On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:05 AM, Jonh Wendell wrote:
> Hello, folks.
>
> I'm taking a look at http://foundation.gnome.org/about/charter/ , which
> mentions it's still a draft, from Oct 2000!
>
> Do we have a final version, or is it the final version so that it can be
> renamed?
1) There is no off
2010/3/1 Stormy Peters :
> GNOME Foundation IRC meeting.
How did this go?
(And as for feedback: I think these are terrific; please keep them coming!)
Luis
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo
Thanks to all of you for doing a very important and very
underappreciated role in the project.
Luis
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Bruno Boaventura
wrote:
> Hello!
>
> It was a pleasure for me hold the chairman position of Membership
> Committee in the last two years.
> Recently we had a meeti
Big thanks are due to Brian and SFLC for perservering with this.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Brian Cameron wrote:
>
> Foundation Members:
>
> I am happy to report that the GNOME Foot logo currently used by GNOME
> has been trademarked as Reg. # 4063108 filed November 29, 2011.
>
> The GNOME
That's great to hear! Congratulations to the long list of new members.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Andrea Veri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is the first time we actually receive so many membership's
> applications in just two weeks and I'm glad to notice that
> the GNOME Foundation is increasing it
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
> I know this is not exactly a GNOME topic,
That's correct. Please take the discussion to a different communication forum.
(The details of what tool are used by a non-GNOME academic are a
perfectly fine topic for discussion *with that acad
Brian-
Thanks for your selfless service the past few years. Your dedication,
including to some of the board's most thankless tasks, has been
admirable and will be very difficult for the board to replace.
Luis
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Brian Cameron wrote:
>
> Friends in the GNOME communit
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On 05/24/2012 06:49 PM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
>> * They are not familiar with -- and thus not comfortable teaching --
>> all the tools we use.
>> * They want certainty in terms of assignments and projects.
>> * They want predictability w
Didn't we have a map of member locations at some point? Or was that just
p.g.o blogs?
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Jared Jennings wrote:
> Mike,
> Thanks for the response. Shoot! Wish I had known that sooner. I've been in
> Columbus for 3 weeks and will be back in Sept.
> I hope you have a gre
Hi, Andrea-
It would be helpful if you sent a reminder of what obligations members
of the Membership Committee have?
Luis
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Andrea Veri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Og Maciel stepped down from the Membership Committee and I would like
> to take a chance to thank him for all th
Terrific news!
And thanks also to all the supporters of the Foundation over the year
who have made this sort of hire possible - this investment in
infrastructure and support is extremely important to GNOME's long-term
health.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Karen Sandler wrote:
> In the spirit
Perhaps a naive question, but I would have expected discussion of hiring a
new ED - is that being handled in a separate hiring committee?
Luis
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
> Hello Foundation members!
> Next board meeting is April 8th at 16:00 UTC
>
> This is the agen
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Germán Poo-Caamaño wrote:
> Luis
> worried that making the TODO list the Bountie list was
> dangerous, because people might end up doing only the things
> people pay for. Have we already started down this slop already
> with
On Thu Nov 20 2014 at 11:19:57 AM Andrea Veri wrote:
> * Emma Stamm's proposal for a research project around nonprofit
> management
>
Can you elaborate on that a bit? There are, I suspect, many list members
who might be able to help out or provide resources on that front.
Luis
_
e 29th of October providing
> more details about her research herself. The thread she started can be
> found at [1].
>
> cheers,
>
> [1] https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2014-
> October/msg00031.html
>
> 2014-11-20 20:25 GMT+01:00 Luis Villa :
> > On
Someone just pinged me to ask if I knew anyone who would be appropriate for
KDE's ED position, and it made me realize that I'd heard nothing about
GNOME's ED position for a while. What is the status of that search? Is it
ongoing? Stalled? ...
Thanks-
Luis
__
n Tue Dec 23 2014 at 8:34:51 AM Ekaterina Gerasimova <
kittykat3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/12/2014, Luis Villa wrote:
> > Someone just pinged me to ask if I knew anyone who would be appropriate
> for
> > KDE's ED position, and it made me realize that I'd heard no
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Andrea Veri wrote:
> * ED search
?
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> - I don't think that finding an ED is easy (it's precisely because I think
> it's extremely hard that I think we should putting a lot of efforts there)
+1 to this. Having been involved in the last two ED hires, it's not easy.
But the earlier
Wikimedia has a pretty good "this week in", and it adds a lot of value. But
it is a lot of work to do well.
