well regarding the fourth :) I would submit
that Richard has behaved in accordance with these rules[*], but always
after I read your mails or blogs on the subject, it ends up sounding
very combative.

I know you probably don't mean it that way, and I don't want to put you
on edge. I'm just sayin'.

And in the interest of *topic*, well, I think we have strayed from the
initial proposal.

Best regards,

Andy

[*] I consider the GCDS incident as adequately atoned for by Richard's
apology. YMMV.
-- 
http://wingolog.org/
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


GNU hackers meeting GUADEC 2011 colocation?

2010-01-25 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi all,

At November's GNU Hackers Meeting in Gothenburg, there was some interest
expressed in increasing communication between GNU hackers and GNOME
hackers. Co-locating a GNU Hackers Meeting with GUADEC would be a great
way to do this.

GHM events have in the past been pretty small -- about 25 people or so.
See http://www.gnu.org/ghm/ for info about past schedules.

So inspired by Vincent's recent mail, let this be a mini-proposal for
GHM co-location with the 2011 GUADEC. The ideal needs would be one
smallish (40-50 people) room for three days. GHM events have had some
funding attached to them in the past, enough to support them; while of
course I can't predict the future, GNU probably could help support costs
of the venue, when the time comes to discuss that.

I have copied the GNU internal list on this mail. Unfortunately GNU has
no public lists for internal discussion -- a bit odd, but that's how it
is. So I've also set the reply-to to foundation-list; perhaps we (both
groups) can thread discussion there?

Cheers,

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


Re: GNU hackers meeting GUADEC 2011 colocation?

2010-01-26 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi Dave,

On Tue 26 Jan 2010 15:07, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org writes:

 Hi Andy,

 Andy Wingo wrote:
 So inspired by Vincent's recent mail, let this be a mini-proposal for
 GHM co-location with the 2011 GUADEC. The ideal needs would be one
 smallish (40-50 people) room for three days. GHM events have had some
 funding attached to them in the past, enough to support them; while of
 course I can't predict the future, GNU probably could help support costs
 of the venue, when the time comes to discuss that.

 Let me just confirm that that is not a typo - this is for 2011 yes, not
 2010?

That was the intention, yes. I figured it was too late to talk about
2010, but if GUADEC organizers are interested we could probably do
something.

 If GUADEC and Akademy colocate again in 2011, do you think that might
 have an impact on the GHM?

It would probably make it more awesome! There are a number of KDE-using
GNU folk. There are GNOME people too, of course :)

Regards,

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


Re: GNU hackers meeting GUADEC 2011 colocation?

2010-01-26 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi Alberto,

On Tue 26 Jan 2010 21:07, Alberto Ruiz ar...@gnome.org writes:

 2010/1/26 Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com:

[Dave Neary wrote]
 If GUADEC and Akademy colocate again in 2011, do you think that might
 have an impact on the GHM?

 It would probably make it more awesome! There are a number of KDE-using
 GNU folk. There are GNOME people too, of course :)

 That doesn't really answers the question :P

Hm, we enter the realm of interpretation :)

 Dave is worried about any overhead that co-locating this could have
 with the organizing committee and the volunteers, what would GNU need
 in terms of resources, space, inftrastructure? how big could it be?
 That sort of stuff :-)

Is there something that my original message didn't make clear? :)

Resources: GHM has had low budgets in the past, due to reuse of venue,
and sponsorship from various organizations (FSF and FSFE, to name recent
examples)

Space: As mentioned in my original mail, ideally one room of 40-50
people for three days. Could be before/after the main GUADEC days.

Infrastructure: Normal infrastructure associated with a room: projector
or screen of some sort, and ideally internet though that is not
essential, and we all know how conferences work in the end... (/me
thinks of Vilanova)

Cheers,

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


Re: GNU hackers meeting GUADEC 2011 colocation?

2010-01-27 Thread Andy Wingo
On Wed 27 Jan 2010 12:08, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org writes:

 And Andy, for 2010, it's probably not too late, if you get a request in
 quick :) The only thing is that adding extra space for the week would
 probably have an impact on the budget at this stage, which we'd have to
 think about.

