Re: Board of Directors Elections 2017 - Candidacy - Alexandre Franke

2017-05-19 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 10:34 +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote:
> Name: Alexandre Franke
> Affiliation: none

> I believe I also bring political and ethical value to the board.
> Software freedom, privacy and Internet decentralisation are values I
> care a lot about and I put them forward whenever a situation demands
> it. I reckon my European mindset adds an important point of view to
> the board as well.

Interesting, indeed. You plan to bring decentralisation to GNOME's
political and ethical values of the board, too?

If so, how would that look like? A confederation of areas of expertise
with each a small hierarchy of decision making?

Which areas would there be? Marketing, technical, organisational,
conference and hackfests, documentation, i8an, financial, etc?



Kind regards,

Philip Van Hoof


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Board of Directors Elections 2015 - Candidacy - Ryan Lortie

2015-05-21 Thread Philip Van Hoof
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi Ryan,

If any, in what direction would you change gnome after being elected?

Kind regards,

Philip

On 18/05/2015 22:43, Ryan Lortie wrote:
 karaj,
 
 I am announcing my candidacy for the board of directors.
 
 If elected, this would be my second time on the board.
 
 I have been a GNOME developer during many years, mostly on
 lower-level things.
 
 I am currently affiliated with Canonical where I am in the desktop
 team, mostly in context of working on the GNOME technologies that
 are also used in our products.
 
 I am happy to answer any questions that you may have about how I
 would represent you on the board of directors.
 
 Cheers ___ 
 foundation-announce mailing list foundation-annou...@gnome.org 
 https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-announce
 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVWs9TAAoJEEP2NSGEz4aD+KEIAIAMRPmg1wQsUza/Y6lDsJab
uXbUh9/9miVz5CH98kPX24A0dAcDJjgFZI/OBAjCR4Lb3avRUupT3eQECFLMEknk
JULZpmQ9Co/KC3Y+ve7V3uACQsxLK65BggMti9omblNyAiQl8cH1tPHcf38BnE9F
myhZEsxlaVjbdTdX5ClOf+gMIEywv7FL1nuSWkkF2BZ6vEM4KVOWfxI7CvBJLRPE
YBLPOgqd1prDPwsnoGj+EMwdVQofQCciXzUbWd5DNpgatUaSgIQRM1DIYMsm6sCq
+z+0z2Xu4Uafy2yDLa45cIOrjXDudumWN4ttPF3saieT72Ue7pKW3xTdnJdrhug=
=huJX
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Announcing GNOME's official GitHub mirror

2013-08-19 Thread Philip Van Hoof

Richard Stallman wrote on 17/08/2013 1:10:

I don't think it'll make much of a difference as neither technical nor 
philosophical arguments are often part of, not what gets discussed at 
GNOME but, what gets decided. To make sure that it's noted I do agree 
with Richard on this:



But I don't think that applies to most of what GitHub or Savannah does.
Those are communication activities.  You couldn't do them by calling
a library in your own computer.  So it is ok to use services for that
(but pay attention to the privacy issues).  However, it would be nice
if we could do it in a peer-to-peer fashion.
I also wonder what Github offers that can't be done peer to peer. Note 
that I lack experience in the magic of quantum-marketing iCloud stuff.



Kind regards,

Philip

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


[no subject]

2013-08-19 Thread Philip Van Hoof

-- 
Philip Van Hoof
freelance software developer
Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Proposal: DNS change irc.gnome.org becomes A record and irc.gimpnet.org starts getting phased out.

2013-05-11 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 08:55 -0500, meg ford wrote:

Hi Meg,




 In general when people use the term PC in the US, they are talking
 about being adopting extra careful/ newly coined language. That's not
 what I'm saying. You wouldn't use the term gimp when talking to
 someone unless you wanted to indicate that you hate them or had were
 trying to start a fight. There isn't anything pc about not using such
 a  term. You would only use it if you were specifically trying to
 offend someone. Just to clarify, are you saying that it's pc to say we
 shouldn't use derogatory epithets, or are you disagreeing with my
 assessment of the word?

Note that I didn't say irc.gnome.org is a bad idea. Removing Gimpnet is
a bad idea (I don't think that real gimps join Gimpnet to be a jerk on
the IRC server, if that's truly the case then a solution for that would
be to either ban those people or to lock their discussions in a IRC
channel on that server).
 
 I'm saying that it's an I18n issue. I recently read that the GNOME
 foot is insulting in Thailand so we are trying not to use it there. We
 aren't getting rid of it entirely because it's specifically offensive
 there, but not everywhere. I would guess that gimp isn't offensive in
 languages other than English since we are only hearing about this from
 English speakers. In the case of the GIMP I can see why they a name
 change would be really problematic and potentially harm the project.
 In the case of GNOME irc I think don't see that there is an issue
 wrt making the change. However, maybe that's because I speak English.
 But since English is the official language of the project, so maybe
 it's important to consider making a change. What do you think?

I think GNOME should introduce irc.gnome.org and alter the IRC server's
MOTD but shouldn't remove the irc.gimpnet.org domain. I'm not certain
that this should be done because of derogative terms like the word gimp,
but rather because GNOME is GNOME, not GIMP, and it's misleading to have
to connect to irc.gimpnet.org to talk to GNOME developers.