(I seem to recall we even used to have one in GNOME, though I can't find
evidence of that offhand. Would have been at least a decade ago.)
Luis
On Wed, May 18, 2016, 6:33 PM Michael Catanza
This is terrific to see. I'm sorry that I probably don't have time to help
out much, but look forward to the final result.
Luis
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:49 PM Nuritzi Sanchez <
nurit...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
> Dear Foundation Members,
>
> GNOME has never had a standard code of conduct for
Neil's blog post, for those missing it:
https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-relationship-gnu-fsf/
For my part, I want to apologize to everyone involved in GNOME for not
pushing GNOME to formally sever its ties with GNU a decade ago, which is
the first time in my email archives I can
RIP old buddy!
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 7:45 AM Bartłomiej Piotrowski
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have been looking at Bugzilla migration requests today and have some
> related announcements.
>
> First of all, if for some reason you are still using Bugzilla, you
> should stop and move to GitLab. I hop
FYI, effective the end of this week I'll be resigning from Novell and
becoming a true independent, aka 'unemployed'. :) It is my hope that
this will free up more energy and time for work on core GNOME, so I
expect that if there is any impact on my relationship with GNOME, it
will be a very positive
I have no particular horse here, but I will note that if we want to
use wiki for serious documents, we must have high quality RCS, and
mediawiki and whatever ubuntu use have that, and live.gnome.org does
not, which is a serious bummer.
Also, Jeff, AFAICT, mediawiki (being the engine behind the big
If the thread must be continued, please don't cc ad-board. I've
dropped them from this reply.
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:13:03 -0600, Shaun McCance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 17:07 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> > I have no particular horse here, but I wil
This is great, Anne. Congrats on any part you played in this.
Luis
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:20:36 +0100, Anne Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> DENMARK will ask for software patents directive to become B-item in European
> Council of Ministers
> --
> Press release:
>
> Victory for de
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:19:55 +0100 (BST), Alan Horkan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We sincerely apologize if you receive more than one copy of this
> > announcement.
>
> The foundation list seem like as good a place to ask as any so here's my
> question: For future reference what one list wo
On 7/13/05, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Heya,
>
> Dudes, you should work with Brian Cameron from Sun on this - I'm pretty
> sure he'll pick up this thread, but he's done a HUGE amount of work in
> this space already.
>
> I personally think a step by step effort working down through
On 7/13/05, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is that necessarily
> > going to please 100% of ISVs? No. (Possibly not even 50%.) Will it be
> > useful anyway? IMHO, yes. While we should definitely get Bryan's input
> > and attempt to accomodate it as much as practicable, lets please not
>
On 7/21/05, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know who the best people to talk to about this are, but it would
> be great to have a membership drive for the foundation in September or
> October.
Not to be a pain in the ass, Dave, but...
Given that the membership is charged with maki
On 7/24/05, David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Luis Villa wrote:
> > Given that the membership is charged with making important decisions
> > about the direction of the foundation and the stewardship of the
> > foundation's resource
On 7/24/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me be clear- I'm not *against* increased membership, per se; in
> particular being more representative is probably worthwhile. But I'd
> much prefer to (1) work on increasing the size of the community[2] and
On 7/29/05, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Luis Villa a écrit :
> > The titular membership is only a proxy
> > for the actual, important membership, since we need one for voting for
> > the board. I've yet to see any other useful reason
On 8/9/05, Owen Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 09:17 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 17:14 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > > Budget information is trickling out, and we're engaging in concrete
> > > > plans to do things
On 8/12/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think people will have to tell us what they think needs explaining.
Another one is travel and trade show budgets- I know we sent Tim to
LWE SF in 2004, for example- is that money under conference/trade
shows? travel? This is un
[For informative purposes of the foundation, I figured I'd answer
these as best as possible for the previous three years.][This would
all have been easier had the data been presented as a .gnumeric file
instead of pdf :)
On 8/12/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * what per
On 8/12/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/12/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think people will have to tell us what they think needs explaining.
One other question: how did we do at the end of the year, compared to
our predicted budget
On 8/18/05, Tim Ney, GNOME Foundation <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 11:14 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
>
> > Another one is travel and trade show budgets- I know we sent Tim to
> > LWE SF in 2004, for example- is that money under conference/trade
&g
Hi, Tim-
Thanks for the feedback.
