Re: Moving foundation-list to discourse?
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 01:06:05PM -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > Sounds good to me. As the person who pushed engagement team to move > over, I'm fully behind moving everything to discourse! Was there a discussion about this at GUADEC? As it's been a while and nobody seems to object I think everything is ok with moving to Discourse. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Moving foundation-list to discourse?
Hi all, it has been around half a year since GNOME started to host a Discourse[0] instance, which was generally well received. Listadmin wise (I'm NOT the admin here!), mailman is not really nice to use. If something ends up in the moderation queue it'll take quite a bit of effort for a moderator to look at it. Discourse is free software (including the Javascript) and the dependencies are also free software. You can sign up in various ways. First of all there's regular email+password. It also allows single-sign on systems, like Google and Github, to authenticate yourself. Lastly (and preferred way) if you have a GNOME LDAP account already, you're strongly encouraged to use that method of authentication. You can still use email to interact with Discourse, and a guide is available[2]. The interaction is both ways (sending and receiving). It's even possible to make Discourse behave like an mailing list. For specific questions or feedback on Discourse, please post in the appropriate category[3]. Do people agree to move this to Discourse? Does anyone have objections or concerns? I didn't check with the current list admins btw. [0]: https://discourse.gnome.org [1]: https://discourse.gnome.org/t/interacting-with-discourse-via-email/46 [2]: https://discourse.gnome.org/c/site-feedback -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 04:40:29PM +0200, Benjamin Berg wrote: > Codes of Conduct (CoC) and especially the policies surrounding them are > a very political issue (which easily becomes emotional). Unfortunately, I reviewed the latest CoC proposal. My feedback is below. https://wiki.gnome.org/Diversity/CoCWorkingGroup/DraftEventsCoC/DraftPhotographyPolicy In summary: please choose if you want pictures to be taken or not. At the moment the rules are written in a strange way. E.g. half of them assume that by default picture taking is ok (need a badge to show you don't want your picture to be taken). But there's also rules where everyone's permission needs to be asked. So why the badge? I think this policy needs to be much clearer. Currently most people are fine with their pictures being taken. I'd suggest to make it easy to see which ones don't want their pictures to be taken and keep the bits where it's not complying with this preference means you're out of the conference/ hackfest/ similar. I am well aware that we have attendees which do not want their picture to be taken plus do not want to have everyone know this. | Guidelines for attendees | | If you don't want to have your picture taken, please make this known to | event organizers before or near the beginning of the event. During some | events, you will be issued a special badge to indicate that your picture | should not be taken. There may be a photo-free zone where you can sit | during talks - feel free to ask event organizers about this. This implies that most people are fine with their picture being taken. It also implies that some people might not be. | Photographers should ask your permission either before or after taking | your picture. If most people are fine with having their picture taken, why should permission be asked? I think this is too much of a burden (asking and being asked) and not practical. | If this doesn't happen, you should feel free to ask them | to stop or to delete any pictures they have taken. If you don't feel | comfortable doing this, just ask an event organizer and they will assist | you. The bit about being entirely comfortable and it being ok to ask for deletion of a picture seems reasonable. | There are some cases where all attendees should expect to have their | picture taken. This includes if you participate in a group photograph, | or if you give a talk. This seems odd, either permission should be asked or it shouldn't be. I think it's too much of a burden. But if you want permission to be asked then it should be asked _every_single_time_. The exceptions are basically the ones which are difficult for the organizers of an event. However, it's also a heavy burden for all participants taking pictures. It seems way easier to assume that by default picture taking is ok while at the same time it's mandatory to adhere that some people do NOT want their pictures to be taken. Much easier! | Guidelines for photographers I use my phone for taking pictures and I'm an attendee, not a photographer I think. | If you are taking photographs at a GNOME event, make yourself available | to those you are taking pictures of. Ensure that you get permission from I don't understand what's meant with 'make yourself available'. I could imagine that after a picture I need to hang around for 5 minutes or something? Usually people don't notice that I take their pictures. The best pictures are when people are not noticing their picture being taken. | your subjects either before or after you have taken their picture. That's not practical and I'm going to break that rule. I've been to Germany last weekend and observed (at least in Cologne) that most people actually wait for a traffic light. It's not practical nor reasonable request to ask a hundred times/day if you can take someones picture. Especially if you take a lot of pictures it'll be impossible. If someone would actually follow these rules it's a huge burden. Imagine coding where for every line someone interrupts you with a question. You'll not be able to concentrate nor get anything done. While taking pictures it's unreasonable to do a lot of red tape just for the sake of it (IMO). Another practical bit: I've taken pictures of a big group. E.g. in Manchester where people were sitting on the stairs. You cannot really make anyone out or anything. According to this rule I'd need to spend time to track them around and ask permission? It seems impractical. Same for e.g. the 20 year party even, I have various pictures with around 50 people on there. | Permission from parents or guardians should be requested for all minors. Is the "should be" like an RFC? Meaning I can just ignore it? If so, why even have it in there? | If someone asks you not to take their picture, don't. If someone asks | you to delete or unpublish a picture you have taken of them, politely | comply. This seems great. | Don't harass people by repeatedly taking their picture without |
Re: Code of Conduct Adoption Process
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 08:29:50PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > We should judge proposals based on what they say and their effects, > not based on personalities. FYI: Those messages were moderated (IIRC Lefty is), there's nobody really actively looking at moderated emails (various reasons). Once something is in a moderation queue please ensure that your comment/remark is worthy to be let through. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Memberships needing renewal (2016-8)
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:59:14PM +, GNOME Foundation Membership Committee wrote: > Olav Vitters, 2014-08-05 Didn't notice any earlier email, but did get one around this time. Sent a request. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Builder] Developer experience (DX) hackfest 2016
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:03:55AM -0300, Hugo Alejandro wrote: > http://rtcquickstart.org/ > > Daniel Pocock Daniel has always offered their help in creating and improving > communications through opensource protocols. That's pretty far off from what we're looking for. Above describes how to setup an extensive infrastructure to do pretty much everything related to communications. That such an extensive document is called "quickstart" gives me the shivers! Is there an existing (hosted) solution alternative to hangouts? Pretty much as simple as: "go to this URL"? -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: I'm entirely in favor of an improved code of conduct, both for events and in general. And thank you for raising this issue. Some searching turned up https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct , but that's definitely insufficient. (It's a nice set of sentiments, but not a functional code of conduct.) By contrast, the GUADEC 2014 code of conduct you linked to sets the higher standard I would expect, and that I've come to expect from other conferences as well. I'm in favor of improving the general code of conduct to the same standard. Why and how is it definitely insufficient? I quite like the Code of Conduct and I've signed it. By contrast, the 2014 GUADEC one is a very long statement specifically about a conference, not about a community. I don't see how the board has _any_ influence on the GNOME community. This while the conference one assumes you're attending a conference and that someone can expel you, can possibility contact law enforcement, etc. I don't follow why I'd sign something can cause legal issues for me if I could do without that. I think in the question the GNOME community vs foundation members are mixed up. Those are not the same thing. I'm a bit surprised that people see a Code of Conduct as something new. See e.g. https://mail.gnome.org/; we already expect people to follow the Code of Conduct. And before someone misunderstands, I have enforced the Code of Conduct, I've signed the existing one and agree to the thoughts behind both. This maybe my annoyance with volunteering and then getting too much do this or else.. that takes the fun out of it. I prefer assume people mean well. For lurkers: https://2014.guadec.org/conduct/ https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GUADEC 2015 when?
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 04:55:07PM +, Ekaterina Gerasimova wrote: On 23/01/2015, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 06:14:16PM +0100, Andreas Nilsson wrote: We've been planning to run the conference between August 7-9, with a flexible hackfest schedule after that. That might changedepending on the final venue, but hopefully it helps with planning! Thanks for the update! I cannot take vacation after 9 August, so hopefully no delays. Ideally one week earlier, but alas. In case you haven't heard, the dates are 7-9th August for the conference, with hackfests most likely afterwards. Thanks and noticed! I took 7th off :-D Seems airplane ticket is 215 EUR atm (AMS-GOT) and hotels aren't the cheapest. Bit unfortunate though not surprising. Wondering about airbnb. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:44:19PM +, Magdalen Berns wrote: This is something I believe could happen if an amendment were to be proposed with compelling evidence to support it so we are able to take an informed vote on it. At the moment the issue is that a decision which overrides the bylaws has already been made in the establishment of this policy, which means members are put in a position where we have to defend the bylaws but that the policy decision somehow doesn't seem to have to be defended with compelling evidence - which is the wrong way round. I believe the bylaws are followed. As such, I don't think any amendment is needed. Further, it seems though there should be improvement, it is quite clear. Andrea showed the bit where bylaws state that actual discretion is for membership committee. For various things the foundation delegates responsibility to the various teams. These teams have then additional rules in place. That these are in the bylaws or not is not IMO unimportant. I think the rules per team (delegated area) should be clear. IMO if there's a valid concern then it really doesn't matter to spend so much time on if they're allowed or not. Therein lies the core difference in how we perceive this: I believe the concern may be valid enough to investigate, but I do not believe the problem has been quantified and therefore I do not believe the argument for this policy is substantiated and hence I do not believe it is a waste of time to spend so much time on if they're allowed to act on the assumptions that have been made about it. Moreover, we have no idea whether this approach is actually causing more harm than good. It could actually be making more interns unwelcome and unappreciated and deterring them from continuing to contribute to the project. We are generally acting on an awful lot of assumptions by taking action to address a perceived problem which we really haven't analysed concrete data for. The problem was highlighted many years ago on various occasions: Mentors spend a lot of time, to only have the person vanish after the period. This partly due to wrong perception. You're not going to have 100% of the people stay. IMO 1 in 5 is more realistic. I guess we should track these people. I forgot when GNOME started participating in GSoC. Wikipedia shows this started in 2005. The discussions around this are nothing new. In another message regarding this I noticed people are mostly talking about the outreach program. I know little about that. I'm mostly talking about GSoC. I have noticed way more people whose names I don't recognize at all, but doing cool things. Unfortunately no clue where they're from. Those following, might have noticed that this was done in the opening part of the discussion and it seemed to be generally agreed that some interns do make non-trivial contributions. At least, nobody seems to have disagreed with that idea, anyway. Most interns seem to vanish quite quickly after their internship is over. Maybe not true at all anymore, there are a few exceptions, but that has been a topic of discussion for various years. The question is not just about whether they most of them vanish, although I agree that's clearly part of it. We need to be able to compare their behaviour to other kinds of contributors statistically, accounting for all our sources of error, before we can begin to make any assumptions or predictions about this model. Let's see the raw data and analyse it first. For the various programs out there (I mostly followed GSoC) people not staying with GNOME is IMO something was clearly a problem. If it still is, no clue. Doing investigations, cool. But IMO there was enough concern regarding this. Anyway, this is too much theoretical talk so I'm going to switch to a proposal instead. Getting more concrete: I think in the guidelines for applying, there should be a mention that membership committee has seen that interns (GSoC, etc) often leave so it is highly preferred that the intern waits two months before applying. At the same time, it should clearly state that 1) the participation was already enough 2) it is not encouraged, but they can apply anyway. Above makes it clear that it is something soft. At the same time, you cannot guarantee that their membership would be accepted, but IMO it should state that it is highly likely it will. IMO this addresses all concerns: amount of participation needed, ability to become a member immediately for those who feel very strongly, avoiding impression of not being welcome, plus handling concern if people stay or not. There's still maybe that there is no concern at all anymore. I think that takes more time to figure out. If the people who have a concern here see my proposal as acceptable, we can get membership committee to agree, etc (one step at a time). -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list
Re: foundation application..
