> [/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
> 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
> I currently don't like the fact that no one can even consider working in
> such a proposal.
I think it's possible, but there's little incentive to right now, because
it seems so unlikely that it would succeed. If there was a bid that might
succeed, it would be a cheap location (in terms of tra
> Sorry, to step into this discussion, but I would really like to point out
> that every part of the world may have a gnome conference, even an
> important or *the* GNOME conference. But why can we keep GUADEC the
> "european" conference?
>
> If you want to do a GUAD*C at any other place of the
> Where in the world with the highest concentration of GNOME and KDE
> community? This thread has so far been considering the GNOME community
> only.
Both communities have their strongest presence in Europe.
- Jeff
--
GUADEC 2008: Istanbul, Turkey http://www.guadec.org
> Americans might feel that it is a little unfair that guadec always is in
> Europe. Couldn't there be two conferences?
GUADEC and the Boston Summit. :-)
- Jeff
--
OSCON 2008: Portland OR, USA http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon/
"Imagine a four million line code base that i
>
>
> > Is the rule about having GUADEC in Europe rather than, say, in Bangalore
> > still in play, by the way?
>
> The 'E' still stands for Europe, yeah. ;-)
Aha, was this more in reference to the text of the CfH? In that case, it's a
minor disconnect between norms of each organisation and c
> Is the rule about having GUADEC in Europe rather than, say, in Bangalore
> still in play, by the way?
The 'E' still stands for Europe, yeah. ;-)
- Jeff
--
GUADEC 2008: Istanbul, Turkey http://www.guadec.org/
"The two [separate] UIs are both incredibly simple and
> > No further proof needed...
>
> The Reply-To header was actually set to your own address, not to that of the
> list. :-)
[ Dave points out that the offending Reply-To was of course on the announce
list email. While entirely intentional, and more effective than setting the
Mail-Followup-To he
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> No further proof needed...
The Reply-To header was actually set to your own address, not to that of the
list. :-)
- Jeff
--
OSCON 2008: Portland OR, USA http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon/
"The cool stuff coming out of fr
> I have heard a lot of people pronouncing GNOME as Ga-nome and I feel Nome
> is the correct pronunciation.
>
> Appreciate if someone please advise me which is the correct pronunciation.
When folks ask me about this at conferences and such, I always say, "doesn't
matter how you pronounce it, as
> Some people also suggested expectnation[1] web service, which is backed by
> Edd Dumbill. Followers of Planet GNOME would remember his blog posts about
> it.
Much as I love Edd and his approach to the creation of expectnation, I think
it would be awkward for us to use non-Free software where F
> I think any sort of editorial control other than good old individuals
> common sense would break this spirit.
The 'editorial control' I speak of is *only* about whose blogs are included
on Planet GNOME, not what they write once they are included.
> I believe what is at issue here is that ther
> You've been asked to be more open, don't get annoyed if people are pissed
> by closed non-answers!
I'm mostly annoyed at the attitude rather than the questions (even the ones
that have already been answered). I don't really feel an obligation to give
answers to people who have negative intent,
> Ok... what exactly is wrong with my usage of "effort"?
Sorry, I should have avoided responding to the trolling in the first place.
- Jeff
--
GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008
"I think his crackpipe is mixed with helium or something." - Colin
> On Dec 14, 2007 10:54 PM, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please don't turn this into something it is not. I had already been
> > working on this before threads on this list, and before Federico's
> > recent mails. It is not particularly motivati
> But please don't ignore the question I asked:
>
> Who's on the "potential maintainership team" for PGO, so that we may
> inquire them about the progress?
Sorry, but I'm not going to get caught up in pointless crap like this. Some
folks may think it's okay to treat me differently as a result o
> Federico,
>
> Thank you for spearheading this.
Please don't turn this into something it is not. I had already been working
on this before threads on this list, and before Federico's recent mails. It
is not particularly motivating to see the issue approached in this way.
- Jeff
--
linux.con
> What I want to resolve is this:
So do I, as already noted.
> "Sucking guidelines out of my head" --- that's exactly the kind of problem
> we need to solve.
That's why I mentioned it.
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/
"The two [sepa
> > It's somewhat more intricate than that -- I'm writing it up atm, so
> > people can understand the decision making process (guidelines). That's
> > the first step. :-)
>
> Ping. Any progress on this, so the editorial policy can be linked from
> Planet?
>
> Also, Dave's idea about having a c
> I'm spending a lot of time and energies advocating for free software and
> open standards in my job at Nokia. I won't go to Slashdot or even here to
> explain details about my life. Surely I have written in public pages more
> stuff that could be decontextualized and quoted against GNOME. And a
> > These are all really cool -- it was hard to choose a favourite to vote
> > for!