On 8/18/05, Tim Ney, GNOME Foundation <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 16:03 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
>
> > in 2004, Ad Board was a little under a fifth of our revenues; down
> > from a little under half in 2003 and 2
On 9/5/05, David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would like to propose changing the name of GUADEC. There are many
> reasons to do this, here are 5:
>
> 1. There is no link to GNOME in the name, or to being a conference
In both the current name and the proposed name, you have a G, that's
On 9/8/05, Tim Ney, GNOME Foundation <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 09:34 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
>
> > a large portion of the attendees were either completely uninterested
> > in the first two days, or completely uninterested in the 3rd.
>
> The evaluation forms submitted st
On 9/8/05, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Tim Ney, GNOME Foundation a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 16:05 +0200, Quim Gil wrote:
> >>For some the GUADEC is an opportunity to meet, for others is a way to
> >>get new contributors, for others is a way to get some money for the
While I'm flaming away elsewhere, I thought it might be constructive
to write down some of the thinking that has led me to the conclusions
that we are drifting very badly with GUADEC right now. A simplistic
SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis might
let me get some of this
On 9/7/05, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Besides these obvious flaws, I'd really hate to see fundamental
> > tinkering with things like this while we still don't have a basic idea
> > of what the heck GUADEC is and who it is meant to be for.
> > I think the GUADEC planners need to co
Hey, all-
I'm going from 'affiliated with my couch' to taking a technical
lead/consulting/occasional admin position at the Berkman Center for
Internet And Society at Harvard Law School.[1] The position won't
leave me much time for GNOME stuff, but at least enough to continue
fulfilling my duties
On 9/12/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey, all-
>
> I'm going from 'affiliated with my couch' to taking a technical
> lead/consulting/occasional admin position at the Berkman Center for
> Internet And Society at Harvard Law School.[1] The pos
On 9/14/05, Daniel Veillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:01:38PM +0200, David Neary wrote:
> > I'm in favour of reducing the board to 7 people. I would like to see us
> > have a referendum on the issue next month.
> >
> > The board has huge problems being pro-active. Any
On 9/15/05, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It sounds like increasing the size of the board by 3 people could
> achieve both of the goals that Dave was talking about: to get more
> things done, and to have more contested seats **(provided enough people
> decide to run so as to make
On 9/14/05, Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Let's be very clear- we have a conference for hackers that interests
> > several hundred people, and we have a separate conference for business
> > and government that interests dozens, and there is very little overlap
> > between those two gro
On 9/13/05, Tim Ney, GNOME Foundation <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Weaknesses: (no particular order)
> > * reduced spending this year on 'core' expense of getting contributors
> > to the conference
>
> Some GUADEC costs associated with Stuttgart were lower than
> Kristiansand, but not because th
On 9/29/05, Mark McLoughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [1] - Yes, its not entirely accurate. Some people on the hypothetical
> board-of-seven may not have run for election at all if the board size
> was smaller.
You know that's inaccurate, Mark. Everyone who has good friends on the
board knows t
Do we need an affiliations page listing our various foundation-level
affiliations? Obviously we talk about our sponsors (and call FSF and
debian sponsors when they aren't really quite), but we have other
affiliations ( http://www.oss-institute.org/ for example), and it
seems like it would be good t
On 10/20/05, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, October 20, 2005 16:08, Luis Villa wrote:
> > Do we need an affiliations page listing our various foundation-level
> > affiliations? Obviously we talk about our sponsors (and call FSF and
> > debian spons
On 10/26/05, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that they don't have enough chances because a lof of members
> vote during elections as if it were a popularity contest. And they
> probably do this because they don't see what actions the board is
> doing or should do, and who would be
On 10/26/05, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 3. Are there any other changes, rather than reducing the number of elected
> > board members, that would address some of the problems Neary is raising?
>
> The alternative that I support is a more structured decision making process,
> with a st
On 11/4/05, Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm thinking of running for election and I have only one doubt about
> affiliation.
>
> I'm a full time member of a micro cooperative company (5 partners as
> average). We develop work in various projects relating to free software.
> Should I state
Hadn't realized this was available on the web. Thanks for passing it
along, Dave.