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 06:30:51PM +, Magdalen Berns wrote: If you have a concrete reason why it does help to continue to ignore bylaws that are inconvenient for whatever is more convenient, then you are free to make a case for that. California law probably would probably override that idea, though. I tried to nicest way to let you see a different point of view, taking into account the previous failure to have any discussion with you. It seems you're not open in understanding what I mean. This is not a complicated process, it is fairly clear and transparent (especially when compared with the alternative). What is the problem with using It? Yeah, just focus on whatever the bylaws might or not might take. Did you read my email? Did you make any effort to grasp what I'm trying to say? Your questions indicate you did not. The effort I made was to I ask what you were on about and that is still not very clear. I'll try in a different way: - there's apparently a different criteria being applied - you seem to focus on what the bylaws state This IMO skips an important part of trying to figure out why a different criteria is being applied. For instance, you mention that according to the bylaws it is not allowed to make a distinction. Further, it is not allowed by some court. I don't think you're right in asserting that. I might totally agree with you that having the distinction is wrong, but regarding this point I don't see it the same way. Especially regarding assumptions on what a judge would rule and so on. There's more to it than just bylaws. IMO you have too much of a programmers view on this. Could even be that standard practice trumps bylaws. IMO it is better to first focus on *why* a different criteria is applied and then figure out what to do, rather than ignoring the why and going for *if* they can do that. IMO if there's a valid concern then it really doesn't matter to spend so much time on if they're allowed or not. Those following, might have noticed that this was done in the opening part of the discussion and it seemed to be generally agreed that some interns do make non-trivial contributions. At least, nobody seems to have disagreed with that idea, anyway. Most interns seem to vanish quite quickly after their internship is over. Maybe not true at all anymore, there are a few exceptions, but that has been a topic of discussion for various years. I think more concretely specifying what membership committee expects is helpful. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:52:32PM +, Magdalen Berns wrote: If you have a concrete reason why it does help to continue to ignore bylaws that are inconvenient for whatever is more convenient, then you are free to make a case for that. California law probably would probably override that idea, though. I tried to nicest way to let you see a different point of view, taking into account the previous failure to have any discussion with you. It seems you're not open in understanding what I mean. This is not a complicated process, it is fairly clear and transparent (especially when compared with the alternative). What is the problem with using It? Yeah, just focus on whatever the bylaws might or not might take. Did you read my email? Did you make any effort to grasp what I'm trying to say? Your questions indicate you did not. Various people have stayed after GSoC (+ anything similar). On other hand: some you don't hear about at all once they leave. For some internship, the person has a mentor assigned to them. That eases the stickyness vs someone who sends patches on his own. I'd wonder about why someone applies, is it real interest in GNOME and free software, or just good for resume and finding work? As Meg seems to have pointed out already in her question, the same could be said for any sponsored contributor. The bylaws are explicit in not discriminating against sponsored/paid contributors compared with any other kind of contributor. There is a concrete process for anyone who disagrees with bylaws to suggest an amendment to them. I've asked you to consider chasing the meaning of bylaws. Non-trivial effort is open to interpretation. For foundation membership (IIRC) to have to specify a few people to vouch for you. I have never been a mentor. I'm wonder if the mentor could guess if the person would stay or not. I think detailing the expectations would help a lot. At the moment we are talking about whether it is justifiable to tell all successful interns that they are not eligible for membership not how the membership committee make their decisions. The bylaws give the membership committee the overriding decision but says all applications are to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The way you're holding discussions on foundation-list, you think you're doing the best for those members. That's great, but having some slight respect for comments from people who have been around for quite a while would be appreciated. -- Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:20:21AM +, Magdalen Berns wrote: It doesn't make a difference. The bylaws are the rules which regulate the GNOME Foundation. GNOME's bylaws state the rules on membership eligibility by defining what a contributor is and who is illegible for membership (i.e. IMO: It almost feels like GNOME is paying someone to become a member of the foundation. Arguing a lot about what the current rules state will not help with the concerns people have raised. Let's focus on why there's any difference, see if can reach a conclusion on that. Because the rules state so leads IMO to too much nitpicking on the rules, instead of focussing on the concerns. Various people have stayed after GSoC (+ anything similar). On other hand: some you don't hear about at all once they leave. For some internship, the person has a mentor assigned to them. That eases the stickyness vs someone who sends patches on his own. I'd wonder about why someone applies, is it real interest in GNOME and free software, or just good for resume and finding work? For foundation membership (IIRC) to have to specify a few people to vouch for you. I have never been a mentor. I'm wonder if the mentor could guess if the person would stay or not. I think detailing the expectations would help a lot. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: OUTAGE: bugzilla.gnome.org, 09th February (09:00 CET) - 10th February (22:00 CET)
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 09:58:49AM +0100, Alexandre Franke wrote: As I already told Sri on IRC yesterday, if anything is wrong with our current bugzilla, you should start by filing bugs. Then we can start looking for solutions and someone to implement them. Otherwise we can't guess what you guys think the problem is. As well: This is almost the default Bugzilla UI, and yeah, it is that terrible by default. Read http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/2015/02/10/gnome-bugzilla-upgraded-to-4-4/ for the list of things. Loads of overlapping functionality. We've been using Bugzilla for so long while the UI has not improved much, nor the way that it works (just received more options or made it less easy to remove the unneeded functionality). Andre raised it various times, but they're not really getting it. Just to classify bugs into various lists you have: Classifications, Products, Components, Hardware, OS, Keywords, Tags, Flags, Target Milestone. That's wayyy too many. During FOSDEM a Mozilla Bugzilla hacker reached out to see if assistance was needed. We didn't contact yet, but maybe this is better. BTW: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ is a heavily customized Bugzilla. Upstream Bugzilla should just work by default IMO. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 05:01:42PM -0800, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: Yes, I've had other anecdotes where people relate the same thing. As I said, I'm intimidated too when go through it. Maybe if there are interested people we could work on it together? I sometimes just hand out bugzilla permissions and/or tell people to get git accounts without them asking for it. Often difficult to judge until you have the experience. I try to watch out for beginners + try to make it easier to join. E.g. a while ago Bugzilla permissions changed so that any developer can hand out editbugs+canconfirm. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
GNOME support for fixmydocument.eu
There's a website to encourage support for open standards, so ODF usage within European Union. On http://fixmydocuments.eu/?page_id=27 I see LibreOffice supporting this. KDE is also mentioned. It would be nice if we were listed as well I think. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GUADEC 2015 when?
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 06:14:16PM +0100, Andreas Nilsson wrote: We've been planning to run the conference between August 7-9, with a flexible hackfest schedule after that. That might changedepending on the final venue, but hopefully it helps with planning! Thanks for the update! I cannot take vacation after 9 August, so hopefully no delays. Ideally one week earlier, but alas. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
GUADEC 2015 when?
Hi, Any idea on when GUADEC 2015 will be? I need to coordinate my vacation with colleagues and those colleagues aren't as flexible as me. Thanks. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 10:28:02PM +, Magdalen Berns wrote: The point about that really is that the recent campaign seems to have demonstrated that in principle, GNOME already has the infrastructure which could allow them to accept money for any given crowdfunding campaign on behalf of community driven projects (and any general fundraising too, of course). Assuming that this infrastructure is based on free software and that it comes without the same kinds of fees as all the crowdfunding sites do. It might be possible to create something like this, but at the moment GNOME doesn't have the same setup. The same set up as what? Something similar to IndieGoGo. AFAIK there's a difference between accepting money yourself and an organization on your behalf. It might not be as easy as it appears. Tax wise it is a different form of expense. Whoever the treasurer is would have to clarify. With that said it seems that the treasurer for a charity of this size would have to be used to managing large sums of money from donations as well as paying salaries, freelancers and expenses as they already have to fill in tax forms every year. I don't want to be harsh, but there's a known working solution vs something that probably will work. Instead of talking about what should not be done, I'd prefer if we encourage something to be done. I will assume you are not talking to me here, since that is exactly what I am doing already. I mean that instead of having a list of: - don't link to Facebook - don't link to Google+ - don't use IndieGoGo - don't link to Twitter I rather see how people can improve on spreading the idea and usage of free software. It seems FSF is too much about first restricting ourselves to a group who pretty much only uses free software. Seems too much preaching to the choir. In this case there wasn't anything available, a decision was taken that is not ideal, but best at that time. If you look at e.g. GNOME applications, loads of new applications have been written over the years. The number of commits and authors have stayed relatively the same. Looking at that per application the maintenance is decreasing. Builder is just one item to attract people to work on free software. I think too much burden is put on this. The person wanting to make Builder should also figure out a free software version to raise funds. I rather go for an imperfect solution, acknowledge that, put that on a list of things to solve and move on. Then this list of things to solve might read: - convince Google+ to use free software license in their javascript - convince IndieGoGo to use free software license in their javascript - create an alternative to IndieGoGo just for GNOME - create an alternative to IndieGoGo for everyone Above list can be worked upon by multiple people and maybe entire teams. I don't see how having a banner which endorses an campaign automatically leads to endorsing something else (the company making the campaign possible). Maybe sometimes, but at the moment we link to Facebook, Twitter and Google+ for IMO entirely logical and practical reasons. Social links are indeed, a tough call in a question like this. Off hand. twitter does not seem so terrible, but does GNOME actually gain anything from being on facebook to make it worth that, though? I don't think it is a tough call at all. I agree with the idea of free software. I don't like that turning into a list of things you cannot do. With free software I still have non-free software running on my machine. There's multiple ways to support and stand by the way of supporting free software. Regarding gaining anything: How would more people ever know about free software if the only people we reach out to is free software people? -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 02:47:00PM +, Magdalen Berns wrote: So the GNOME infrastructure can't figure that one out but Christian, an already overburdened volunteer who is trying to scape funds for his project, somehow can do it all by himself? That makes absolutely no sense. From your response it seems you haven't tried to understand anything I said. You come across as trying to give ridicule what I've stated. RMS has an issue with non-free javascript and usage of IndieGoGo for this campaign. In some of the responses you seem to actually agree, while thinking I mean something totally different. Good luck, I am out of this. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: OPW; Where does the 500$ for each GSoC goes?