> >
> > Minor comment: Once you've chosen the style, please fix the text to use
> > the GNOME logo typeface (modified Trebuchet MS Bold, see the M)
>
> Actually it's Bitstream Vera Sans Bold modified. :)
Yeah -
> Please vote your favorite logo for GNOME Asia Summit from here :
>
> http://www.gnome-cn.org/gnome-asia-submit/gas-logo-vote/
>
> Thanks for Yang Hong's great help on build this vote system!
>
> We will announce the final logo on Monday, the winner will get free
> registration to GNOME Asia
> I don't recall that any candidate explicily rejected supporting the free
> software movement by means other than improving the attractiveness and
> success of GNOME. But several candidates answered in a way that seemed to
> pointedly imply a rejection of any such form of support for the commun
> Work with the Membership Committee to document their practices and make
> sure they perform them more consistently in future years.
Miss one word and it changes the entire tone... "and help make sure". They
have done a great job this year, though as a result of numerous changes to
the voluntee
> What will you as a candidate do to make sure we avoid this mess in the
> future?
Work with the Membership Committee to document their practices and make sure
they perform them more consistently in future years.
During the current term, I have already made that you won't have to deal
with this
> And all of this could have been explained just as simply if the folks at
> boycottnovell.com had simply emailed us and asked for details, instead of
> posting unsubstantiated drivel.
Pretty much the crux of the issue with that website. Despite transparency
into the community that they would ne
> On Nov 29, 2007 5:40 PM, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If these programs are important enough to deserve the term "miss out
> > > on", then I think they should be written in another language.
Note that the above quote is misattributed, and w
> It's been frustrating over the past few years that GNOME hasn't taken a
> firm position on the issue.
Agree.
> I suspect there hasn't been anything firm because (a) there is quite a bit
> of division within the community on the issue and (b) there is some
> element of "walking on eggshells" a
> The reason this is not so is that Microsoft is trying to spin the apparent
> "support" of GNOME into proof that OOXML is not bad for free software.
Microsoft haven't done so publicly thus far, but the risk is there, and we
will endeavour to make it absolutely clear that our participation does
> The more "cool stuff" depends on Mono, the closer we get to a situation
> where a Microsoft attack on Mono would put GNOME in a vice.
>
> If these programs are important enough to deserve the term "miss out on",
> then I think they should be written in another language.
That is a decision lef
> > libbeagle does not depend on Mono. Perhaps, if the Fedora RPM of
> > libbeagle actually depends on Mono, it needs to be fixed.
> It doesn't.
I am Jack's abject lack of surprise. :-)
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/
"Love never
> > Yelp has had an optional Beagle dependency for at least 2 years. It's
> > optional, and it's not news.
>
> We need a new RPM in some distributions, as optional dependencies are not
> part of current RPM in Fedora, for instance :)
libbeagle does not depend on Mono. Perhaps, if the Fedora RPM
> I think you're way too harsh on people who actually concluded things like:
Sorry, but the negativity of that site greatly outweighs the positive. It
takes more than a little sucking up to earn back my respect after the crap
they've been spewing.
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Aust
> 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 th
> I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with great
> concern.
Unfortunately, the authors of that website are obstinate in their
indifference to the truth, and do not serve the interests of the Free
Software community. They prefer to create suspicion and insinuations than
re
> The will is there, but like so much else we're short on man power.
There is a really important point to be made about this that hasn't come up
at all so far, to my knowledge:
Around the time of the establishment of the GNOME Foundation, the GNOME
community (under much clearer leadership a
>
>
> > Have the board paused and thought why the Summit has to be Boston? Is it
> > because most hackers work around Boston? May be it was the case.
>
> Because there's a critical mass of developers there -- most of both the
> Red Hat and Novell desktop teams.
Dan Winship points out on IRC t
> Have the board paused and thought why the Summit has to be Boston? Is it
> because most hackers work around Boston? May be it was the case.
Because there's a critical mass of developers there -- most of both the Red
Hat and Novell desktop teams.
- Jeff
--
GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Aust
> But if you look, I asked for help about Boston Summit on the boston-social
> list as early as June:
>
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/boston-social/2007-June/msg0.html
>
> and got no reply. I mailed at least three Boston residents directly and
> got no reply either. And I gave up and J
> Microsoft isn't defending OOXML under the terms defined by ISO.
So we should be as grubby and corrupt as them? What I am saying here is not
that we should put up a weak fight. I am saying we should *defeat* OOXML
under the terms defined by ISO. I'm helping to do that in Australia. It is
in the
>
>
> > 1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about
> > OOXML?