Luis
On 11/8/05, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/index.html
>
> Karl Fogel wrote a book on producing free and open source software,
> which discusses everything fr
Luis Villa
Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard Law School
It should be noted that I maintain some organizational ties to Fedora
and SUSE (neither paid), and am an Ubuntu user, so maybe I should
count 1/3rd for affiliations for each of those ;)
Why I want to be on the board:
Because
On 11/16/05, Andreas J. Guelzow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-16-11 at 13:14 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> >
> > Quim Gil wrote:
> > > Gosh, we are not the EU Parliament or the US Congress. Neither have we
> > > 28 candidates to choose from. If we keep kicking off candidates for
> > > proc
On 11/17/05, Dominic Lachowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> > I count 12: Jeff, Federico, Behdad, German, Christian, Vincent, Luis,
> > Jonathan, Bastien, Anne, Quim, Dave (me)
>
> Only 8 have sent any mail to foundation-announce, which is required by
> the election's rules. So Jeff's,
Candidacy Questions
[My apologies for answering these so late; I've been on vacation and
away from email since they were posted.]
> 1) Why are you running for Board of Directors?
Because I care very deeply about the future of GNOME and the future of
Free Software (which I feel are fairly intimat
On 12/11/05, Žygimantas Beručka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sk, 2005 12 11 22:48 +0200, Baris Cicek rašė:
>
> > Luis Villa (119 votes) - Harvard Law School
> > Jeff Waugh (115 votes) - Canonical Ltd
> > Federico Mena-Quintero (106 votes) - Novell, Inc.
>
On 12/12/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/11/05, Žygimantas Beručka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sk, 2005 12 11 22:48 +0200, Baris Cicek rašė:
> >
> > > Luis Villa (119 votes) - Harvard Law School
> > > Jeff Waugh (115 votes) -
On 12/17/05, Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> About Ray's package and Luis Villa's post:
> http://tieguy.org/blog/index.cgi/524
>
> I think the Foundation needs official logos owned by the Foundation to
> be used by the official GNOME projects in order to give consistancy to
> the GNOME brand.
On 12/17/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IANAL (yet), but... under US trademark law (and most European
> trademark law, as I understand it) basically all users of the mark
> must ask us for permission before use. We cannot adopt a permission
> scheme which allows a
nd distros could vote
> with their, uh, well you know what I mean...
I believe I suggested this in my paper, though I forgot about it this
morning. I believe Debian is not substantially pleased with this
approach ATM, though I forget why- any debianites care to
elaborate/correct me?
Luis
> Lui
On 12/17/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/17/05, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Luis:
> >
> > IMO there may be yet another option, i.e. the 'Debian' route, where we
> > have one logo package (the default?) that&#
On 12/17/05, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sad, 2005-12-17 at 11:32 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> > IANAL (yet), but... under US trademark law (and most European
> > trademark law, as I understand it) basically all users of the mark
> > must ask us for permi
On 12/17/05, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-12-17 at 18:30 +, Alan Cox wrote:
> [snip]
> > Having a logo for a program which is a
> > "gnome program" and for "gnome developer" ought to be doable given the
> > right definition, and "foundation member" is definitely one
On 2/24/06, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le mercredi 22 février 2006 à 12:12 +0100, Rodrigo Moya a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 14:24 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> > > Axis Informática
> > >
> > >
> > > * We are fine with giving them permission to sell pr
On 2/27/06, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 13:48, Dave Neary wrote:
> ...
> > I think it'd be a good idea to get a proper legal opinion on defending our
> > marks, and setting up our trademark policy to be as liberal as possible
> > without
> > losing them.
>
> I a
On 4/17/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> > * Luis to help marketing-list prepare a press release for the
> > GNOME/W3C SVG anouncement (NOT DONE)
>
> Not sure if I should just wait for the press release, but what's this?
Heh.
On 5/15/06, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Selon Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sul, 2006-05-14 at 19:52 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
> > Since lawyers talk .doc, and use revision control to track changes to the
> > documents, that's what we ge too.
>
> Disappointing. I hope the foundatio
On 5/16/06, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + Portland project
>- general feeling of nearly everyone was that it's sad that GNOME is
> not involved in this effort
>- would be nice to get someone to at least look at the project and
> provide feedback
>- Waldo and s
I would hate to see us resort to written, legalistic rules (which
encourage gaming and letter-of-law over spirit-of-law) when a strong
culture should suffice, particularly at our size. What it feels like
such a thing advertises is 'we're so weak we need rules where common
sense and politeness shou
On 6/1/06, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anne wrote:
[snip]
> I do not say this to start a new long debat in this tread. But it has
> become obvious that the 1% participation of women in FLOSS is
> embarrassing and we need to have a look at why this is the case and make
> some cultura
On 6/1/06, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Luis Villa wrote:
> Such a plan should be written by someone who has actually been
> involved in IRC, our mailing lists, bugzilla, etc., *as a developer*-
> which, sorry, isn't Anne. It will not work if it is not driv
On 6/1/06, Anne Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
tor, 01 06 2006 kl. 09:05 -0400, skrev Luis Villa:
> On 6/1/06, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Luis Villa wrote:
> > > Such a plan should be written by someone
On 6/1/06, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/1/06, Anne Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> tor, 01 06 2006 kl. 09:05 -0400, skrev Luis Villa:
> > On 6/1/06, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> >
On 6/1/06, Telsa Gwynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ar Tue, May 30, 2006 at 01:04:43PM +0200, ysgrifennodd Murray Cumming:
> I don't think we need a whole organisation to police it. At the least, it
> should just be how we expect people to behave on mailing lists and IRC and
> it could be up to th
On 6/2/06, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We're all sorry to see Luis leave the
board, but I have a feeling that this means we'll be hearing even more
from him in the future. I'd like to wish him all the best in his budding
legal career.