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 01:17:04PM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote: On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:54:44PM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: I do believe GNOME Foundation should have a clear (and well documented) way for people raising their questions wrt how the GNOME Foundation's money is spent. I prefer stuff out in the open. So nothing wrong with foundation-list. There's also bo...@gnome.org. Starting off with private messages is IMO not the right approach. These things are quite sensible. You may be curious asking for info and end up being accused to accuse GNOME Foundation of corruption (what was exactly what happened to me). So, that's the reason I'd prefer direct contact with I had to read up on what happened. I think the misunderstanding would've happened anyway. In the theoretical case: if people prefer stuff to be private by default, then I'm ok with them being slightly uncomfortable ;-) the board (as you suggested then, by the mailing list) and then, once the person who asked for it has suggestions based on real data, contact the board (to make sure that the topic won't leak any personal details) and then, just after that, start the discussion here in the Foundation List. The people can tell you it is confidential and suggest to move to another form of communication. Starts out in the open, then moves elsewhere. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Groupon @ Phoronix
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTc1MjI | Hopefully the GNOME Foundation and others will be able to extrude | their forces in clearing up this odd and unfortunate situation. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Current state of Foundation finances
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 12:32:12AM +0100, Ekaterina Gerasimova wrote: The board expects that you may have some questions or would like to know more details about the problem, please read https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/CurrentBudgetFAQ and contact the board at board-l...@gnome.org if you have any further questions. Could you slightly change this and clarify what cash flow means? It seems a lot of people are reading this and assuming that we ran out of money due to spending all our money on OPW. While in practice, it is just the financial boring bit that the money on the bank account is lower because the money hasn't been coming in as quickly as handing it out. But that'll resolve once we focus upon it. Or in brief: we are not the best with sticking with financial followup. I think changing the wording would help a lot in changing the impression that we spent too much money. A lot of people don't know about cash flow, etc. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Hello from a new member
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:29:26PM +0002, Yosef Or Boczko wrote: Thank you for accepting me as a member. Welcome! -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Happy to be a member of the gnome foundation
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 10:14:23PM +0100, Mario Wenzel wrote: as a new member of the foundation you are, so says the welcome-email, highly encouraged to write to this mailing list in order to introduce yourself. Welcome! Very nice that you're helping out. Also nice to see that gnome-shell inspired you. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mass Reboot: Wednesday 18th, 09:00 - 10:30 AM GMT+2
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:56:21PM +0200, Andrea Veri wrote: Everything went fine, all the systems were updated and rebooted successfully. Thanks for the amount of effort you put in. Even more so because I've been slacking for quite a while. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 05:08:06PM +0200, Mathieu Stumpf wrote: Le 2013-08-18 23:13, Olav Vitters a écrit : On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 01:14:47PM -0400, Super Bisquit wrote: Since when did you become a Dr without having an actual doctorate- honorary ones don't mean shit? Since when is such behaviour socially acceptable? Anyway, you're banned from both lists, bye. Seriously, having harsh personal discourses is a pity, but escalading to bare censorship is a shame. Hiding symptom don't help to resolve problems. Freedom come with the ability to make mistakes, including saying non-constructive things. He's totally free to go personal with someone via private email. It is offtopic for this list, totally inappropriate and socially unacceptable. Suggest to read the descriptions for these mailing lists. Note that mailman is free software and anyone is also free to host their own mailing list. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 01:14:47PM -0400, Super Bisquit wrote: Since when did you become a Dr without having an actual doctorate- honorary ones don't mean shit? Since when is such behaviour socially acceptable? Anyway, you're banned from both lists, bye. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: jabber.gnome.org: a proposal
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 09:26:33AM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: to maintain the OpenFire Jabber server. First, as Olav mentioned, there's no SSL support for a service where you would expect privacy. There is SSL. Just that: 1) they broke it in a newer version and never fixed it in any reasonable timeframe (3 months) 2) getting the certificate installed was a complete mess. Had to convert the standard certificate in some terrible format and took a lot of effort to figure out. Current server does SSL IIRC. Though maybe by now it expired again. What I had to go through for SSL: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=592836#c8 Couldn't quickly see the bug about openfire messing up their SSL support. 'Fix' was easy though, downgrading. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: jabber.gnome.org: a proposal
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:03:33AM -0400, Shaun McCance wrote: I think it's clear from the recent thread that most people had no idea we had a Jabber server, or that they could get accounts on it, or how to go about doing so. That is because we do not have a nice accounts system. I don't expect that to change soon. Note that the service behind jabber.gnome.org is atrocious. We're not running the latest version because that version plainly does not work with SSL. Does not really inspire confidence in the software / release management. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: New mail archive script
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:11:28AM +0100, Andreas Nilsson wrote: On 2013-02-13 10:15, Olav Vitters wrote: In the new script I changed the layout. You can see it at: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-bugsquad/ though it'll be overwritten as soon as a new email is sent to that mailing list. This looks excellent! The new script is live as per yesterday. I've recreated all the main overview pages (the links like above). Furthermore, the script that creates https://mail.gnome.org/archives/ now shows the top 15 mailing list (on subscriber count) in bold. Additionally, the mail archive script does UTF-8 without needing LANG=en_US.UTF-8. I found some additional (existing) problems that I want to fix before re-archiving all our mailing lists. If people have issues with the current layout, please reply/file bugs (websites/mail.gnome.org or sysadmin/Mailman). -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: NFS OUTAGE: 15th Feb, 14:00 - 16:30 GMT+1
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 07:22:45PM +0100, Andrea Veri wrote: Everything went fine, please let me know if you notice anything strange either for /home/users directories and for /ftp on master.gnome.org. Fyi, this means yet another very old and unsupported machine has been replaced by the new hardware we actually already had. Not all the new hardware was always more stable than the stuff it replaced (talking about the database server drawable), but when stuff is supported we can just have new hardware sent to the NOC. Aside from that we actually ran out of disk space on ftp.gnome.org, so pretty timely replacement ☺ Current machines that are now ready to be killed: - container (obsoleted yesterday) - button (hardware died, old database machine) - menubar (previous mail machine) Still to go: - label (LDAP) - fixed (build machine, not a very old machine, but not under support IIRC) - window (used to host websites, now still has art.gnome.org and www-old.gnome.org (which CSS is used by various other sites still), people.gnome.org, project.gnome.org and anjuta.org) Also Andrea replaced 'signal.gnome.org' with something new. That's a VM that monitors our services, sponsored by OSU OSL. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
New mail archive script
[ Regarding the new mail.gnome.org ] On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 04:10:52PM +0100, Andrea Veri wrote: All the services should be up and running again. The migration took a bit more than we expected cause of a failing script. That was a Perl script which failed because of a missing module. It didn't print any error message. Instead it just used 100% and that took Andrea+Owen a long time to figure out (script has not changed since 2002 or so :). I've rewritten the script in Python. It is not live yet, but over the coming days I'll be testing it. This script handles the URLs below: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/$LISTNAME/ (so not https://mail.gnome.org/archives/, just every link beneath it) In the new script I changed the layout. You can see it at: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-bugsquad/ though it'll be overwritten as soon as a new email is sent to that mailing list. If you notice errors please file a bug at: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=sysadmin If you want to see the old+new script: http://git.gnome.org/browse/mhonarc/tree/ (archive.pl and archive.py) UTF-8 archive problem: Note: there is another problem in where the archives are not in UTF-8. That is due to upstart (RHEL6) not starting Postfix with LANG=en_US.UTF-8. Proper way to configure that is welcome. Note that postfix is just a sysvinit service in RHEL6, so the job configuration does not apply AFAIK. See https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=693433 if you have ideas. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Mail OUTAGE: 29 Jan, 21.00 - 23.00 GMT+1
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 08:33:55PM +0100, Andrea Veri wrote: I'm currently in the middle of migrating our mail server to a different host and I'll take care of updating the relevant details (MX Records etc.) tomorrow. Cool! Info for the rest: the current machine handling mail is really old and support contract has ended quite some time ago. We had a new VM for moving this over, but never made time to actually do so. Is good that we move stuff over before the hardware dies ;) -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Andrea Veri - GNOME's new part-time sysadmin hire!