>
> I'd probably include a message about not fighting OOXML on political
> grounds because they have no impact on the ISO standardisation process. To
> succeed, we need to fight OOXML under the terms define
> Finally, I'd have liked it to have been more timely. I think Jeff is right
> that it would not have changed the impact much (we'd still have been
> flamed) but we'd have looked like we were doing it above board, instead of
> trying to sneak behind anyone's back.
Agree. :-\
- Jeff
--
linux.c
> The fault lies with the Foundation for not communicating it decisions when
> they happened in a format that is easily digested.
Hey,
I don't want this to sound like rationalisation for the mistake we made (we
did say we were going to do an announcement when it happened, and it slipped
through
> Well one week point is the board seems almost foreign to the every day
> GNOME contributor. People vote and pretty much forget about the inner
> workings until Slashdot gets a hold on some sensationalized story and a
> press release is put out and still to the outside world the role of the
> f
> 1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about
> OOXML?
I'd probably include a message about not fighting OOXML on political grounds
because they have no impact on the ISO standardisation process. To succeed,
we need to fight OOXML under the terms defined by ISO, which me
> Jeff is right: it's not all rollercoasters and martinis. There's ice cream
> too.
I heartily endorse this strategy.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/garrett/858313114/
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/
"Microsoft treats security
> > [6] Some of the tasks of a Board Member are mundane administrative
> > tasks, are you comfortable taking on such tasks as opposed to being
> > always involved in strategic and visionary thinking ?
>
> Handling these mundane administrative tasks is fine for now, but should
> there be an execu
> On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 04:45 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> >
> >
> > > In any event I dont understand why the gnome foundation was pulled
> > > into this - cant you do your work with ECMA without foundation
> > > backing?
> >
> > As explai
> In any event I dont understand why the gnome foundation was pulled into
> this - cant you do your work with ECMA without foundation backing?
As explained in the statement, the GNOME Foundation joined ECMA as a
non-profit to allow Jody to continue his work sucking the documentation
blood from M
> I can see MS spinning this to their advantage and I believe playing safe
> here would be better for us in the short term
Thing is, Microsoft haven't spun it to their advantage. They've mentioned
that Gnumeric is implementing OOXML, but that actually works against them
(due to the complexity of
> The more you guys keep playing the neutral game, the more you'll get
> abused like this.
There is no "neutral game" being played here. Concerns were raised that the
GNOME Foundation's participation in EMCA TC45-M suggested that we supported
OOXML becoming an ISO standard. Thus, the answer was
> On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 06:34 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
> > * This year has been pretty tough for me as a Board member, as I've
> > been starting a new business which has required a lot of time, I have
> > been travelling a lot, and conference calls have been at
> This is generally caused by the habit of only making decisions in
> meetings, instead of making decisions on the mailing list. And a tendency
> to think that all decisions must be unanimous.
A majority of the decisions this year were made on the mailing list, with a
quorum consensus rather tha
> (also I'm not sure why you mention GTK+ developers never requested a GTK+
> summit: it seems to me they did)
It's sort of in the middle -- they wanted to do one, but never really came
to the Board for support. We've always been 100% behind helping though! I'm
going to spend some time putting t
> Will you apply for the position as new Executive Director for GNOME?
> Will you apply for any paid position within GNOME while serving as board
> member?
Unlikely, although I have considered it in the past. It would be foolish to
rule anything out. Enough people have asked me about it that it
> What do you see as the best way to spend this money?
Getting GNOME contributors together, face-to-face, to nut out the difficult
problems that are tough to solve in a distributed fashion.
> In terms of hiring, do you prefer hiring a sysadmin, or an executive
> director?
We must have a full t
> This statement seems to be taking a long time; the delay reduces the
> effect. When will it be published?
It will be out this week. They delay is entirely my fault -- aside from the
spirit-crushing stupidity of the whole thing, I've also been quite unwell. I
would not be surprised if OOXML ha
> [1] How much impact would being a member of the GNOME Foundation Board
> have on your current contributions to GNOME ?
Not a huge amount -- most of what I do these days is either related in some
way to the Board, or keeping things ticking as maintenance. While I've been
on the Board, I've stil
> On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 02:49 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > No director represents their affiliation -- they're elected to represent
> > the GNOME Foundation membership after all -- but it must be documented
> > (least of all because of the maximum representation rule
> > Great to see you running. So, you are not with IBM anymore? In that
> > case your Bio page is outdated.
>
> I still work for IBM, but I would not officially represent them with
> respect to GNOME.