Should have announced that here first, of course
On 8/2/06, Elijah Newren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/2/06, Andreas J. Guelzow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 20:11 +0200, Anne Østergaard wrote:
> > > I think that we have most people with us now
> >
> > How do you know?
>
> She said 'think'. (Personally, I do agree wit
On 11/28/06, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > I also want to throw in a strong endorsement for Joachim.
>
> I'm a little concerned -- based on Joachim's answers and commments on this
> list -- that there would be some difficult philosophical gaps for the Board
> to bridge (or worse, t
While I can't speak directly to the code involved, I want to say that
I'm excited by Ben's involvement- I worked with him when I was at
Harvard and he is a great guy, doing very interesting thinking. We're
lucky to have him involved, and with luck, I look forward to voting
with Helios in the next e
On 3/23/07, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 15:14 +0200, Baris Cicek wrote:
> > I'll talk w/ our local GUG about if we can organize to host GUADEC next
> > year in Istanbul.
>
> Please, yes.
Please, no. Not until I can come. Istanbul 2010! ;)
Luis (seriously, Ist
On 3/24/07, Baris Cicek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 07:04 -0700, Elliot Lee wrote:
> > Baris Cicek wrote:
> >
> > > I'll talk w/ our local GUG about if we can organize to host GUADEC next
> > > year in Istanbul.
> >
> > Not Constantinople?
> It was called Constantinople ages
On 6/10/07, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) ECMA
>
>We have the opportunity of joining ECMA as a non-profit
>member. Jody has expressed an interest in being a representative
>for GNOME, and suggested it would also be good to get someone
>there from Abiword.
>
>ACTIO
On 6/10/07, Jody Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 08:18:54PM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> > On 6/10/07, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 1) ECMA
> > >
> > >We have the opportunity of joining ECMA as a n
On 8/3/07, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Thomas Wood wrote:
> > During discussions about copyright at GUADEC several people mentioned
> > that developers were not encouraged to assign copyright to the GNOME
> > Foundation.
>
> >From my point of view, "not encouraged" isn'
On 8/3/07, Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 21:48 +0200, Juan José Sánchez Penas wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 01:40:39PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > > ownership. When multiple companies (Red Hat, Novell, Sun, ...) own
> > > copyright on a package, it's
On 8/6/07, Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kjartan Maraas wrote:
> > Is there a rule of thumb as to how much code is contributed before this
> > applies? I've always assumed that writing new code gives you the right
> > to add yourself, but fixing bugs in existing code is a different
On 9/12/07, Tristan Van Berkom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > That way you get democracy at both ends - posting and viewing.
> >
> > GNOME is not democratic. :-)
>
> Well, gnome is people that have a choice to contribute or not - making
> those people (i.e. you me and everyone else) feel accepted
On 10/16/07, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm certainly not against moving to STV, but that would need software,
> and considerable retraining for members not familiar with the system.
http://selectricity.org/
open + easy.
___
foundation-lis
On 6/10/07, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/10/07, Jody Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 08:18:54PM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > On 6/10/07, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > 1) ECMA
>
On 10/29/07, Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Right. I should be blamed f
On 10/30/07, Jody Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
On 10/30/07, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I look forward to further aggravated public shaming of past incompetencies,
> > especially ones so obvious in hindsight, as it always improves motivation
>
> So you can do PR some of the time then Jeff
>
> "aggravated public shaming of past incom
On 10/31/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > 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 necessa
On 10/31/07, Andy Tai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not quiet... you don't join ECMA TC45 to prevent OOXML from becoming a
> standard.
OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not.
To pretend otherwise is to deny that the sun will rise in the East
tomorrow.
So our options ca
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