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:29:10PM -0500, Karen Sandler wrote: In the spirit of the below email from last week, I'm extremely pleased to announce that the Foundation is hiring Andrea to work as our new sysadmin contractor. We've been without someone in this position since Christer stepped down last year, and Andrea has really been sensational as a volunteer and done a great deal of the work in the meantime. Yay! Too bad he won't be at FOSDEM! :-( -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 06:37:41PM -0500, Karen Sandler wrote: Moreover, it's probably more polite to make requests about changes to moderation policy off-list to the admins, I'm set as one of the listadmins for this mailing list. Suggest at minimum the following: * decide what is on topic and what is off topic for this list I assume GNU is ontopic, as long as the GNOME website says we are part of it. * contact the person off list, pointing towards previous discussion on what is ontopic and what is not * if this does not help, maybe contact Code of Conduct mediator * as last resort, contact a listadmin Personally, I heavily disagree with the way things are done in GNU (actions, not the ideas). Mostly due to the attitude which to me seems like an extreme version of us vs them. The 'Ubuntu' thing however was made clear that such behaviour is not acceptable which IMO is also good to make clear. But personal opinion aside, please first define if GNU matters should be ontopic or not. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Fwd: Re: Commit push do gnome-calculator
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:21:38PM -0200, Enrico Nicoletto wrote: I and my collegue Rafael Ferreira are facing problems in push the catalog pt_BR.po in Gnome Calculator´s module in Git. We, from the Brazilian Portuguese Translation Team, believe that this error is caused by a permission setting. Please, someone may help us ? There was a sysadmin bug filed and I fixed it on Dec 28. If not, reopen the bug or file a new one. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Bugzilla upgrade work
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:06:03AM -0800, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: Is there some way we could make these extensions and patches we can put in a puppet install? I realize the database portion is going to be the manual stuff, but it seems that it would be easier to be able to automate it. Of course, this is just my observation and I have not looked at the process. That is just deploying. The major problem is the changes to the code (doing development). What is minor is installing all the Bugzilla dependencies, this is already in Puppet. Not sure if the bzr setup is in Puppet, but that is minor effort. Feel free to help out with that, I think it'll need changes anyway as likely the current Puppet config is not right for Bugzilla 4.2/4.4. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Bugzilla upgrade work
If anyone wants to join, I'll work on Bugzilla during Dec 22 - Dec 30 together with Andrea. Recommended to know: - Bugzilla - GNOME Bugzilla (it is not standard :P) see https://launchpad.net/bugzilla.gnome.org for the code and instructions to see the diff vs vanilla 3.4) - Perl - read up on Bugzilla extensions - understand the various extensions I've written (http://bzr.mozilla.org/bugzilla/extensions/: Browse, DescribeUser, Developers, GNOME, PatchReport, ProductInterests, StockAnswers, WeeklyBugSummary) -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Bugzilla upgrade? [was: Re: GNOME Bugmail: Gmail threading finally working!]
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 06:33:17PM +0100, Andre Klapper wrote: On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 18:10 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: That is why there is a GNOME extension as well. Then there's likely missing documentation about dependencies. Currently no README file in the Browse extension would even tell you that it comes from GNOME. Hence non-insiders wouldn't know that the GNOME extension is needed. There were 3+ months between writing these extensions and getting my Mozilla bzr account reactivated. I lost interest somewhere in those 3 months. Eventually I wanted to go at it again, but my machine at home is not quick enough to handle a full GNOME Bugzilla database conversion from 3.4 to 4.2 (OOM after 24+ hours; from previous upgrades I know I'll test the conversion many many times). Coupled with the various lack of RHEL licenses to create VMs @ GNOME, inability to create VMs myself, etc. My main focus with these extensions was bugzilla.gnome.org. That they might not work on other installations is on the todo list, but patches welcome.. should not be difficult. Bugzilla 4.4 meanwhile is either out or almost out, so more work to see what changed for extensions. I'm planning to buy a new machine with loads more memory, but to be honest there are so many things which go wrong every time, it is not something which I often thing as something nice. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Bugzilla upgrade? [was: Re: GNOME Bugmail: Gmail threading finally working!]
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:48:43PM +0100, Andrea Veri wrote: Thanks for bringing this up Andre. I can try to work on the upgrade but I never touched Bugzilla before since Olav was used to manage it. I've searched around for the upgrade documentation [1] and it doesn't look like an hard operation. We should probably wait for Olav to provide some more details about the modifications that GNOME made to customize our installation, that might be the only bottleneck for a possible upgrade. Those modifications is the sole reason we're running 3.4. But let's keep all the ports open, having someone to assist me during the operations will definitely speed everything up for this matter. Do *NOT* touch Bugzilla. As mentioned before, there are *load* and *loads* of customizations and I don't mind anyone taking over maintenance. However, there is a real big difference between taking over maintainer role and installing a pristine new upstream version on bugzilla.gnome.org. 2012/12/12 Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 16:06 +0100, Andrea Veri wrote: This was just a temporary measure until we upgrade our Bugzilla to the 4.2 release. The change you made was not communicated to the people maintaining it, furthermore although you say the change is upstream, the change you applied is not what is upstream, nor similar. It broke my filtering and I wonder what other impact it had. I not want to turn this into stop energy, but please communicate a little bit. Which brings us to the bigger question how to get GNOME Bugzilla from 3.4 to 4.2. I don't even know if somebody cares to check and backports security upgrades to GNOME Bugzilla. IIRC, when upgrading from 2.20 to 3.4 we received gracious sponsoring by Canonical to pay Max for this task. If nobody has plans to try, this might be something to defer to the foundation board in order to organize sponsoring? I'm not backporting any security fixes. Only did that while 3.4 was still maintained upstream. I guess I don't need to copy and paste all improvements from the last three upstream release notes to explain why I push for upgrading. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Bugzilla upgrade? [was: Re: GNOME Bugmail: Gmail threading finally working!]
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:58:48PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: Do *NOT* touch Bugzilla. As mentioned before, there are *load* and with the not touching I meant in case of an intended action of just upgrading to a new vanilla upstream version. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Bugzilla upgrade? [was: Re: GNOME Bugmail: Gmail threading finally working!]
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 05:17:54PM +0100, Andre Klapper wrote: On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 16:48 +0100, Andrea Veri wrote: Thanks for bringing this up Andre. I can try to work on the upgrade but I never touched Bugzilla before since Olav was used to manage it. I've searched around for the upgrade documentation [1] and it doesn't look like an hard operation. It will be hard. GNOME Bugzilla is heavily customized (e.g. patch status dropdown) and some changes need to be converted to proper extensions (like Browse, PatchReview, WeeklyBugSummary, StockAnswers). I did that already. We should probably wait for Olav to provide some more details about the modifications that GNOME made to customize our installation, that might be the only bottleneck for a possible upgrade. Would be helpful if Olav could outline that, yes. There's a raw codedump of some stuff at http://bzr.mozilla.org/bugzilla/extensions/ which is untested and non-working in its current state. Sure? It does work and I did do loads of testing.. but been a long time since I worked on it. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Bugzilla upgrade? [was: Re: GNOME Bugmail: Gmail threading finally working!]
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 05:42:16PM +0100, Andre Klapper wrote: On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 17:24 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: Would be helpful if Olav could outline that, yes. There's a raw codedump of some stuff at http://bzr.mozilla.org/bugzilla/extensions/ which is untested and non-working in its current state. Sure? It does work and I did do loads of testing.. but been a long time since I worked on it. Maybe it works on the GNOME Bugzilla *database*, true. I tested it on a clean database. I only tested on a clean Bugzilla with default fields (as there are no dumps of GNOME Bugzilla data so nobody could test anyway, right?). On a clean BZ I get lots of issues due to GNOME-specific implementations like expecting the existence of the GNOME Target custom field etc. That is why there is a GNOME extension as well. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME now
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:26:22AM -0500, Emily Gonyer wrote: Exactly. This is what most browsers do now as well - they have a 'preferences' with very basic, standard things (much as we have in settings currently). Then theres a little button for advanced - and then you get all sorts of settings for all manner of things. Why can't we integrate much of whats in dconf tweak-tool into settings in 'advanced' or 'custom' sections? There has been a decision on advanced buttons many years ago (I think 2.0 time). Since it has been raised and discussed various times. A few of the reasons: - advanced button will always be clicked, resulting in always performing extra steps (it is a bit more than 'user defined') - increased complexity - increased support+QA (e.g. focus-follow-mouse is partly broken atm, if you show it by default it'll better work!) - more translation work (damned lies counts gschema stuff differently) - goes against 'should work by default' and so on. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Change in affiliation
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 07:16:09PM +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: starting on June 25, my new affiliation will be the Mozilla Foundation. Probably bad, but my first thought was wtf will happen with clutter :P Congrats and so on :) -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Database's machine DOWN
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 09:02:13AM +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Le dimanche 03 juin 2012, à 21:19 +0200, Olav Vitters a écrit : On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 06:02:38PM +0200, Andrea Veri wrote: we applied today a few updates on our main Mysql host (drawable) and a faulty reboot prevents the machine to get up again. We've contacted the Red Hat IT already and hopefully the issue will be fixed anytime soon. (no ETA though) Hardware (RAID) problems. This is going to take a while. Meaning: setting up mysql and restoring backups. People are still working on it. Is the sql database for the elections impacted by this? If yes, is there a risk that some votes got lost? Took a while to figure out, but it is using a database on button.gnome.org. One of the various machines without any service plan in place, though more reliable than drawable (the machine that went down for 2nd time due to hardware problems). So no, not affected. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Database's machine DOWN
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 09:19:43PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 06:02:38PM +0200, Andrea Veri wrote: we applied today a few updates on our main Mysql host (drawable) and a faulty reboot prevents the machine to get up again. We've contacted the Red Hat IT already and hopefully the issue will be fixed anytime soon. (no ETA though) Hardware (RAID) problems. This is going to take a while. Meaning: setting up mysql and restoring backups. People are still working on it. Back up: * bugzilla.gnome.org * extensions.gnome.org * blogs.gnome.org I haven't looked into the other databases that were running on the affected machine (drawable). To be clear: - I just changed some easy settings - Andrea Veri got various people involved, etc - Stephen Smoogen from Fedora sysadmin team assisted - Owen Taylor assisted in the 10min he had between flights -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Database's machine DOWN
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 08:46:50AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: On 4 June 2012 08:02, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote: Is the sql database for the elections impacted by this? If yes, is there a risk that some votes got lost? Some bugs appear to have been lost, e.g. https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=677387 Sorry, forgot to put that in the announcement. We backup once per day, so indeed all changes after that are gone. We might at one point get that back, but reintegrating this is pretty difficult. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Database's machine DOWN
