Re: Announcement: this mailing list will be retired by the end of Oct 2022
Foundation members, I know that this has been coming for a while but as a former contributor who generally just wants to keep tabs on the major changes and announcements, this particular change will mean that I probably don't keep tabs on anything. There's no obvious replacement on 'discourse.gnome.org'. The closest I can see is a 'community' category which is entirely too broad. Entering the 'foundation-announce' tag, which is how I interpreted the information below, yields nothing. Given the immense talents involved with Gnome, I'm sad that no one came up with a better solution than simply dropping foundation-announce. Greg On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 7:44 AM Andrea Veri wrote: > Hi, > > As we have been communicating during the past few months GNOME's Mailman > platform is being decommissioned (python2 deprecation, major burden in > managing lists spam). The deadline is currently set to the end of October > 2022. Mailing list subscribers are invited to migrate to GNOME's Discourse > instance [1]. Neil made sure [2] to create a set of tags you can re-use to > initiate a new topic in the new platform, if a tag is missing please reach > out to me directly. > > Jehan (from the GIMP Team) kindly provided some instructions you can > follow [3] in order to safely migrate your reading workflow to Discourse. > The new platform supports several login methods including your GNOME > Account and other major OpenID providers. > > After the deadline of the end of October Mailman archives will remain > alive in read only mode for posterity. If the mailing list was used behind > an alias, please let me know so we can re-do the same setup but on > Discourse instead. > > Thanks, > > P.S All the l10n lists are still pending code changes in damned-lies, the > deadline to decommission those lists may slip by a week or two depending > how soon those changes will be made available in DL codebase > > [1] https://discourse.gnome.org > [2] > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2022-September/msg00018.html > [3] > https://discourse.gnome.org/t/welcome-to-gimp-forum-on-gnome-discourse/11534/5 > > -- > Cheers, > Andrea > > Principal Systems Engineer at Red Hat, > GNOME Infrastructure Team Coordinator, > Former GNOME Foundation Board of Directors Secretary, > GNOME Foundation Membership & Elections Committee Chairman > > Homepage: https://www.dragonsreach.it > ___ > foundation-announce mailing list > foundation-annou...@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-announce > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Could a few influential GNOME develoers join gnu-prog-disc...@gnu.org?
(I had to add this top bit myself, since Richard didn't bother to quote the pertinent part of the message he was replying to) On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > Could you go into a bit more details as to how those discussions might > pertain to GNOME? The archives of the mailing-list are closed to > non-subscribers, and that makes it hard to gauge what sort of people > you're asking for exactly. On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: > In general we discuss on gnu-prog-discuss issues about how to make the [snip] Bastien, I think I'd take that as a "no," if I were you. I certainly can't imagine signing up for a job that was quite so completely open-ended. Greg ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Meeting Minutes Published - February 1st, 2011
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Brian Cameron wrote: > * LiMo is leaving the GNOME Advisory Board. Any details on this? Are they leaving for financial reasons, or philosophical ones? There's still a big banner on their website regarding the partnership with Gnome. Did they not just join the advisory board back in July? Before I ramble on and jump to erroneous conclusions, can anyone clarify this a bit please? Thanks, Greg ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Jason D. Clinton wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Murray Cumming > wrote: >> >> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote: >> > This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not >> > about keeping secrets. >> >> So why not just moderate the list? > > Because part of increasing signal-to-noise is giving those in a discussion a > reasonable expectation that they do not have to advocate their position in > public. When one is in a quiet, side-conversation amongst a few people, There is no way that a discussion among the foundation member could be classified as a "side conversation amongst a few people". It will always be a discussion among a few hundred people, even if only a few are participating. > there's a lower probability that people will reply just so that they have > the last word in a conversation. And there's a lower probability that people > will feel that their good name is being drug through the mud because someone > doesn't agree with their ideas. > > In short: it changes the tone for the better. I agree with what you're saying about a small conversation group changing the tone for the better, but not that closing foundation list would make it into a small conversation. Greg ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote: >> This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not >> about keeping secrets. > > So why not just moderate the list? In fact, I thought that > non-foundation-members were not even allowed to post here? Not sure that this ever got written down, if that was the intent. I seem to remember some thoughts/mails about foundation-list vs foundation-announce way back when, but I can't find them right now. > For instance, I don't understand why RMS's emails even showed up on this > mailing list. Well, he's a member of the Gnome Foundation. http://foundation.gnome.org/membership/members.php Greg ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > [/me removes board hat] > > Hi everyone, > > I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make > foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation > members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss matters freely > without making lots of news that more often than not are harmful to our > image to the world in general. Can you cite a few examples of where this has been a problem in the past? I think that our transparency is one of our greatest assets. Thanks, Greg ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Changes to the GNOME board
