Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
On 12/09/2009 01:47 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote: > The way I understand what Frédéric said is, there is an (yet another > one?) interesting question not answered by the p.g.o slogan. "What does the > planet maintainers do with people who stop being involved in the project". > > Sometimes people who are not anymore active in a project declare > clearly that they are no longer willing to be involved because of x,y,z > reason. That's the easy situation. But what happens when nothing is said? So, I'm still syndicated on Monologue even though I haven't blogged anything about Mono since July 2006. I wouldn't care if they kicked me off, but I've never felt compelled to actually figure out how to make that happen on my own. Assuming there are other people who behave like that, it's entirely possible that if we just sent mail to everyone on PGO once a year saying "Hi, you're on PGO, we just want to make sure you still want to be. If you don't want to be there any more, just let us know" that this would get rid of some of the extra-crufty people. -- Dan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Board of Directors Foundation Elections Spring 2009 - Preliminary results
On 06/25/2009 12:30 PM, john palmieri wrote: > If it is a disagreement on how votes should be counted then the vote is > flawed and I propose we have a runoff between the candidates who were on > one list but not the other. I'm not terribly familiar with STV and its variations, but it seems to me that if we assume people's votes in the runoff will be generally consistent with their votes in the original election, then the result of the runoff would be determined as much by the choice of STV variant used in the runoff than by the actual votes (which could more or less be predicted ahead of time), and so this isn't really much different from just letting the election committee retroactively declare which variant they meant to use in the original election. -- Dan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Special GNOME event in California next week
Jeff Waugh wrote: > Those paying close attention over the last 12 months will have a fair idea > what this is about, but please resist the temptation to reply to this post > about it, as we're hoping to keep it under wraps until Thursday. :-) Or, if the GNOME Foundation is going to start behaving like Apple, how about we set up a "gnomerumors" web site and forum, where people can post rumors anonymously and try to figure out what the Board is up to before the official announcements? Seriously though, this "surprise announcement" stuff is exactly the sort of behavior that the community despises when Novell[1] and Red Hat[2] do it, and now we're doing it to ourselves??? If the secrecy here is necessary because of third parties that are involved (who might have their hands tied by SEC regulations on information disclosure, for instance), then IMHO the board should be *apologizing* to the membership about it, not trying to make it sound all exciting and fun. And if the secrecy isn't actually *necessary*, then WTF? All discussions must be publicly viewable, any person must have the opportunity to contribute to the decision-making process, and every GNOME contributor must have the direct ability to influence the decisions which are made.[3] -- Dan [1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2006-February/msg00129.html [2] http://www.beatniksoftware.com/blog/?p=58 [3] http://foundation.gnome.org/about/charter/ ___ foundation-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Re: Temporaray enlargement of the GNOME Board with 2 persons
Jeff Waugh wrote: > * We are attempting to do big things without the benefit of having a face >to face meeting. Every board so far has been more effective post-GUADEC, >after they've had the opportunity to sit down, grind through the issues >with a lot of social bandwidth and look each other up and down a bit. It >really helps develop shared vision, shared values and shared trust in a >way that mail, phone and IRC can't. Should we shift the election cycle by a few months then, so that GUADEC falls near the start of the new board's term, rather than halfway through? -- Dan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code Of Conduct
Murray Cumming wrote: > I wouldn't feel optimistic about a code of conduct that didn't represent > our current consensus. ... > However, there's no shortage of people saying both that > - Some improvement in behaviour is necessary These points don't fit together. If we are just making the current tacit CoC explicit, then we would expect no change in behavior. If we are trying to change behavior, then the CoC can't just represent the current consensus. > I haven't heard any downside even from people who don't agree with either > of those points. The current hackers appear to be at least somewhat content with the current atmosphere. If we change it too drastically, we run the risk of pushing existing hackers away, or failing to attract new (western/male) ones. And I still haven't seen anything to make me believe that this Code of Conduct would actually attract female/asian/whatever hackers. So the downside is that a CoC might drive away the current hacker demographic AND fail to attract any new hacker demographic. -- Dan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: gnome-logos package
Luis Villa wrote:
Trademark law doesn't give us the flexibility we want, which leaves us
with options (as I see it) that are basically:
* pursue the Mozilla route (strong trademark)...
* collaborate with our lawyers to create and pursue a completely
novel/untested/potentially completely undefensible license...
* give up the legally enforceable mark and use a political party
approach...
What about "all of the above"? Yield "Gnome" and the generic foot to the
community, while trademarking some other things ("Gnome Foundation",
"Gnome Desktop", "Gnome Developer Platform", etc, and maybe a specific
special kind of foot logo). Then the community can use the generic name
and logo as it sees fit, but we also still have a legally-enforceable
mark for the Foundation to use in official situations, and we still keep
control over the top-level brands ("Gnome Desktop" etc).
And IANEAPFL[1], but I read on teh Intarweb that someone doesn't even
have to use your actual trademark to be guilty of infringement; you can
also sue them if they use a "confusingly similar" mark with malicious
intent. So having "Gnome Desktop", etc, trademarked might still give us
some minimal degree of protection with respect to other "Gnome" uses
even if we didn't have the word "Gnome" itself trademarked. (cf the
whole "Helix Code" vs "Helix Whoever-it-was" thingy).
-- Dan
[1] I Am Not Even A Probable Future Lawyer
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Elections - Preliminary results
Elijah Newren wrote: On 12/13/05, Dan Winship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Vincent Untz wrote: I'm a bit sad that only 169 members (out of more than 350) voted, though. If anyone has some ideas on why less than 50% of the members voted or on how to change this, please share them. A handful of people on IRC said they just forgot the voting period ended this weekend. A reminder a few days before next year would probably help. You mean, something like http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2005-December/msg00032.html ? ;-) Heh. I guess I just deleted that without noticing it since I'd already voted. :) -- Dan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Elections - Preliminary results
Vincent Untz wrote: I'm a bit sad that only 169 members (out of more than 350) voted, though. If anyone has some ideas on why less than 50% of the members voted or on how to change this, please share them. A handful of people on IRC said they just forgot the voting period ended this weekend. A reminder a few days before next year would probably help. -- Dan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
