On 6/26/10 7:09 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
The GNOME speaker guidelines were at least partly a reaction to my
Saint IGNUcius comedy routine. So if I don't have a beef with these
guidelines, why should anyone else?
Good question. It seems some folks are intent on defending you,
I'm actually pretty bored by the completely futile rehashing of the same
ground on this matter, over and over, to no resolution. Clearly, RMS will
never feel anything other than proud about his ridicule of religion and
women. Clearly, Patryk and like-minded others, will never change their minds
On 6/26/10 5:45 PM, Stormy Peters sto...@gnome.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Stone Mirror le...@shugendo.org wrote:
Again, very well said, and I couldn't agree more. Thank you, Alan.
It honestly baffles me that some people seem to have such difficulty grasping
what seems so
On 6/25/10 2:21 AM, Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org wrote:
It would be better if GNOME defined a precise set of rules (ie. don't
mention religion). As for the hazy areas, common sense is a better
judge than a set of written rules. If someone does something grossly
inappropriate just
On 6/25/10 1:57 PM, Brian Cameron brian.came...@oracle.com wrote:
{a completely sensible response}
Thanks, Brian.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
On 6/25/10 3:06 PM, Sergey Panov si...@sipan.org wrote:
Exactly! For instance,
I am offended almost every time Lefty or Philip
Van Hoof say something ...
almost anything nowdays.
-
Perhaps you should find some other mailing list to read if you're finding
this one that distressing. It's
On 6/25/10 8:30 AM, Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org wrote:
I bet
at least one person in the audience is offended when they see the
presenter using a Mac. Or sporting a Windows t-shirt. Or using an
iPod. Or mentioning that Apple did something better than GNOME.
Security, seize and
On 6/25/10 3:39 PM, David Schlesinger le...@shugendo.org wrote:
( http://identi.ca/notice/6304540)...
Do men really think RMSs virgin joke at #gcds was not sexist? Very
disappointed in FLOSS comm chatter about this.
By the way: Celeste wrote this while sitting in the auditorium at GCDS,
On 6/25/10 3:50 PM, Brian Cameron brian.came...@oracle.com wrote:
If it isn't clear already, the Speaker Guidelines are not intended to be
used in frivolous ways.
It's certainly seems clear enough to me. It appeared, though, to be unclear
to Patryk.
If people think that this needs to be
On 6/25/10 4:15 PM, David Schlesinger le...@shugendo.org wrote:
On 6/25/10 3:50 PM, Brian Cameron brian.came...@oracle.com wrote:
I can't imagine that anybody would take a complaint about someone giving
a talk and using a MacBook seriously, unless the situation were somehow
extraordinary
On 6/25/10 4:25 PM, Joanmarie Diggs joanmarie.di...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with this:
I also don't think the ending is appropriate: These guidelines do not
constitute censorship since you have many other forums and
opportunities to say whatever you wish.
I pretty much agree with _you_.
(By the same token, if this particular bit of self-congratulatory
revisionism is suddenly fair game, I'd obviously be interested in
knowing that as well.)
--
Sent from my iPod
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
Sorry, reply rather than reply all...
-- Forwarded Message
From: David Schlesinger le...@shugendo.org
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 08:39:59 -0700
To: Iain i...@gnome.org
Conversation: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
Subject: Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
On 6/1/10 7:38 AM, Iain i...@gnome.org wrote:
On 3/4/10 10:32 PM, Liam R E Quin l...@holoweb.net wrote:
Well, given this wide coverage, which I've somehow completely missed, there
shouldn't be much challenge to your producing an actual citation
I was a little looser than I should have been in my wording.
Oh, indeed?
For media
On 3/5/10 8:18 AM, Ciaran O'Riordan cia...@member.fsf.org wrote:
Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org writes:
the answer is [] not [] :avoid anything that runs on a server.
No one's suggested that.
Let's not be in a rush to invite users to use servers -- even our own
-- instead of their own
On 3/5/10 8:44 AM, David Schlesinger le...@shugendo.org wrote:
If everything gets done inside or through your browser, it would make
toolkits such as GTK and desktop environments such as GNOME obsolete,
except as platforms for a browser.
Just so we're completely clear here, I'd suggest that
On 3/5/10 9:19 AM, Jonathon Jongsma jonat...@quotidian.org wrote:
With all of the recent comments about how horrible foundation-list has
become,
and how people are unsubscribing because of endless and
pointless
argumentation, you *still* can't get yourself to refrain from
adding more and
more
On 3/5/10 9:55 AM, Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org wrote:
Perhaps it would have been better if someone from the Board had responded to
the initial message from Mr. Stallman with regard to Facebook, saying
1
On 3/5/10 10:18 AM, Miguel de Icaza mig...@novell.com wrote:
I could help Richard and we could work together, but he has decided
that I am a traitor of the movement.
Thanks for posting this, Miguel. It would seem to confirm that I'm not
incorrect in finding this baffling.
As someone who's
On 3/4/10 5:46 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
If everything gets done inside or through your browser, it would make
toolkits such as GTK and desktop environments such as GNOME obsolete,
except as platforms for a browser.