Hi folks, couple of comments and questions below. On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: [snip] > Diego Escalante Urrelo will be joining the board as a new member for > the remainder of this term. Diego was a candidate for the board in the > last election, and his energy, new blood, and Latin American > perspective will be a great addition to the board. As I wasn't sure what the procedure was for the board of directors, in the case of a resignation, I went and grabbed a copy of the bylaws from http://foundation.gnome.org/about/bylaws.pdf Section 4 subsection d it states that the board can fill a vacancy by a vote of the remaining directors. With that said, Congratulations Diego! I do have one question about the bylaws, though. I seem to recall a large discussion about changing the term of the directors to be 18 months instead of 1 year. However, Section 3 subsection a still states that directors hold office for one (1) year. I also noticed that the history information at the bottom of the document states that the last change was April 5, 2002. I'm sure that the discussion I recall was more recent than this. What is the current term of a member of the Gnome Foundation Board of Directors? What is the official location of the Bylaws governing the Gnome Foundation? If it is the above URL, and the term is not still 1 year, how can we get this copy updated? If it's not this URL, can somebody tell me where it is, and can we make foundation.gnome.org link to it prominently? Thanks, Greg [snip] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Reporting security issues in glib
I'm not sure who reads which lists, so I have left the cc: list intact. I get mail to foundation-list promptly, so as long as they are on the list, there is no need to mail me directly. On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Will Drewry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi GNOME Foundation, > > Diego Petten (cc'd) reported a few integer overflows, to us at oCERT, > which may lead to exploitable heap overflows in glib >= ~2.12. > However, there doesn't appear to be a private tracker for > security-sensitive bugs on the gnome/gtk web sites. We'd like to help > coordinate getting the bugs patched and vendors updated. Our normal > procedure is to do that with an embargo period (which cannot exceed > two months) where the bugs are not disclosed. Regardless, we're happy > to accomodate whatever disclosure approach that you and Diego are > comfortable with. If you could let us know how we should proceed > with reporting this security bug and any future bugs in the Gnome > project, it would be much appreciated! There is not a private tracker that I know of, no. At one point we had discussed the ability to do this within bugzilla, by marking bugs such as the ones you mention as 'security' or 'private' or somesuch. It looks like this has been implemented by making it possible to have bugs that are only visible to a specific bugzilla group. Unfortunately, it is not currently possible to submit a report that is already marked as private. Andre has suggested that filing a blank report, and asking for it to be marked private, and then to add the details to the bug. > If you can recommend a better point of contact for getting this > question answered, that would be equally appreciated. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a mailing list that was originally created to help handle these sorts of issues. I haven't seen a post to it in years, and I -know- that membership is currently unmaintained. I would not recommend this method, unless bugzilla proves to be unworkable. I hope that helps, and if I can provide any further assistance, please let me know. Greg ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Basically, the glade core is intended to serve as a library to >edit glade files, making the glade core available under LGPL >in my understanding will allow people to use that library in a >commercial IDE, > > It would do that, and that seems like a good reason not to change the > license. Currently Glade gives an advantage to free IDEs: only they > can use it. We want free IDEs to replace proprietary IDEs, and Glade will > make this easier. > > Would it really benefit our community to negate that advantage? I > don't think so. > [snip] >I love seeing it in Anjuta, I would love to see it all over the place :) > > Wouldn't it be even better for free IDEs with Glade to replace the > proprietary IDEs? > > As free software developers we naturally feel good to see our own > programs in wider use. But what is really important is for free > software to replace proprietary software. We can achieve more for > freedom if we focus on the deeper and more important long-term goal. I'm afraid that I cannot agree with your conclusions here. This theory works well when we have created some new and innovative feature such as, to use one of the examples from fsf.org, readline. However, there are a great many IDEs on the market. From what I have seen, the free software "competitors" to these are completely and totally unable to compete on any basis. Licensing Glade under the LGPL means that we might, at some point down the road, have an IDE that doesn't suck, which we can use for hacking Gnome. While I'm sure you don't agree, I would rather have some IDE, regardless of license, than to have no IDE, under a Free Software license. Greg P.S. Please don't reply to me directly, I can read the list just fine. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: board meeting quasi-minutes, May 14th and 21st, 2008
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 2:37 AM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The board had meetings on the 14th and 21st to discuss a confidential > matter which the board hopes to disclose in the near future. No > minutes were taken because of the confidential nature of the meetings, No minutes were taken at all, or none will be posted for now? This seems like it could be a bad thing, but I'll reserve any further comment until I see what happens once this matter presents itself. Greg ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question to candidates: what about next ODF?
