Re: A question for the candidates
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
Re: European bank account for donations
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: New Foundation Members
Welcome, Joone! ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Desktop Summit Planning
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: Candidacy: Ryan Lortie
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
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: GNOME trademarks
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: GNU hackers meeting GUADEC 2011 colocation?
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: GNU hackers meeting GUADEC 2011 colocation?
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?
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
GNU hackers meeting GUADEC 2011 colocation?
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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
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
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
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
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: minutes of last four board meetings
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