And if everything gets done on your desktop, it would make
On 3/4/10 7:22 AM, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier j...@zonker.net wrote:
Somewhere in there should be a self-sustaining model to raise money
for the hosting and GNOME, and provide Free as in Freedom services for
users in the bargain...
It's a nice idea, but I don't see any self-sustaining model
On 3/4/10 9:07 AM, Gian Mario Tagliaretti gia...@gnome.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org wrote:
But, just so I'm sure I'm clear here, Mr. Stallman, it's my understanding
that you don't even actually _use_ the web, in any realistic sense, relying
On 3/4/10 6:08 PM, Liam R E Quin l...@holoweb.net wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 17:45 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
In any case, I'm under the impression that a search warrant or similar order
is generally required in the US to get information regardless of whether
it's from a hosted service
Okay, I had hoped this might simply die out, but instead, it's becoming
increasingly absurd as well as increasingly personal in tone. First, Philip
didn't ask anyone to stop saying things, he expressed some dismay at what
was being said, and not without reason.
Beyond the suggestionwhich Philip
On 2/22/10 11:27 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
* It seems we have lost the mobile battle. Can we do something about it
or simply retreat?. I like the idea of creating more components and some
of this components can be added to the GNOME mobile platform.
Have we lost the mobile
I hesitate to reopen this discussion, frankly. Look at the archives for
December and January.
On 2/22/10 1:12 PM, Alberto Ruiz ar...@gnome.org wrote:
2010/2/22 Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org:
Well, we've certainly managed to place GNOME at an enormous disadvantage
with respect
On 2/1/10 8:11 AM, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote:
...I'll just publish what I
have and the raw results, so people could take a look and produce more
interesting stats.
Sounds like the open source way. =)
___
foundation-list mailing list
On 1/26/10 4:56 PM, Andrew Cowie and...@operationaldynamics.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 21:43 +0100, Andy Wingo wrote:
(/me thinks of Vilanova)
Which was a bloody awesome GUADEC, in no small measure because of the
Ice Cream shop, and fluendo's Beach Party.
They're _all_ awesome, but
On 1/18/10 2:32 PM, Dominic Lachowicz domlachow...@gmail.com wrote:
Can someone please fix that?
Perhaps it would be sufficient to link to the FSF's list of
GPL-compatible
licenses and recommended documentation licenses? That
would clear up any
possible confusion.
I gathered from what J5
On 1/17/10 6:52 AM, Ciaran O'Riordan cia...@member.fsf.org wrote:
GNOME has a policy (written or not) that prohibits importing non-free
software
into its repositories.
I'm not personally aware of a written policy to this effect. If there's an
unwritten policy, I'd encourage the Board to write
On 1/17/10 12:48 PM, Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, that policy has never been written down.
That is because there is and always has been a very, very, very clear
and common understanding that this is the policy. It takes almost
willful ignorance of our
On 1/17/10 12:37 PM, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, that policy has never been written down.
That is because there is and always has been a very, very, very clear
and common understanding that this is the policy. It takes almost
willful ignorance of our
On 1/17/10 5:20 PM, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote:
The FSF is welcome to give their advice; and should be treated with
respect when they do give it, the same as anyone else. This is
particularly true in this area, where we know we are walking a
difficult line between freedom and
On 1/17/10 9:30 PM, Jonathon Jongsma jonat...@quotidian.org wrote:
As far as I an tell, there has been essentially no controversy
whatsoever about
any of this until you and Philip seemingly started
trying to drum one up. What
exactly are you even trying to change? Is
there an official GNOME
On 1/16/10 1:10 PM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
for an explanation of the difference in philosophy between free
software and open source.
I'm pretty sure most people on the list have read the essay and understand
Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for some
reason to be on the same list of new members as my friend, Jim Vasile.
On a different matter, I am currently conducting a brief ( 5 minute) survey
on attitudes and viewpoints on FLOSS and proprietary software and I invite
On 12/15/09 4:09 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) zee...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
Hi,
Lefty wrote:
Given the proposition that proprietary software is illegitimate, and
the statement above, do you believe that the GNOME Foundation and
On 1/15/10 5:38 AM, Xavier Bestel xavier.bes...@free.fr wrote:
Giving one definition of a word, then asking if someone else's sentence
containing that word is true is at best partial.
Xavier, without defining the term beforehand, I'd be open instead to
accusations that I wasn't being fair
On 1/15/10 8:34 AM, Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free software but
that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary software. We believe,
promote, use and write free software.
We are excited when companies and
On 1/15/10 8:49 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org wrote:
I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open
source.
I have some sympathy with this view. Open source is my preference as well
and (based on the survey data) seems to have broader uptake among the
On 1/15/10 9:45 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org wrote:
I think it's a great idea to (at least) use both.
I'd favor this as well. What it gains in possible awkwardness (which doesn't
bother me, I used to say free and open source software all the time) it
also gains in clarity, I think.