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 06:02:38PM +0200, Andrea Veri wrote: we applied today a few updates on our main Mysql host (drawable) and a faulty reboot prevents the machine to get up again. We've contacted the Red Hat IT already and hopefully the issue will be fixed anytime soon. (no ETA though) Hardware (RAID) problems. This is going to take a while. Meaning: setting up mysql and restoring backups. People are still working on it. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: live.gnome.org Maintenance
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 09:58:58AM +0200, Andrea Veri wrote: live.gnome.org will go under MAINTENANCE in a few minutes while I migrate the content to the new host I finished setting up yesterday night. Another mail will follow as soon as everything got migrated. Awesome! It is still weird that it had so much problems just by forcing SSL / https on. Guessing outgoing bandwidth problem, let's see. FYI, I plan to break another site (force SSL) so you can fix it again :P -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: The GNOME Foundation has a new home
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:15:35AM +0100, Andrea Veri wrote: It's an honour for me to announce that the Foundation's website has been completely migrated to gnome.org. We've been working on this for a few months now, but the result is simply awesome. Cool! FYI, you could also change api.gnome.org (see api-web) for fetching the foundation members (add json ability). Then you can do away with the old website more easily. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: FOSDEM stand
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 08:58:03AM +0100, Tobias Mueller wrote: Let me draw your attention at the wiki: https://live.gnome.org/GnomeEvents/FOSDEM/2012/Stand. It'd be awesome if you could add yourself to the list of people helping out at the FOSDEM stand. So far, it's only a couple of people willing to help. I'll do like last time: generally always around once at FOSDEM. This year slightly different, as I'll hang out at Mageia as well. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Could a few influential GNOME develoers join gnu-prog-disc...@gnu.org?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 06:07:07PM +, Bastien Nocera wrote: And I was hoping to steer the discussion towards the fact that 1) it's a piece of freedesktop.org software that does this, so 2) the discussion should take place neither on GNU mailing-lists, nor on GNOME ones, but on freedesktop.org ones (in this case, the xdg list). I've started the subscription process[1] for gnu-prog-discuss. I'll just lurk and direct stuff to appropriate places. To be very clear: I don't see myself as a developer. -- Regards, Olav 1. I usually do a post-only and another real subscription. List is configured to require confirmation by a moderator, so guess it is going to take a while. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: FOG contact
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 02:32:43PM +0800, Frederic Muller wrote: Is there an alias for such a request that would be the right place to ask questions? Tried the generic bo...@gnome.org? -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: FOG contact
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 07:56:00PM +0800, Frederic Muller wrote: Maybe having a FOG alias going to several people would still make sense and make FOG donors feel like there is 'support contact' to get in touch with without the need to subscribe to a GNOME mailing list or dig up contacts. If all agree, just file a bug and say the alias + members. Noticed we have friends@ and friends-eu@. No idea what it is for. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Desktop Summit Planning
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:20:18AM +0100, Andy Wingo wrote: You mention that we had a problem with this in the last Desktop Summit. Has this been a problem in other events as well? The board specifically requested GNOME-NL to hold GUADEC. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Desktop Summit Planning
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 08:02:32PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:20:18AM +0100, Andy Wingo wrote: You mention that we had a problem with this in the last Desktop Summit. Has this been a problem in other events as well? The board specifically requested GNOME-NL to hold GUADEC. PS: Talking about the one in The Hague, so past, not future. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Desktop Summit Planning
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 09:42:28PM -0600, Brian Cameron wrote: The biggest complaints about the Desktop Summit seem to be: I don't want to miss out on GUADEC. And a Desktop Summit is not a GUADEC. In discussion, the following options have been suggested as ways to improve the event. 1. To not have a large combined GNOME+KDE event, and to instead have a smaller Desktop Summit or focused hackfest(s) with a more clear agenda to work on specific and measurable collaborative tasks. GUADEC and Akademy would continue as separate events. I favour this strongly. 2. To arrange the Desktop Summit so that it is more of a co-located event. The GNOME and KDE events are separate but overlap on certain days. For example, GUADEC could happen first and continue for several days, then a few combined days of Desktop Summit followed by several days of Akademy. This setup would likely be more complicated for bidding, since it would likely require a more dynamic space to accommodate the shifting needs. 3. The GNOME community has been having trouble finding volunteers to help make events successful lately. Some people like Dave Neary, Before, or during the event? Before: yes (board asked gnome-nl for The Hague). During: IMO, goes well. Lots of people help when asked. majority were supportive of the current format, we want to want to I don' see the point in giving up GUADEC just to meet KDE people. If that is needed, do it separate. Hackfests, another event, FOSDEM, etc. Political bla bla: I don't care at all if someone is from KDE, GNOME, something else. I likely going to GUADEC as I can meet *only* GNOME focussed people. With not having a GUADEC each year, I only meet GNOME people every other year (having 1/3 = GNOME is a totally different atmosphere.. plus just not a GUADEC). I did have discussions about KDE release procedure, KDE sysadmin stuff, etc. Those conversations happened by chance. Also had loads of conversations where e.g. someone says they're working on Plasma, and my only reply is uhuh (I know it exists, I am not interested to know more). If I meet someone, it is cutesy to say nice to meet you. To me, I am lying (no clue if it is nice to meet the person, I don't know yet!). -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: FOSDEM stand
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 02:17:08PM +0100, Lionel Dricot wrote: Living not far from Brussels, the box could be sent to my place. I can bring it on Saturday morning and take it back on Sunday afternoon. Cool and thanks! I'll check how to send the box to you. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
FOSDEM stand
Heard that we didn't register a FOSDEM stand yet, so I did it on behalf of GNOME. I'll likely only be there in the afternoon. Not sure who normally registers the stand or is an early bird. In any case, if someone could reply and say the event box will be there + usual t-shirts and so on: would be nice :) I'll 99% likely will go by train, so event box for me would be a bit annoying. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Meeting Minutes Published - October 4th, 2011
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 03:15:34PM +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: * Desktop Summit * What to do with the survey results? * Stormy asked for a breakdown of the data, received a full data dump of the results in csv format. Asked for database format. * Some data mining required. * '''ACTION''': Shaun - To help out extracting the GNOME respondents of the Desktop Summit survey. Interesting! Any results already? -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: new member, introduction
On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 10:21:27AM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: Part of my day job is to support several hundred users running GNOME on OpenBSD for big corporations around the globe. Ohh.. nice! Do you also blog about that support? Always nice to see such things on planet gnome. (hint hint :P ) -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Candidates question: Contributor agreement
Given that we already have a policy on copyright assignments[1], I wondered what is your position regarding contributor agreements[2]? Should the board do something with contributor agreements and if so, what should be done? [1] https://live.gnome.org/CopyrightAssignment [2] e.g. http://lwn.net/Articles/442782/ and http://www.harmonyagreements.org/ -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: orphaned GNOME Foundnation web site
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 01:02:41PM -0700, Andre Klapper wrote: On Sun, 2011-05-22 at 11:21 -0700, Andy Tai wrote: FYI, there is an old site at http://gnome-foundation.org/ which shows information from about 2001. Maybe the URL should be auto-forward to the current site. This is not an official GNOME website hence not much that can be done. You could contact the registrant (see output of whois gnome-foundation.org). It is infected with spam links (see source). Think we could do something about that. First ask nicely, then ISP. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Lionel Dricot
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:00:45AM +0200, Lionel Dricot wrote: I want to achieve to make obvious to anybody that all the GNOME technologies (including GTK+) are technologies adapted to a commercial product and that high quality commercial support exist for them. I hope this will help GNOME to become a flourishing market and a source of job opportunities for many hackers. Just wondering: Do you think there is something lacking in the current board? Or is running for the board more about that having a contact in the board is better to ensure the current state (option for commercial support + importance of small companies) is more obvious? -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Rodrigo Moya
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:23:47AM +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote: Also, based on recent discussions, I would like to help define the message we give to 3rd parties about what GNOME is, so there is no confusion as to what those 3rd parties should expect from GNOME. Do you think GNOME means GNOME shell or not? -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Meeting Minutes Published - March 29th, 2011
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 09:00:06PM -0500, Brian Cameron wrote: * There has also been discussion about whether GNOME projects should be allowed to join Conservancy. o Andreas, Bastien, Paul: -1 o Emily, German, Og, Paul: 0 [..] * CiviCRM Improvements o The board decided to approve $1,000 (USD) to improve the CiviCRM, as Rosanna requested. o ACTION: Og - Will notify Rosanna that $1,000 (USD) to improve CiviCRM has been approved. This concerns stuff that goes upstream or more like a fork (aka local improvements)? Local changes quickly become a problem (example: Bugzilla), also difficult when security updates are made (example: Bugzilla.. sometimes updates have conflicts). * Improve news.gnome.org o ACTION: Andreas - Will look into planet.gnome.org header to see if we can add a link to see news.gnome.org. This will help more readers to hopefully notice IRC meeting. This used to be the case. Maybe the 'banner' which is on gnome.org should show all GNOME hosted planets? (ux, news, people/planet, 2 others as well.. see planet-web git module for details). Status of action items [..] * Andreas - To ask Kat if she can reach out to the gnome...@gnome.org mailing list about finding local German volunteers to help with the Desktop Summit 2011. (will ping again) Some of the The Hague volunteers mentioned (remember William from Texas saying this) during the GNOME 3 party that they'd be willing to assist this year. But that would not be local. * Paul Andreas - Will raise their concerns regarding allowing GNOME projects joining the Conservancy. Seems outcome is -1. What's bad/concern? -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: desktopsummit registration forces gnome users to have a kde identity
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 04:47:28PM +0800, Frederic Muller wrote: What a nice answer... The problem is not about growing up but about preserving the GNOME identity. What is the problem exactly? I'd feel weird registering at an KDE site, because I'd only register for Desktop Summit (which I view as a different organization than KDE or GNOME, even if it consists of people from both). I have 0 interest in my details being used for anything else. Additionally, I don't want my details to be stored in some site I'll never visit. If the identify.kde.org could have: * another 'frontend' with a desktopsummit.org layout (a theme) * call it identity.desktopsummit.org (serveralias + theme only) * guarantee that my details are only used for Desktop Summit (e.g. hidden field which stores this only for identity.desktopsummit.org so details can be deleted afterwards) * some kind of privacy policy explanation + guarantee (from KDE towards Desktop Summit -- I mean this in a legal sense, no problems trusting KDE... but you could theoretically have legal issues. Usually you cannot just share privacy related information with another organisation) then IMO whomever does the work (KDE sysadmins) decides, no? Could DS team comment if above is feasible? Thanks -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: desktopsummit registration forces gnome users to have a kde identity
