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 had...@hadess.net 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 r...@gnu.org 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: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com 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 beh...@behdad.org 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 beh...@behdad.org 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: 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: 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