OK, will poke GNU people, and get back within the week if we think we
can pull it off.

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


Re: GNOME trademarks

2010-12-08 Thread Andy Wingo
On Wed 08 Dec 2010 10:00, Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com writes:

 If we ever try to sell nuts then we may have a problem.

Presumably we may however offer nuts at an event, though without perhaps
labelling them as GNOME nuts.

We may feel free to label the attendees as such though, as it is a
different use of the word.

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


Re: Candidacy: Ryan Lortie

2011-05-23 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi Ryan,

On Mon 23 May 2011 02:00, Ryan Lortie de...@desrt.ca writes:

 For a while the foundation board has largely taken a hands-off approach
 when it comes to technical decisions.  In my opinion this has allowed a
 number of problems to develop.

Can you mention some examples?

 I believe, however, that this situation occasionally causes friction
 when trying to push large changes to the platform and desktop.  There
 have also been cases when outsiders to the project have encountered
 problems with a particular maintainer and felt that they have no
 recourse.

I think I'm missing the back-story here.

What would you do with this power?

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


Re: Candidacy: Ryan Lortie

2011-05-23 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi Ryan,

Thanks for your answers.  They were thoughtful, as you are.

On Mon 23 May 2011 22:38, Ryan Lortie de...@desrt.ca writes:

 More generally, though, during the last cycle I've heard a lot of talk
 from many different people about many decisions that seemed to be made
 in an opaque way.  The removal of screensavers and the addition of the
 gnome-session 'fail whale' come to mind as two decisions that I've heard
 a lot of complaints about.

 I'm not saying that I disagree with those choices or that every single
 decision should be run past some central body, but it would be nice if
 such a thing was even a possibility and it would be _really_ nice if I
 could point people there when they share their complaints with me.

Clarity and cohesion are laudable goals, but I think that you are misled
when you suggest hierarchy as the answer.  Free software means different
things to different folks, so I won't presume to say what it means to
you; but to me it's just as much about process as it is about product.
I love hacking, and being able to hack with others, but without coercion
or control, is one of the most attractive things about our movement
(if you consider it as such, and I do).

I guess what I'm saying is that IMHO you would do better to focus your
considerable powers towards more communication, and better collective
decision-making among maintainers, than on the creation of a small group
of structurally empowered people.

(Of course, this is not to suggest that everyone's opinion have the same
weight.  Anyone with half a brain will listen very carefully when Owen
speaks, for example.)

Regards,

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


Re: Desktop Summit Planning

2011-12-14 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi Brian,

A point of clarification:

On Wed 14 Dec 2011 04:42, Brian Cameron brian.came...@oracle.com writes:

 3. The GNOME community has been having trouble finding volunteers to
help make events successful lately.

You mention that we had a problem with this in the last Desktop Summit.
Has this been a problem in other events as well?

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


Re: New Foundation Members

2012-02-21 Thread Andy Wingo
Welcome, Joone!
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: European bank account for donations

2012-03-09 Thread Andy Wingo
On Fri 09 Mar 2012 11:39, Bastien Nocera had...@hadess.net writes:

 The GNOME Foundation is a US not-for-profit entity. We do not have any
 legal existence in the EU or the EEA, and thus cannot hold a bank
 account in the EU.

I wonder if setting up a GNOME Foundation.eu wouldn't be a bad
idea.  Of course you wouldn't be able to easily transfer between the two
organizations.  But you could set it up with a similar governmental
structure.

Dunno, just throwing the idea out there.

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


Re: A question for the candidates

2012-05-29 Thread Andy Wingo
On Mon 28 May 2012 11:53, Allan Day allanp...@gmail.com writes:

 I would personally like to see the board be a more proactive
 organization, where the needs of the GNOME project are discussed, and
 initiatives intended to benefit it are instigated and managed.  I'd
 like there be less 'we need someone to organise GUADEC' and more
 'let's come up with ways to make GNOME an attractive place for hackers
 to work'. This would inevitably lead to more visibility and greater
 engagement by the wider community.

Why do you need a board for that?  These needs can be fulfilled without
relying on hierarchy.

[Anarchist] Andy ;)
-- 
http://wingolog.org/
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list