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 07:57:53AM +1300, Ben Cooksley wrote: Due to the way the application is built, a entirely seperate copy of the application would have to be set up, and it would administer the same data. Ok, seems too much effort. * guarantee that my details are only used for Desktop Summit (e.g. hidden field which stores this only for identity.desktopsummit.org so details can be deleted afterwards) * some kind of privacy policy explanation + guarantee (from KDE towards Desktop Summit -- I mean this in a legal sense, no problems trusting KDE... but you could theoretically have legal issues. Usually you cannot just share privacy related information with another organisation) The privacy policy for KDE Identity is summarised as such here - http://community.kde.org/Sysadmin/IdentityFAQ In terms of user data, it is never shared with outside organisations. The only time information is shared outside of Identity itself is when you login to applications such as desktopsummit.org, then your name, username and email address are provided. Implementing such a checkbox for further privacy is not feasible (due to the fact that accounts can never be deleted and your details will never be shared assuming you never login anywhere again) I somewhat dislike always having a lingering account @ KDE that I never use, check or do anything with Could you add the privacy link on identity.kde.org? I'm sure everyone at KDE knows what it does and what it is for. But for me, it feels weird (as in: assume it would be an error to go from desktopsummit.org site to a KDE site). If I read http://community.kde.org/Sysadmin/IdentityFAQ I see something about ' breaking this when used in your password. You're escaping everything going to SQL/LDAP I assume? Gets me a bit paranoid. On the privacy policy, it mentions under 'You are a user': Full name (incl.titles): d Email address d Username d Where 'd' stands for: 'You will see this info from developers'. I don't really understand this, as there is another 'You are a developer' option. So if I am a GNOME person, I'll fall under 'user'. But why have a user section and mention that full name/email address and username is shared if you're a developer? Doesn't seem logical especially as you mention that details wont be shared:) -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: CENATIC Report on the International Status of Open Source Software 2010
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 07:55:33AM -0800, Lefty wrote: I agree. In fact, I'd like to see the full text of Mr. Stallman's essay on why software should be free included as well, so that readers will not be misled in any way, but will understand the full import of this distinction. I especially enjoy the discussion of how software developers are grossly overpaid and should be satisfied with making a mere living so as to recapture the joy of accomplishment inherent in their work. I don't like such a discussion on foundation-list. Consider your foundation-list moderation bit to be set as a result[1]. -- Regards, Olav [1] Recommended behaviour (aside from moderators) is to sometimes ignore or reply privately. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [guadec-list] Dates format for Desktop Summit 2011 announced
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 09:30:49AM +0200, Dave Neary wrote: Hi Gil, Gil Forcada wrote: So criticism was expected? I understood as a set-in-stone decision :) Feedback was expected... some of this *is* set in stone, but I definitely prefer hearing concerns now, so that we can try to address them. 2 points: 1. Conflicts with the schedule for GNOME 3.2 (feature, API, docs are @ Aug 15, UI one week later). Basically the proposed freezes are right after the desktop summit. There is not much that we can do regarding scheduling GNOME as GUADEC has consistently been later and later in the year. We need a shorter release cycle for GNOME 3.2 (release date is proposed for Sep 28), so not sure what can be done. Generally there is almost no development activity during GUADEC. Note that above dates are still not final. 2. Conference start on a Saturday is I think unusual for GUADEC? I thought it always was a weekday. Not sure if everything can be ready in such a short timeframe. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GUADEC Feedback (we want it!)
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:56:55AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: On 12 October 2010 06:51, Paul Cutler pcut...@gnome.org wrote: [...] Thank you to everyone for the feedback. We've organized and collected it and published it here: http://live.gnome.org/GUADEC/Guadec2010Feedback Thanks for helping make future GUADECs better! I see You are not allowed to view this page. when I try to open that URL. Made it public. (message indicated it should be public + the wiki logs mention the same so assume this is ok) -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:53:17PM +0200, guido iodice wrote: Excuse me, I was unclear. That is no matter of quantity, but matter Some of these posts (the one I'm replying to) hit the moderation queue. Just FYI: I won't approve any of such posts anymore. Find another list to discuss GNU vs GNU/Linux. I don't see what this still has to do with the purpose of this mailing list. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Some notes on GNOME Shell
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 11:57:49AM +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:11 AM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote: The secret master plan Boy do I wish I had a secret master plan tucked in a drawer somewhere! It would be really useful To the extent we have a master plan, it's in two documents that everybody has seen: http://www.gnome.org/~mccann/shell/design/GNOME_Shell-20091114.pdf http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/RoadmapTwoThirtyOne I think the community would love to see some more why behind the how :) For example I'd like to know why shell reinvents the graphical toolkit and comes with a (hardcoded?) theme which in turn makes it look out of place. Or why JS and not LUA or Python. I'm sure there was some evaluation behind these decisions but I'm not even sure where to dig. http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell links to a blogpost explaining the rationale It's details like this that make the project look more like OpenOffice than a GNOME app (here's the resulting code versus here are the plans and the rationale, please discuss). Seems very open to me. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Meeting Minutes Published - May 13, 2010
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:49:19AM -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Brian Cameron brian.came...@oracle.comwrote: * Sysadmin job o An Interview Team has been established + The Interview Team is composed of 3 people: Jonathan Blandford, Bradley Kuhn and Brad Taylor + Once hired, the sysadmin will report to Stormy. + Paul had an action to touch base with legal. The email has been sent, but no response yet. + ACTION: Stormy will contact legal. So curious, how come Olav is not part of the interview team since he's the most experience in the GNOME infrastructure sysadmining stuff? I have no hiring experience. Jrb has this, and still has root access. I've been trying to file bugs for everything which should be done within the GNOME infrastructure (sysadmin product, only a few bugs are hidden), so that should give a good overview of what needs to be done. If you want interview questions I can provide some being a sysadmin for these past 15 years in an enterprise environment. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: pvanhoof issue (was: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap)
Take this stuff off list please. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation IRC Meeting on Saturday, February 27th
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 02:01:21PM +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: As discussed during the last IRC meeting of the Foundation, we're going to hold another IRC meeting next Saturday: Please send this to foundation-announce instead. It is meant for announcements. I am going to unsubscribe from foundation-list, so will not see such messages otherwise. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Oracle takeover and GNOME accessibility
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 06:14:01PM +0100, Fernando Herrera wrote: So, I would like to ask the board to take this issue very seriously and try to contact SUN/Oracle representatives in the advisory board regarding this issue. Fyi, this was also raised as a major concern during a release team meeting held at FOSDEM. Also: This was not an official release team meeting (unplanned, not announced to whole team), though we still had the majority around (5 out of 9 people). -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Administrivia: Subscription policy
In order to slow down people subscribing without reading the archives as a quick fix I've *temporarily* changed the subscription policy to require approval from a moderator. This is NOT a change in policy, everyone will be approved. It is just to avoid lots of new threads about GNU and so on (slow it down) without having to change the moderation bit of everyone. Better fix is to perhaps change the welcome message after joining foundation-list or to change the webpage. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 05:02:15PM +1000, brendan edmonds wrote: I used the term 'open source' to refer to the following criteria of the definition for a project to be open source (http://opensource.org/docs/osd). I approved this non-member email. However, from http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list This is a forum for discussion relating to the GNOME Foundation This discussion is getting way offtopic, there is no reason why these posts should be approved when they hit the moderator queue. Suggest to move it where it is ontopic. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
END OF THREAD PLEASE (was: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership)
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:48:45PM +, Lucas Rocha wrote: Before deciding on this, we thought it would be useful to get some feedback from the community. Seems thread is becoming 1) heated 2) repeating So, see subject. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: What do you think of the foundation?
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 07:59:47AM +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
reasons why they might happen.
Ignoring the rest, I'll just share my thoughts on ability to discuss
things on mailing lists.
Let me be as clear as possible:
There are people in our community who are losing faith in the
community's ability to have reasoned technical debate and design
discussions because of vacuous 100 mail threads, and IRC being dominated
by half a dozen people whose principal contribution to GNOME is to be on
IRC all the time. Others are being driven away from the community for
our tolerance of he who shouts loudest politics, flame wars and
provocative and offensive blog posts.
I am not a developer, so my view is a bit different, anyway:
- just doing something (infrastructure) is *way* better than trying to
discuss it on d-d-l. No idea why, maybe because I explain it badly,
but I view discussing things on d-d-l as a waste of time. Especially
so if you start a topic and afterwards you're busy for a few days.
Suddenly a huge thread about something that was just misinterpreted.
- having doap files (mandatory due to a hook) is somewhat ironic to me
Please don't reply on this specific point though.
- people complaining about the speed of Bugzilla is again 'interesting'
Again, don't reply on this specific item.
- having a CodeOfConduct is nice to avoid some back and forth
'warnings'. Meaning: discussion should be focussed around the
behaviour, not whether the behaviour should've been acceptable or not,
the CoC defines what is acceptable. Further, the CoC is vague enough
that if someone doesn't abide by this, it should be easy to tell.
- I like how the CoC is stated on mail.gnome.org ('expected to know and
follow').
- feels sometimes that discussion on d-d-l is about winning arguments
and focussing on minor things instead of finding the best solution /
outcome
- I respond way too often in bike shed topics...
- being on release-team is nice, you read back a thread and make a
decision about something preferably you didn't participate in, then
just try to see the real consensus (means ignoring some parts)
- end of thread calls sometimes help
I believe that these people should have a group that they can turn to,
argue their points, and ask for that group to do something about it. I
believe that the task is the role of the foundation, and the board is
well placed to assume that role now.
For someone to be listened to, they have to be respected IMO. I find it
interesting there is no effort in trying to make something productive
(within the thread). IMO you do(should) not need the board as a start to
change things.
When I say do something about it, that may be simply to point out to
the people involved that they're not being productive. It may be to
publicly shame people for antisocial behaviour. It may be to tell the
Antisocial seems really strong to me. Further, it doesn't feel like
people are not behaving according to the CoC (every message seems ok,
maybe just the amount of messages). Eventhough I do agree that
discussing things on d-d-l is useless.