No director represents their affiliation -- they're elected to represent the
GNOME Foundatio
> I've created the page after last GUADEC this year, unfortunatly there is a
> request for the mailing list but isn't still resolved. Anyway i think that
> today we are "more" people interested so we can try to advance on this
> idea together.
There were some problems creating mailing lists arou
> Is someone working on a statement that the GNOME Foundation does not
> support acceptance of OOXML as an ISO standard?
>
> I would be glad to offer confidential suggestions about a draft.
We're working on a statement regarding the controversy last week at the
moment. We're nearing the end of
> + small meetings/hackfests:
As mentioned to the Board previously, I'd like to put a GNOME Mobile (maybe
also GTK+ if they're keen [1]) summit on the budget agenda for March/April
2008, in Europe. It's far enough away from both the Boston Summit and GUADEC
that I think this will be a good book
> Also, people tend to forget what they wrote in their introduction after a
> few months :-) Again, as Quim said, it's not because they're bad people.
> It's just really easy to forget the original "plan" when many new things
> have appeared in the meantime!
>
> (I'm sure I'd be ashamed to see I
> > Above all else, I hope you vote for people you know and trust to
> > represent what you value about GNOME. To put it in a clunky but simple
> > way, if "GNOME is People", vote for the people who "are GNOME".
>
> That was what I guess I was getting at. Unless the circle of trust is cast
> wid
> That in effect perhaps raises the important question "So who would be a
> good member of the Board?".
Above all else, I hope you vote for people you know and trust to represent
what you value about GNOME. To put it in a clunky but simple way, if "GNOME
is People", vote for the people who "are
> It is perhaps of interest to some that the Mozilla Foundation has not
> found it easy to find a new Executive Director (see
> http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/executive-director-search.html). Note
> the Mozilla position comes with salary and benefits. Are we thinking the
> same for GNOME?
Y
> Did the foundation come out against bounties on principal, or has the idea
> just not gone anywhere?
Given that you've read previous threads here, I'll just briefly summarise
where I think we stand with regards to bounties:
We've had some success and some failures, but ultimately it required
> Also, looking backwards we also see that our time and issues could have
> been invested much better.
I think that's probably true, but I strongly disagree with your examples. I
also think that with such high expectations, we can beat ourselves up pretty
badly even when we do great things. What
> This sounds, 2 years on, like exactly the situation we find ourselves in
> now. Perhaps it is time to revisit the assumption that our organisation is
> so radically different from others that we don't need/want an executive
> director?
I substantially agree with everything raised in your email
> Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > Things change -- what was taken for granted while you were on the Board
> > may not be the case now.
>
> Way to make a guy feel like his opinion is worth something Jeff.
Huh? Of course your opinion is worth something, but the issue is not stat
> As for "trashing you", it seems any comment about the boards actions or
> activities that is the slighest bit negative or in disagreement with
> yourself you take as a personal insult and follow up in flowery language
> attempting to supress the dissent by acting hurt.
I pointed out behaviour
> > So, yes, I totally understand your position, but I think that falling
> > back on unsympathetic, dramatic criticism of the Board and ultimatums is
> > not a productive way of fixing the problem.
>
> "unsympathetic, dramatic criticism" would be "telling it as it is" "of the
> Board" would be
> I volunteered to take leadership on this position months ago.
We chose to have a Board member as liaison to the Legal team, which was very
clearly delegated the responsibility to provide legal support and advice to
the Foundation. This is the same model as other teams, but as the legal team
is
> For the future the board should really consider not sponsoring anyone to
> work on the OOXML format
No one was sponsored to work on the OOXML format.
> (and withdraw existing involvement on the behalf of the GNOME Foundation),
> as many people in the free software/FOSS community are working h
> What we've shown is not having a full-time director has been a mistake
It has actually been a very helpful learning experience -- understanding
what the purpose of that role should be, by grokking the gaps. It's less
obvious what that role ought to be now that we're so far away from the
"Execu
> I'm hesitant to declare it a failure until I see more evidence that
> delegation has been tried and failed. For example, I could do this sort of
> thing without being on the board at all- no need to appoint me to the
> board. But frankly I have not felt like my attempts to help out have been
>
> Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and totally
> separated from, and have nothing to do with, GNOME.
His involvement is facilitated by our membership of ECMA. We were entirely
willing to do so.
- Jeff
--
GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/
> I am frustrated, and so I will be running for the board again.
>
> If elected, my almost-exclusive focus will be handling legal and
> secretarial issues for the board. So I can't guarantee that my being on
> the board would necessarily have prevented this particular problem, but
> I'd like to
> Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and totally
> separated from, and have nothing to do with, GNOME.