On 1/15/10 10:01 AM, David Schlesinger le...@shugendo.org wrote:
Free software isn't a synonym for open source, and by only using 'free
software' you aren't including all the OSI definitions which GNOME also
endorses.
This is actually an excellent, and an important, point.
Having poked
On 1/15/10 10:10 AM, Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
I have no objections to free and open source other than it's awkwardness. (I
too have used it quite a bit.)
As I point out in my previous message, I¹d say we have to use it, awkward or
not.
On 1/15/10 9:57 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
Please stop trolling.
Dave, I think this is unhelpful. If you must, maybe you should do it
privately, rather than publicly.
How about I do a poll whether people think PCs should run Windows or
another desktop environment? If we respect
On 1/15/10 11:10 AM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote:
We certainly all know that RMS believes that. Some other GNOME community
members may as well, though probably not a large number. It, is however,
your choice to focus on it, and I don't understand what you are trying
to achieve by
I inadvertently replied publicly to what had been a private message from
Owen, and for that, I apologize.
It was accidental, and I apologized to Owen offline as soon as he pointed my
error out to me. As I was getting ready to send it off, I noticed that Owen
was the sole recipient, assumed I'd
On 1/15/10 1:05 PM, Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
2. not legitimate; not sanctioned by law or custom.
I don't see what the fuss is about.
I don't know that there _is_ a fuss. That's one of the things I hope to
determine via the survey.
Not sanctioned by custom precisely
On 1/15/10 1:22 PM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote:
I think you may be reading quite a bit more into this than I'd intended. Do
you have an objection to the questions in the survey simply being _asked_,
Owen...?
It's very hard not to take the survey as a continuation of the recent
On 1/15/10 1:58 PM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
So proposing that GNOME as a project adopt one or the other amounts to a
troll, in that it will create an endless discussion with no result.
Well, I'll be sure not to propose that, then.
Again, my impression has been that there are
On 1/15/10 1:58 PM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
Having gone through 10 years of Open Source vs Free Software
debates, I know that (like emacs vs vim, bsd vs linux, gnome vs kde, bsd
vs gpl, reply-to for mailing lists, code indentation styles, and other
religious debates) that nothing
On 1/15/10 3:17 PM, Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree quite strongly.
Fair enough, let me be clearer: my stated views do not necessarily represent
the views of the GNOME Foundation or the GNOME community. GNOME comprises a
variety of viewpoints, of which mine is one;
On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, Miguel de Icaza mig...@novell.com wrote:
Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger
connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses
properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting.
Actually, this is something
should probably collect a list of those who are willing (and able).
On 12/16/09 3:51 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
Hi,
Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, Miguel de Icaza mig...@novell.com wrote:
Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger
connection to mass
On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
...I would not encourage anyone to use
non-free software even to get money to give to a worthy cause.
I apologize to all, but given this, there's a question that _really_ has to
be asked:
Given the proposition that proprietary
On 12/14/09 7:14 PM, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier j...@zonker.net wrote:
2009/12/14 Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com:
Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
foundation-list and the
On 12/14/09 11:35 PM, Sergey Panov si...@sipan.org wrote:
Nothing personal, but I never trusted those corporate Open Source
Advocates ... .
No offense taken, I'm sure... I fear you distrust a fair proportion of the
Foundation's Advisory Board.
Besides, Lefty does not work for ACCESS Inc.
On 12/13/09 7:24 AM, Ciaran O'Riordan cia...@member.fsf.org wrote:
That's a rule (a policy), which is mild and doesn't involve jumping straight
to blocking a whole blog. And it was suggested in heated opposition to this
comment:
No, Ciaran: you've removed the entire surrounding context, and
On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
Unable to come up with and too dumb are your own additions,
which clearly were not present in the events themselves.
Clearly, a lot of misunderstanding was present in the events themselves.
To what do you attribute this wide-spread
On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
That's where the cash for things like my FSF-E
Fellowship, EFF membership, Creative Commons membership, etc., come from,
see?
These are worthy causes, but I would not encourage anyone to use
non-free software even to get
On 12/13/09 8:49 AM, Ciaran O'Riordan cia...@member.fsf.org wrote:
Yes. You said that no one's yet demonstrated a problem, and you gave a
solution for if the problem was demonstrated. You're solution was 100%
compatible with Richard's solution.
Except that we now seem to have had the
In the interests of a broader collection of data, I've shelled out of my own
pocket to set up a professional-level SurveyMonkey account (the use of which
I will happily share with the Foundation, at least until the annual
subscription runs out, if it wishes to conduct surveys of its own).
I've
On 12/11/09 7:12 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
Stormy, we seem to be miscommunicating. I said that people should not
promote non-free software on Planet GNOME. You seem to be arguing
against something different.
I believe Stormy was quite clear and on point: It sounded to me as
Philip van Hoof writes
I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.
I'd second this.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
On 12/11/09 8:40 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
Don't we have more concrete issues to address?
We _were_ attempting to finalize a Code of Conduct which could be provided
to speakers, in the hope of avoiding future instances of the sort of
harmless fun we experienced during Mr.
64 matches
Mail list logo