Maybe CoC needs to have a 'keep a discussion productive and focussed on
an outcome' or something.
complainer that they're making a big deal about nothing. But right now
if you are being driven away from GNOME forums or from the GNOME project
in general, you have no-where to turn. How is that red tape? How is it
draconian censorship?
What is meant with GNOME forums? Things like IRC and mailing lists?
PS: Perhaps I overstated things a bit, etc.
--
Regards,
Olav
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: What do you think of the foundation?
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 05:13:44PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: On 06/02/2009 05:56 AM, Olav Vitters wrote: - just doing something (infrastructure) is*way* better than trying to discuss it on d-d-l. No idea why, maybe because I explain it badly, but I view discussing things on d-d-l as a waste of time. Which is not quite surprising. You wouldn't get a better response if you Not surprising as d-d-l is useless, but not because of the topic. IMO things should be discussed beforehand to get consensus. go the main town market on a weekend and ask people what color you should paint your house. The trick to asking questions in any forum is to filter informative, insightful, and relevant responses from the noise and act accordingly. You *don't* need to make everyone happy or answer to everyone. If you mean that d-d-l is basically a town hall where everyone is shouting, yes I agree. However, the signal to noise ratio I see is loads of noise, almost no signal. Really, I am never going to try and discuss things anymore. It is pointless and makes me sad. Yes, perhaps in the avalanche of messages there are a few useful ones. Not worth the effort. Plus, there is no consensus (or not that I see). Better to just skip the whole consensus part and force things through. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: What do you think of the foundation?
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 07:33:07AM -0600, Stormy Peters wrote: Sometimes people say inappropriate things in inappropriate tones on GNOME forums, irc, mailing lists, blogs, etc. Right now, the community just lets them. We don't enforce our Standards of Conduct. That is somewhat overstated: 1. I don't allow some types of behaviour on GNOME Bugzilla 2. Every once in a while I do the same on GNOME mailing lists 3. Not aware of a GNOME forum that is under direct control of GNOME 4. IRC is basically GimpNet, can only do things if you have ops in a channel. But it is still GimpNet, not GnomeNet. Anyway, the channels I'm in seem pretty much ok. The amount of unanswered questions in #gnome is IMO a bigger worry. Dave was pointing out what we do have the power to do something about it. If we decide to enforce our own Standards of Conduct, I expect there would be http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct already states it applies to GNOME Bugzilla and the mailing lists. discussion about what steps to take. I don't think you should ignore the fact that we have a problem by attacking a proposed solution. This is true. Sometimes someone does behave badly and you get the whole 'freedom of speech! my right!' etc going on. Also difficult if you should respond in the mailing list or not. Usually you get 5 people after that who disagree with you. BTW behaviour I don't like are things like some new person who is either really enthusiastic over some product he's working on (to the point of it basically being nothing more than spamming multiple mailing lists), aggressive behaviour on bugreports (demanding work to be done) and sometimes getting personal (mailing lists). But overall, it doesn't happen too often. Overall, I was more annoyed by people threatening legal action against me personally (as responses to sysadmin ticket). Those people weren't part of the GNOME community as I define/see it. As far as I know is Luis among the very few people in our community who has had a legal training. Appointing judges is not something countries do without said lawyer having a lot of field experience. IMO it is pretty easy to spot when someone crosses the line. But maybe the difference is that I'm ok with someone behaving badly. Everyone has a bad day/week/whatever. Thing is, if you don't like some behaviour, why not just respond nicely and say you didn't like it? Various times you do get an reaction saying it wasn't meant that way. No need to begin with reading up on whole procedures, CoC, etc. We (the GNOME community) already have a lot of responsibility. We decide what goes into GNOME products, what's on our website, who can make contributions, who's on Planet GNOME, who's a member of the Foundation, who can have a gnome.org email address, who's on the board, ... We can't get out of our responsibility by saying we don't have the training. I don't get your point here. You mean how someone should behave? What is socially acceptable somewhere is totally not acceptable elsewhere (eating with mouth open and making noises). Or to spot unacceptable behaviour? I'm ok with political posts etc on Planet GNOME. As long as the person posting it does understand that other people will feel different about it. and regarding Planet GNOME itself (IIRC it was brought up in this thread.. or maybe some other GNOME mailing lists.. anyway.. always a nice long topic, so here goes): discussing the useless posts on Planet GNOME is a reoccurring and nice thing to do at GUADEC. I dislike the advertisement/sales posts (sorry Miguel) and almost everything that has a date in the title (sorry Meeks). For others e.g. the Meeks posts are one of the few posts they read. Oh, and various people reading it seem to think it should only be strictly about GNOME. IMO that would be boring. Plus for that we have news.gnome.org. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 07:00:52AM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: I'd like to help with another path forward, namely native git repositories since I believe that is what most of the community wants. As you said, it isn't clear how it could work for non-sysadmins to come up with clear proposal strategies and implementations. Are there others on the sysadmin team who are willing to work on such a transition? If so, how can I help? Don't know if there are other sysadmins who'd work on this. I've cc'ed gnome-sysadmin so that people can answer themselves instead of me guessing. I'll let John reply on all other questions. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 09:40:33AM -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote: On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Olav Vitters o...@bkor.dhs.org 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 is not defensive. I don't like changing a survey into 'winning' / contest. http://www.gnome.org/~shaunm/survey/first-picks-permutations.png It seems to me that a lot of brain power, sysadmin time, and general I am a sysadmin and disagree with your notion that sysadmin time is somehow saved. I'd rather asses such things myself. Further, sysadmin time is not so important. Thank you for voicing your opinion. just all move on? Further, your explanation is incomplete. As you said, the graph is about people knowing two DVCS systems. I wouldn't say I knew 2. Those 6 are incomplete. I highlighted this statistical analysis because those 6 contain the subset of 4 vocal users demanding that we /also/ support bzr. Yes, but then said 6. That is incomplete. Now before you reply: we have a clear need for git to work (ranked 1st 50% of the time, etc). But if you say move on, how do you think a switch is made? Magic? Please don't be patronizing. I'm not an idiot. You talk about moving on. I don't see anyone who'd do something like that. My reply is that nothing will happen unless someone does something real (not just another thread). Anyway, I'd rather add John Carr to the sysadmin team. I plan to make a proposal to switch GNOME to a DVCS where Git works using Johns suggestion. Then other sysadmins[1] can suggest whatever proposal they want. These proposals can be investigated on merit and then a one can be chosen (chosen as in: go ahead and try if this would work, not go ahead blindly; everything must be tested before a cutover). John's idea is a good one but it patently loses on technical merit. As stated by John here, git will only be support in a degraded, bastardized form because he chose bzr as the repository format: I read his comment not in the same way. Bzr supports more, Git less. However, I will less John answer... as that will be more concrete. http://blogs.gnome.org/johncarr/2008/12/11/dvcs-for-gnome/#comment-172 Are we really going to go back to the days of CVS where file moves aren't supported? Git doesn't do renames; instead applies heuristics. So this is applied. It strikes me that this very vocal minority--John and Robert Carr, Karl Lattimer and Rob Taylor (whom are four of the six people I mentioned above)--are potentially delaying even longer what we've wanted for more than two years, now. It is from these same people that came the suggestion that git users were a rapid, vocal minority. Why are we letting them derail this process? Again, you're limiting it to 6 people. It is not about the six. This is why I responded before. Instead, you use that number again. Even adding people's names, I don't find this useful. I am not going to talk about 'derailing'.. too emotional word. Moving will not be easy, obviously. But doing it John's way will be, in my technical analysis, an order of magnitude more painful. His way is a solution I expect to be implemented in 2009. To be honest, I really wonder if something else would happen that I'd qualify as a good switch. Yes, might be more difficult to implement. This is what can be discussed. (Along with other migration proposals.) -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 08:10:21AM -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote: This is pretty decent analysis going on here :) I'd like to remind people of John Carr's recent blog post too, someone mentioned in the survey results actually. JC has been working on bzr with git protocol support, which would fulfil many of the requirements for having a GNOME DVCS. I'd like to point out that--of the 15 people who regularly use git and bzr--git still won. That isn't a contest. It is a survey. http://www.gnome.org/~shaunm/survey/first-picks-permutations.png It seems to me that a lot of brain power, sysadmin time, and general I am a sysadmin and disagree with your notion that sysadmin time is somehow saved. I'd rather asses such things myself. Further, sysadmin time is not so important. proliferation of Things To Learn for New People(tm) can be saved if the six people (1.04% of respondents) who ranked bzr above git in that graph can just bite the bullet and admit that git won. Can we please It is a survey. It is NOT about 'winning'. just all move on? Further, your explanation is incomplete. As you said, the graph is about people knowing two DVCS systems. I wouldn't say I knew 2. Those 6 are incomplete. Now before you reply: we have a clear need for git to work (ranked 1st 50% of the time, etc). But if you say move on, how do you think a switch is made? Magic? Anyway, I'd rather add John Carr to the sysadmin team. I plan to make a proposal to switch GNOME to a DVCS where Git works using Johns suggestion. Then other sysadmins[1] can suggest whatever proposal they want. These proposals can be investigated on merit and then a one can be chosen (chosen as in: go ahead and try if this would work, not go ahead blindly; everything must be tested before a cutover). [1] or whomever. Although I don't see how that would work. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time *from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble. That isn't true. It is Bzr on server, with Git support. Nothing about Hg, nothing about doing partly Git, partly Bzr. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 11:37:05PM +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Olav Vitters o...@bkor.dhs.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time *from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble. That isn't true. It is Bzr on server, with Git support. Nothing about Hg, nothing about doing partly Git, partly Bzr. The potential problem I see is all of the remote branches will use different DVCS that do not support git + hg + bzr. So eventually all Again: No Hg. of us will be forced to use all three tools in order to merge changes from remote branches (unless we expect *all* people to provide *all* changes as patches in which case I don't see the real gain of switching to a distributed tool). Interesting point. I actually saw it as a benefit (store locally using whatever you like). On GNOME server (personal stuff), doesn't matter. Anyway, if you're going against the maintainer who wants to merge, too bad for you IMO. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 12:04:30AM +0100, Johannes Schmid wrote: Hi! It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of gnome. I totally agree here! This is simply a problem of QA. If someone writes a system that can serve all possible (D)VCS clients that's fine but this That is not what is proposed. won't happen tommorow and I will need a huge amount of time to be finished and tested. And in addition it's unlikely that such a system Proposed solution doesn't take a long time to finish. will support more than a common subset of the features of the underlying DVCS system. [..] Second, a VCS system is something that just has to work. I doubt many people really care a lot about what system they use as long as it does No need to guess, we can look at the survey. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 06:05:30PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:58 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:40:18PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: Is it *really* so hard to understand that this whole git-serve is a terrible idea? You expect me to reply to this??!? I expected you to reply to the other three mails where I asked the same thing as I did in the mail you replied to. Oh, you chose not to quote that; here it is again: I chose not to quote that yes, as this is getting too personal for me. However, I only get more replies back which I consider of terrible quality. Then what happens when a new version of git with a new feature, incompatible with the git-serve kludge, is released? Then we're screwed, right? And who gets to pay? We do. We're stuck with an old version of git. Us. The very same people who very clearly said git, not bzr. But, alas, you didn't reply to this. You instead hand-waved about something else. I don't think I breached any code of conduct, written or otherwise, by displaying my frustration about how you are evading my question. I am not evading. Stop trying to make this personal. I don't care about CoC, I don't like you're talking to me. Anyway, I've already asked John to respond to your point as he is doing the work. I did that before replying to you. This as I thought he would give the best answer. My answer: well, AFAIK, the communication stuff is very generic, so breakage is unlikely. Further, that is why John becomes a sysadmin. Feel free to rewrite my answer as needed. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Changes to the GNOME board