That would be challenging, given ECMA's participation model. Besides, what
is wrong with the GNOME Foundation supporting Jody's participation in a
standards body? He's d
> the GNOME Foundation should make a statement opposing the acceptance of
> OOXML and explaining the reason for participating in ECMA.
We'll be making a statement about the issue soon. Don't expect it to please
everyone.
- Jeff
--
GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org
> I have another word for that newspeak ... "Accountability"
It's entirely possible to be held accountable without being unduly slapped
around, particularly by otherwise upstanding members of the community, who
ought to know better.
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiaht
> This flaming was completely and utterly predictable. I'm disappointed that
> the board took the time to approve an action that obviously exposed GNOME
> to PR problems without taking the (very obvious) PR steps to reduce that
> impact.
Based on the genesis of the "open letter", it is hard to b
> So, uh... this apparently didn't happen, and now we're getting flamed
> (rightfully) for appearing to give a stamp of approval to a deeply flawed
> standard. So... when is the board making this happen?
Although I disagree with the tone and content of your email, an announcement
is pending abou
> Quim Gil wrote:
> > What happens when you get less than 7 people with votes?
>
> I don't understand - you mean if there are fewer than 7 candidates?
Quim meant fewer than seven who receive votes at all (implying that there
would be other candidates running who received none). I don't think it
> Voting in referenda is generally not very high, and there was 0 debate on
> this issue on the list (I did see some grumbling on IRC, but nothing
> concrete), so it's hardly an initiative that's going to mobilise the
> troops.
There was buttloads of discussion around the initial plan, which par
> Jeff Waugh wrote, On 13/09/07 11:43:
>
> > > The planet is not a newspaper or a magazine, it is just a planet.
> > > That censorship / editorial line idea doesn't make any sense to me.
> >
> > I hope that this is a similar effect to that of
> The planet is not a newspaper or a magazine, it is just a planet. That
> censorship / editorial line idea doesn't make any sense to me.
I hope that this is a similar effect to that of great design -- you don't
notice the editorship because Planet is highly readable and reflective of
the people
> But I'm 100% fine with this since we still didn't change most of the world
> to understand French; hopefully we will get there soon! ;-)
This would be an entirely reasonable catalyst for applying censorship to
Planet GNOME.
- Jeff
--
GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnom
> That's why full feeds are preferred over GNOME-specific tags
Minor point: I do mean 'preferred'. If someone has a good reason for wanting
only their GNOME-related posts on Planet I'm cool with that, but I always go
back to ask before putting them up. So no knicker-twisting, censorship nuts!
-
> I think that asking people to have tags/categories on their blogs and not
> aggregate everything would be better than having all the content of the
> ones who arrived first.
Planet GNOME is about the people moreso than the project. We talk about the
project *all the time*. The reason why I sta
> The current "editorial control" is simply more or less "if you ever did
> something peripherally related to GNOME, you can be on Planet, regardless
> of what you post".
It's somewhat more intricate than that -- I'm writing it up atm, so people
can understand the decision making process (guidel
> I'd even go one step further saying than most people care about gnome and
> gnome apps, and not about one's cats and the other's culinar niceties.
> Because despite Gnome is people, I think that for most people, Planet
> Gnome is primarily about Gnome.
Well, that's counter to the original pur
> OK. But please, could someone tell us what's this Editorial Control all
> about?
Sure, it's about the quality and relevance of what appears on Planet GNOME.
As you note, "relevance" does not mean relevance of blog content to the
project, but of people to the project. It's also related to *why
> Which is why a transparent process is really really important.
I agree, though I've had concerns figuring out the things you raised next:
> Oh, and I don't believe the argument that "feelings might get hurt if
> someone is publicly rejected." If someones ego is so fragile that it
> breaks by
> *sigh*, I wonder what you are basing this claim on, maybe there's an
> archived thread that you could reffer us to which details that ?
Unfortunately my blog didn't have comments at the time, so most of the
responses to this were on IRC or by mail. It's mentioned fairly regularly
even now. Pla
> > I wonder if this control in itself is a source of frustration to some
> > people who've been contributing code to the gnome project and want to
> > brag about it on planet gnome
>
> The planet-web hacking file says the editorial policies "seem fascist",
> which seems to acknowledge that view
> Is there some background to this, or are you just having a bad email day?
Both.
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/
"Debugging is at least twice as hard as programming. If your code is as
clever as you can possibly make it, then b
> We have no editorial control. Get over it :)
We absolutely *do* have editorial control at the moment. The challenge I
have at the moment is to continue that, while improving what people see to
be the drawbacks of the current process (which can almost entirely be
summarised as slow response pa
1 - 100 of 276 matches
Mail list logo
