Re: Could a few influential GNOME develoers join

2012-01-16 Thread Gregory Leblanc
(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


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.
foundation-list mailing list

Re: Meeting Minutes Published - February 1st, 2011

2011-02-16 Thread Gregory Leblanc
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,
foundation-list mailing list

Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum

2009-12-15 Thread Gregory Leblanc
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.
foundation-list mailing list

Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum

2009-12-14 Thread Gregory Leblanc
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.
foundation-list mailing list

Re: Changes to the GNOME board

2008-12-15 Thread Gregory Leblanc
Hi folks, couple of comments and questions below.

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
 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  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 link to it


foundation-list mailing list

Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?

2008-10-31 Thread Gregory Leblanc
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.

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, 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.

P.S. Please don't reply to me directly, I can read the list just fine.
foundation-list mailing list

Re: board meeting quasi-minutes, May 14th and 21st, 2008

2008-06-04 Thread Gregory Leblanc
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.
foundation-list mailing list

Re: two questions for candidates

2007-11-27 Thread Gregory Leblanc
On Nov 26, 2007 2:54 PM, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?


 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?
foundation-list mailing list

Re: GNOME Foundation Statement on ECMA TC45-M Participation

2007-11-26 Thread Gregory Leblanc
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

The change to Microsoft Office 2007 will happen, and the change to
MOOX will inevitably follow.
foundation-list mailing list