Re: Could a few influential GNOME develoers join gnu-prog-disc...@gnu.org?
Le 18/01/2012 03:36, Richard Stallman a écrit : (I think that person was right: learning one English word `Desktop' is not much of a burden, and on the other hand, this feature can cause a real nuisance for users that use multiple locales.) If I choose my session in ..., I expect each and every single word to be in ... with a correct spelling! I really don't like that eh, just one English word to learn, deal with it condescending tone. Snark on #gnome-hackers ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Readability publisher sign-up for *.gnome.org
Le 27/08/2011 04:07, Richard Stallman a écrit : I've been experimenting with Readabilityhttps://www.readability.com for a couple of months. It's a web service that reformats web pages for easier reading, That sounds like SaaS. SaaS is bad on basic principles because users lose control of their computing. If there is a better format for the GNOME Foundation blogs, why not change the style on the GNOME Foundation's blog server? If users want to see different formats, can't they do that by customizing their browsers? If free browsers don't support that, and users want it, shouldn't it be implemented there? That is the most sensible thing said on the matter yet. Gnome takes care of translating its software. Gnome takes care of accessibility issues in its software. Gnome embraces the gnu ideals of freedom. And gnome would be unable to have its blogs readable!? Not one of us would be able to run what is basically a text with some formating and images through a 'compiler' to another format ; setup a program to automagically do so ; write a program to do the conversion!? We would willingly handle our writings to some external entity for proprietary takeover!? Not everything that looks good is edible. Snark on #gnome-hackers ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
Behdad Esfahbod a écrit : On 12/07/2009 01:32 PM, Frederic Crozat wrote: Le 27/11/2009 10:53, Murray Cumming a écrit : On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 16:50 -0200, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: Alternative proposal: lets deal with the problem at hand and get our story straight about what is planet.gnome.org, what can be posted there (i.e. no porn and vulgar language etc.) and how we can help to enforce a reasonably exact policy on an exact resource which is planet.gnome.org. planet.gnome.org is hard to moderate. Editors can only remove an entire blog. It would be easier if the software allowed the existing editors to remove a single blog post. Let's be honest too : there are a bunch of people which used to be active GNOME members, who changed their focus to other projects and are still in Planet GNOME for no reason. Maybe PGO editors should start cleaning the old cruft (no offense intended).. But I find it interesting to know, say, what Miguel is up to these days. I don't think it's just me... What about a Planet Old Gnome Farts ? People would get there from PGO one year after their last active contribution. JP PS: this idea is a little rough and may need some patching... at least the name, please! ___ 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
john palmieri a écrit : On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote: The way forward seems clear to me - the membership committee decides what counting method will be used, announces it, and we count the election according to that means. There doesn't need to be a crisis here. Deciding on the correct method after the elections seems a bit off to me. A member who voted should know exactly how their vote is going to be counted before the ballot is cast. If different methods reach different conclusions then that is a crisis because the membership committee would be free to choose the one which fits their agenda the most (not that I feel there is an agenda but the possibility leaves doubt on the validity of the results). I would agree it's a problem if the method could be changed each time there is an election. But for a one-time decision, that's not a problem. Consider it as a bug : we knew the votes would be counted using a more elaborate method than plain comparison of number of votes, but it wasn't 100% clear which. Now it's clear, the bug is closed, let's move on! Snark on #gnome-hackers ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Can we improve things?
Tristan Van Berkom a écrit : I think its important to note here that giving someone access to blog on planet gnome is like publicly aknowlaging that they are indeed a part of the gnome community - people who contribute to the project need to feel like they are part of the project. Agreed. And there are people who provide code (and good code), but can't get svn access, which means they're effectively denied entering the community. Snark ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Can we improve things?
Zeeshan Ali a écrit : About the svn access, all centralized VCS's are meant for dictatorships. If the gnome foundation really wants to improve the situation, i recommend moving to git or some other non-distributed VCS instead of brain-dead centralized svn for the following reason: At one point, there will always be the need for *someone* to be able to say This is foo version 3.14159, whatever is used. I use git since about a month, and git-svn for ekiga work since about two weeks, so I can say that git is definitely wonderfully light, fast, and efficient. I hated cvs, I hate svn, but I love it. That being said, I can't help but notice that svn itself isn't the cause of the problem : I was added as a code contributor to the wormux project (hosted on gna!, using svn) by one of the developpers, and it took one hour (read again: hour -- not year, not month, not week, not day) before the change took effect. So in my opinion, discussing about git vs svn isn't on-topic here. Snark ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Can we improve things?
Luca Cappelletti a écrit : You made the righe choose changing to sourceforge, you can go to launchpad or savannah nongnu, very good place to work... No such choice has been made yet. Snark ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
Behdad Esfahbod a écrit : Video conf-calls are not much more productive than regular phone calls. And btw I could never get ekiga working for me, and I tried a few times... What type of issues? Snark ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
[Fwd: Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months]
Sigh... this mail was sent more than twelve hours ago but didn't make it... from now on I'll be using a more direct email address. Message original Sujet: Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 06:53:34 +0200 De: Julien PUYDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copie: foundation-list@gnome.org Références: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andy Tai a écrit : It still looks strange to have the voting body to vote to extend the term of the current board, not the same as a general election. Extending the terms of some leadership tend to happen under situations where something prevents the holding of regular elections... nothing comparable exists here for the GNOME Foundation. Indeed! Here is how the mandate of french presidents went from seven to five years : - a referendum chose to modify the term length -- but not for the then-current president ; - a normal election happened at the normal date for a new president with the new term. This made the 'who' and the 'how long' independent, and I think there is wisdom in it. Snark ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
Andy Tai a écrit : It still looks strange to have the voting body to vote to extend the term of the current board, not the same as a general election. Extending the terms of some leadership tend to happen under situations where something prevents the holding of regular elections... nothing comparable exists here for the GNOME Foundation. Indeed! Here is how the mandate of french presidents went from seven to five years : - a referendum chose to modify the term length -- but not for the then-current president ; - a normal election happened at the normal date for a new president with the new term. This made the 'who' and the 'how long' independent, and I think there is wisdom in it. Snark ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
Andy Tai a écrit : Something like GnomeMeeting (now with a newer name) can be utilized to have faces seeing faces... The new name is ekiga, and it's indeed a gnome project -- I'm working on it at this very moment! Snark ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