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 development to OpenOffice.org, > with the idea at the time being that OpenOffice.org would be ported to > GNOME and become, if not in name then certainly in implementation, "GNOME > Office". 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 that we would cede development of a GNOME office to OpenOffice.org. My impression of what happened was more that the community never got a cohesive and self-sustaining effort going to make a GNOME Office suite happen. Hopefully it doesn't sound like I'm picking nits here. > The dudes who work on the GTK+/GNOME AbiWord frontend are certainly involved > in the GNOME community, Jody has his little team working on Gnumeric, the > GNOME-DB team are largely focused on their platform stuff now, Glom is not > totally associated with "GNOME Office" but is looking very promising as a > database component, and a few projects have popped up here to do things like > presentations without getting very far -- but none of these have really had > the primary support of distributions or the GNOME community in general for a > while now. We don't even have a GNOME Office release suite to ship every six > months (not for lack of encouragement or trying though). > > So although there will be a few people up in arms if I describe this as a > "storm in a teacup", what do they seriously think we have to gain by making > *political* statements about ODF or OOXML when it's not massively relevant > to the GNOME community in the first place? If the GNOME Foundation made a > profound statement on the legitimacy of OOXML, it would be about as helpful > as a flame from some random commenter on a news website. Given that, on the > whole, we are not office/productivity software practitioners, our *political > opinions* on those issues don't carry a lot of weight. So why should we be > pushed or bullied into making them? > > What's relevant here is that we have helped a member of the GNOME community > to achieve his aims in support of his work on Free Software, and that there > is legitimate disagreement about whether that demonstrates *passive* support > for an unpopular company and format. We don't think that's the case, but we > accept differing opinions on the matter. Other commentators have been less > tolerant in this regard, and that is disappointing. Well said! Thank you. Greg ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
On Nov 26, 2007 2:54 PM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 26, 2007 10:28 AM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > > 2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free > > Software Movement in general? > [snip] > > More long-term, working with the online desktop folks, and hopefully > with many other interested parties, we need to reframe what software > freedom means in a network-centric world. It is now abundantly clear > to most everyone that source code access is frequently insufficient to > guarantee user autonomy; the question, then, is what additional (or > perhaps different) requirements will help our users maintain their > autonomy in the future. This is much bigger than GNOME, of course, but > it seems likely that we will be at the cutting edge of it, and so > we're going to have to deal with it whether we're the best forum for > it or not :) I'm not quite clear on what you mean here, Luis. Can you suggest some links that I might peruse that would describe what you mean by 'user autonomy' and why source code access is insufficient to guarantee it? Thanks, Greg ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Statement on ECMA TC45-M Participation
On Nov 25, 2007 12:39 PM, jamie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 2007-11-25 at 12:18 -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 12:56:09PM +, jamie wrote: > > > Office 2007 has less than 10% of all office versions (50m out of 500m) > > Which is already comperable to the OO.o installbase. They are > > playing with a much larger population. > > yes and that larger population is using older office versions so MS > still has a lot of work to do to sell to them an expensive upgrade which > mostly only contains a prettier interface The sell here for Microsoft is very very easy. The small businesses that I do consulting for here in the US all use Microsoft operating systems and office products. At this point, when they order a new PC as either a replacement or an upgrade, they are unable to order Microsoft Office 2003. Microsoft has enough monopoly control to force users to change to the new version, simply by making the old one unavailable. The change to Microsoft Office 2007 will happen, and the change to MOOX will inevitably follow. Greg ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
