Re: GNOME now

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Seif Lotfy wrote: > So many different point of views and ideas in the community that are > not well discussed. The first thing that pops up in my head is GNOME > OS. But then I am kinda lost. Maybe this is something we need to > discuss here on the mailing list. >

Re: Readability publisher sign-up for *.gnome.org

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 13:45, Alan Cox wrote: > People asked to have their blogs included on it and placed them on > it by choice. It's under CC-NC licensing (*). So they've agreed to NC use > but the foundation exploiting it commercially (or indeed any site > reformatting it and making money fro

Re: About GNOME, Support GNOME

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 15:25, Allan Day wrote: > About Support GNOME: we don't currently have this, but it seems pretty > essential to me. I'm sure there are plenty of items that I've missed. > Tell me what! I stopped working on the FoG videos here [1] because the FoG site was going to be redone

Re: Official announcement and invitation to GNOME 3.0 Hackfest and GNOME.Asia Summit 2011

On Jan 22, 2011 12:04 PM, "Vincent Untz" wrote: > > Le vendredi 21 janvier 2011, à 23:41 +0800, Frederic Muller a écrit : > > So Hackfest registration is happening here: > > http://live.gnome.org/Hackfests/GNOME.Asia2011 , call for papers for > > the conference is here http://live.gnome.org/GnomeA

Boston Summit laptop charger found

Someone left their charger for their laptop in the MIT Media Lab space. We discovered it as we were cleaning up for the day and so it could have been left behind at any point. I have it and would gladly ship it to whomever is missing it. Just contact me off-list and describe it. __

Re: Starting the process for this year's Boston Summit

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:25 AM, John Palmieri wrote: > I'm going to be starting the process for setting up the Boston Summit. > That basically means getting the space at MIT and then a budget from the > board. Last year we saw an issue with the timing of other GNOME related > conferences. Thi

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Jim Gettys wrote: > The combination of technologies going under the name "HTML 5" have made/are > making web technology based applications finally competitive with those > built using conventional toolkits such as Qt, GTK+, and the Windows and Mac > equivalents. >

Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Dave Neary wrote: > vision for GNOME 2.x did.Back in February, I posted the following - it > kind of got lost in the ensuing thread; but I think it's worth breaking > out into a new discussion (marketing list CCed). Like I say, I'm not > happy with the "vision" pa

Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Tobias Mueller wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1On 15.12.2009 15:50, Jason D. Clinton wrote: > > No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian-devel-private > > and a kde-private. > According

Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Gregory Leblanc < headmaster.albus.dumbled...@gmail.com> wrote: > not that closing foundation list > would make it into a small conversation. > The proposal is now to create a -private list; please do not add further confusion.

Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum

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-no

Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > Given the excellent comments so far, I'm leaning towards retracting the > proposal. However, there's quite a few others who support it now. So I let > it move forward naturally. > No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > I also like to see two more ideas added to CoC: > > - Learn to agree to disagree. > > - Criticize ideas, not people presenting them. > > > Back to the Murray case, with my recommendation, everything would have > happened the way it did.

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > On 11/25/2009 02:18 PM, Jason D. Clinton wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Behdad Esfahbod > <mailto:beh...@behdad.org>> wrote: >> >>To make the discussion more practical, lets take

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > To make the discussion more practical, lets take one real incident of the > past: Murray's blog re Jeff. It did not include vulgar language. It did > include exaggerations that turned into libel. Now how does any proposed > solution de

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > I don't like the entire intention of enforcement. > The intention is improving our community quality. The method is what you disagree with. What alternative method would you propose? ___ foundat

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > I (fully) agree with John here. > > The lawyer-talk proposal of Jason is a no for me personally. > > It's also not the document that I've put my name under when I signed the > Code of Conduct any longer if that amendment is indeed added. >

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

That is why the proposal that I just put on the table explicitly talks only of official GNOME forums of communication which is, incidentally, exactly like a terms of service. 2009/11/25 john palmieri > I'm against an enshrined code of conduct which suddenly kicks you out of > GNOME, or gets you

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Dave Neary wrote: > It seems like the issue isn't making people promise to be nice, it's > what happens when they aren't. And once again the board has taken the > easy way out, by not being judgemental about reported behaviour. > > In this case, I'd like to see th

Re: Meeting Minutes Published - October 29, 2009

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > There is no official enforcement of these principles > > unless the CoC gets an official enforcement (and this paragraph is > removed) any requirement on having members sign the CoC page is a > pointless exercise. What kind of enforcem

Re: IRC Foundation meeting?

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Diego Escalante Urrelo wrote: > The Board would like to know if there's interest for such a meeting. The > agenda would be composed of proposed items. > A proposed time for this would be September 24th at 17 UTC. > Yes, but please choose a date on a Saturday so a

Re: So what do people *except* me want from the foundation?

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Dave Neary wrote: > > What do you expect from the foundation? > Leadership. I want there to never be another DVCS mutli-year long flame war. The only reason it ended is that Red Hat has the people, servers and bandwidth to JFDI for something of that magnitude. T

Re: The Travel Committee is ready!

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Diego Escalante Urrelo wrote: >  http://live.gnome.org/Travel (carefully!) Could you add information to this page about the agreed upon reimbursement rates? There was a discussion about this in February and it seemed that there was some argument as to whether it sh

Travel assistance for Gran Canaria

When I last asked about this on Feb. 11th, the response was "wait a week or two": http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-February/msg00013.html I asked again two weeks ago in the GUADEC IRC channel and someone--I can't recall who--said that something was in progress. So what's up? Th

Re: GNOME Travel Committee & Travel Policy: A proposal for consideration and feedback

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Stormy Peters wrote: >> Current policy: Transportation and lodging only. >> >> Proposed policy: Total transportation and lodging minus €200 or 15% >> (which ever is greater.) The amount to be agreed on before hand >> between the travel committee and the traveler. D

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Luca Ferretti wrote: > bzr allows lightweight checkouts [1]. What about git? Yes, it does. This is not an issue. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > How about we set-up a task-force of volunteers who would want to > help in the move, each volunteer promising at least 3 hours a week? 3 > hours is a very small amount of time but I am hoping that we'll be > able to gather at least 10

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:48 AM, John Carr wrote: > I'm not a complete idiot - if it was going to be a "degraded, > bastardized form" of Git I wouldn't waste my time on it. I suppose I > might be an evil genius stalling for "Bazaar DS9" to be written (sorry > for the very bad joke that probably on

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Olav Vitters wrote: > That isn't a contest. It is a survey. Please don't read more in to my email than I intended. There's no need to get defensive. >> It >> seems to me that a lot of brain power,

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Karl Lattimer wrote: >> Elijah Newren did an initial analysis of the data. His analysis also >> includes >> the survey questions and answers. Find it at: >> >> http://blogs.gnome.org/newren/2009/01/03/gnome-dvcs-survey-results/ >> > > This is pretty decent anal