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 02:12:51PM -0500, Gregory Leblanc wrote: With that said, Congratulations Diego! me too 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. See http://foundation.gnome.org/vote/results.php?election_id=4. PDF should be updated. What is the current term of a member of the Gnome Foundation Board of Directors? 1.5 for this one. 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, -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes for Directors Meeting of Sept. 3, 2008
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 09:21:51AM -0400, Luis Villa wrote: * Meeting w/ KDE about GUADEC/Akademy 2009 being scheduled for early September in Berlin. So instead of trying to push for earlier in the year we're delaying it even further? How will this relate to 'high season'? Note that early September is also the time when GNOME is usually released (this GNOME release is later than usual) -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Using the proper feed for pvanhoof
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 05:01:12PM +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: I remember Jeff Waugh, implementer of the policies, stating that the diversity of pgo is what he wants to maintain. Small addition (quote from pgo): Planet GNOME is a window into the world, work and lives of GNOME hackers and contributors. Jeff specifically requests for a full feed (minor exceptions for non-English posts). Please kill me from the cc. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes for Directors Meeting of May 5th, 2007
[ If it is regarding some technical detail, please follow up to gnome-infrastructure (reply-to set to that). ] On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 11:46:04PM -0700, Luis Villa wrote: * Accounts team ACTION: vincent to ask around who can extend/develop mango to automate accounts creation I'd really love if someone could add any of the following to Mango: * Usability of new accounts process * General cleanup of the code (lots of classes look the same) * Some sort of *secure* ACL design: * Allowing maintainers to add/remove maintainers for *only* the modules they are a maintainer of * Allowing people from the foundation membership committee to edit parts of a user (@gnome.org email alias and the foundation fields + group) * Allowing users to edit their details * Addition of GPG keys, use this for login? * Use SSH public key data for verification / login? * Moving foundation info to LDAP * General LDAP advice (see email in gnome-infrastructure) * Requesting additional permissions by people with an LDAP account. More detail: Usability of new accounts process It just shows the group name when someone requests access. For SVN it is still called 'gnomecvs'. There should be descriptions for this. Further the annoyance of assigning maintainers, getting/resetting passwords (move to GPG for login?). Also, the login page should check if the user is a maintainer/l10n coordinator. If so, it should say there aren't any requests. Requesting additional permissions Currently people can request a new account, and that process is theoretically ok. If they already have an account, then they might want some new permission. E.g. 'gnomeweb' group (user used for most web sites). Secure ACL: Basically I want different levels of access, somewhat configurable and not too hard coded. For a user I can think of: * sysadmin can do anything * accounts people are more limited (cannot assign new accounts people) * membership committee members can edit just foundation stuff, plus some fields have to be hidden (note that the XML is transformed into HTML by the client, so doesn't involve just changing the XSLT). * user themselves. I don't trust password Allowing maintainers to add/remove other maintainers Only for the modules they are currently maintainer of. This is different from developer status (which is not recorded/stored). This would remove the need for ugly MAINTAINERS file parsing (or the whole file altogether). Don't know what solution to follow for a new module. Emailing accounts@ would work, but perhaps nasty (the idea is that you can create repos without needing to email people). Perhaps hacky script that checks for new SVN modules daily and assigns maintainer status to the first committer (other than 'root' or 'gnomecvs'). Allowing users to edit their details I don't want that SSH keys can be changed with just a password. Or the email address (we currently assume the email address is secure). Because it is a manual process now, the security requirements are currently less than what is needed in future. This as a system cannot determine if a request is strange. This is why I need it to be secure (not about not trusting people with a GNOME account, it is the possibility of their details being changed by people other than them.. insecure browsers, stored/sniffed passwords, stolen laptops, etc). Addition of GPG keys No idea how to handle these. Personally, I'd rather store the whole GPG public data in LDAP and then use that key when encrypting. This ignores the whole web of trust, etc. However, it seems it is hard to do something like that. GPG seems to want a recipient instead of just passing in a public key. Also not sure how to handle the initial adding of GPG keys. Using SSH public key data Using the data in SSH public keys, it should be possible to encrypt something that only can be decrypted with the SSH private key. Or the other way around. Not exactly sure how feasible this is. Python-paramiko has some 'sign' stuff. Unfortunately Mango is in PHP. Plus this might be annoying for Windows users. Moving foundattion info to LDAP Not sure about LDAP structure, etc. My plans are in Bugzilla: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?product=sysadminbug_status=NEW,REOPENED,ASSIGNED,UNCONFIRMEDcomponent=mango -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Supporting GTK+
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 10:49:40AM +0200, Andreas Nilsson wrote: Perhaps this is a issue with the GNOME website. Long time thing to change it... Looking at http://www.gnome.org/contact/ it first and foremost lists IRC channels and later down on the page a bunch of e-mail addresses, without much further explanation on what their respective usage is. http://mail.gnome.org/ shows gtk-list. I wouldn't expect a job posting explanation on contact GNOME (it is not about getting in contact, more about finding specific persons / announcing something). What is the preferred list for these kinds of questions? Personally, I don't see the relation between a job posting and a question. Ir do you mean how to figure out where to make a job posting? -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation and Mozilla Foundation join forces
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 04:33:38PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: I heard that work was under way developing a free replacement for Talkback. I do not know where this work stands now. In any case, we need to be careful not to recommend the non-free Firefox binaries, unless both problems have been solved. Firefox 3.0 will use Breakpad instead of that talkback software. At one point the build included both for testing reasons. However, in the current nightly it appears that talkback is not included (I know it wasn't used for a while). Note that aside from no source, talkback also wasn't accessible. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: ghop
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:29:23AM -0500, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote: I think gnome-love and gnome-contest (or whatever) should be separate things. The nice thing about ghop was that it pulled in new people who would not otherwise have been interested, by motivating them with a contest and a free t-shirt. And that's great. gnome-love is more for those who already love gnome, but need a pointer about where to start. I do not see the difference. Gnome-love should be a small task that the maintainer supports and would provide help with. Not exactly sure, but GHOP should be the same (wanted and you can get help). However, people get money and that could overcome perhaps any initial hurdle. Although I'd rather see a reward other than money. Would you like to work on setting this up? If the Foundation can pony up some cash / t-shirts / desirable-things for a gnome-ghop-lite project, sure, I would like to help. I'm not too interested in just tidying up gnome-love tags, for the reasons mentioned above. I find it a bit strange to have the Foundation pay for something like this. If you don't like GNOME, then you get money. If you do, then you should work for free? Same for e.g. non-sexy (gnome-love/GHOP) bugs. Someone should still pay attention to those. [..] Also, are you fine if I forward your mail to the Google people? I'm sure they'll be happy to read your mail. I thought they read all my stuff already :-) But yes, you can forward it to them... And if google decided to extend ghop, that would make everything a lot easier... No objection if Google continues this (instead of the Foundation). Also wondering about the outcome of GHOP. I don't think paying for small things is a viable long term option (discussed many times before -- things change when money is involved). Do e.g. the contributors stick around? Note: I understand that paying for things will get results. What I am interested in is the impact it has the on long term for GNOME (new contributors, potential bad influence caused by paying for things, etc). Although that is probably hard to tell atm. -- Regards, Olav ___ 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 Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 05:05:08PM +, Alan Cox wrote: Don't change the subject. The statement I quoted is trollish. There is no need to say we are shooting at our own feet repeatedly. Especially without any argument (I do not mean just text in an email). The announcement was not neutral. The perception from outside is very clearly that you are active participants and its being used in that way. Because of the past (no announcement, no statement, no clarifications etc). This would've been very different if someone explained the intention. Plus corrected any misperceptions in a reasonable timeframe. That would appear to be shooting at own feet But that is the past again, I object to the statement that the current announcement means that we are shooting our own feet. My objection is not about how this was initially handled. That could've been way better/clearer. Perhaps you'd care to critique the relevant points instead of jumping up and down like a small child going ner ner na ner ner My second reply was not useful. However, I see no points to reply to. The only point is that GNOME foundation is being neutral still. I see no reasoning to back that up (e.g. quotes from the announcement). #4 is pretty clear. I did not like that GNOME foundation sort of silently joined TC45, especially not without a clarifying statement. Bad press (+misleading statements) have been very easy because of it. However, why then would this announcement be shooting our own feet again? It feels like the only argument behind it that it is not the outcome wanted by Rui. I still regard summarizing the announcement as 'shooting our own feet again' as a troll. -- Regards, Olav ___ 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 Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 12:44:52AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Don't cry about people who criticize the Foundation's unconditional support for OOXML, you're pointing guns at your own feet (and in fact just took another shot). Nice trollish statement. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