Kind regards,

Philip

 
 
   The proposal is to make irc.gnome.org be an DNS A
 record and
  we will
   continue to honor irc.gimpnet.org as a CNAME for
 one year in
  which
   case we will then remove it altogether.
 
 
  Gimpnet is cultural inheritance of GNOME, I think
 it's a bad
  idea to do
  this for that reason.
 
  Kind regards,
 
  Philip
 
 
  --
  Philip Van Hoof
  Software developer
  Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be
 
  ___
  foundation-list mailing list
  foundation-list@gnome.org
 
 https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Proposal: DNS change irc.gnome.org becomes A record and irc.gimpnet.org starts getting phased out.

2013-05-10 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 17:06 -0500, meg ford wrote:

Hey Meg,
 
 On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org
 wrote:
 On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 10:02 -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote:
 
  We are looking into changing our irc server name from
 irc.gimpnet.org
  to irc.gnome.org and looking for feedback.
 
 Why?
 
  Essentially, it's become problematic to have 'gimp' in the
 name of our
  server.  To many, 'gimp' is an offensive term an given our
 dedication
  to a11y it seems counter-intuitive to have this name in our
  infrastructure.
 
 Yet another PCPOS in GNOME. When will this stop? Is there an
 end? Any?
 
 
 Yeah idk how PC it is to not use the term gimp. The US, where I
 live, has pretty strong free speech laws, but people don't use this
 term because it's too offensive. So I think this is kind of an I18n
 issue.
 

However, GNOME's origin is partly Gtk+ (which even predates and from
where GLib came). Gtk+'s origin is Gimp's toolkit. Gimp was ~ GNOME's
first and or one of its first projects and actually sort of predates
GNOME as a sort of ancestor of the project and this community.

What we're discussing here is that for PC reasons, GNOME wants to tell
its father that it is no longer its father. I think that's crazy.

I'd be completely ok with adding a irc.gnome.org and perhaps even
changing the MOTD of the IRC server to mention less GIMP and more GNOME.
That's natural as indeed GNOME today stands on its own feet. But why
remove the GimpNET domain? You don't have to use it if you don't like
the word Gimp.

GNOME is a heavy user of Gtk+ which stands for Gimp Toolkit. With this
latest line of PC thinking, shouldn't GNOME also stop using Gtk+? You
know, because Gtk+ has an 'offensive' name in its acronym.

I think you're all taking this way way too far and I think its becoming
POS, whatever people like Karen think about Code of Conducts (that I
actually have helped write - go look up in the mailing list from what
discussion 'Assume people mean well' came from and who the actors in the
formation of that part were).


Kind regards,

Philip


  The proposal is to make irc.gnome.org be an DNS A record and
 we will
  continue to honor irc.gimpnet.org as a CNAME for one year in
 which
  case we will then remove it altogether.
 
 
 Gimpnet is cultural inheritance of GNOME, I think it's a bad
 idea to do
 this for that reason.
 
 Kind regards,
 
 Philip
 
 
 --
 Philip Van Hoof
 Software developer
 Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be
 
 ___
 foundation-list mailing list
 foundation-list@gnome.org
 https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
 
 
 


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: A question to the candidates

2012-05-31 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Sun, 2012-05-27 at 11:21 +0200, Gil Forcada wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 First of all thanks for running for this critical role on GNOME!
 
 My question is about hardware and contacts:
 
 The average user is not going to ever install its own operating system
 by itself, for them hardware and software come together and they die
 together, so a new version of Windows means a new laptop and so on, a
 new iPhone OS means a new iPhone hardware...

 So the crucial part here are ISV, contacting them, engaging with them
 and finally making them ship our great software to the end user.

Note that in my view is lack of such a well supported context for
businesses in the GNOME community what led to the switch from Gtk+ to Qt
during the Fremantle to Harmattan platforms at Nokia. Now its history of
course, but reflecting on it wouldn't be a bad exercise.

In mobile and embedded is Qt in high demand. Here you can find a Qt job
quite easily. I can effectively name 3 or 4 companies that are looking
for a C++/Qt developer nearby Brussels and Antwerp. None for Gtk+. Of
course with Nokia more or less stopping with Qt is demand for Qt also
lower as before. But Gtk+ isn't filling up the gap. I rather notice that
commercial activity in mobile and embedded is going back to the Windows
platform, to Android and to iOS. Even Flash is more often used on
embedded than Gtk+. How bad can it get?

You can have all the ideologies about freedom and free software you
want, and it seems to be the only though question being asked to the
candidates this year, but without enough commercial activity around the
GNOME platform like we had during the 770, N800, N810 and N900 will the
amount of people working on it, will students lose interest and will
future innovation in it be low.

I think this is GNOME's bigger-picture problem: its hostility towards
ISVs and commercial activity.

 Is that something that you both find important and also will try to
 pursue if you are elected?
 
 Cheers,

-- 


Philip Van Hoof
Software developer
Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Candidacy: Ryan Lortie

2011-05-23 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 11:00 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
 On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 14:59 +0100, Allan Day wrote: 
  * Do you have any concrete ideas of what 'strong and coordinated
  technical leadership' would involve? It sounds very nice and all, but
  I'd like to hear some specifics before I cast my vote. ;)
 
 I think it's premature to say this is the solution which is why I've
 limited myself to identifying a (perceived) problem.  I am simply
 stating that we should move in a direction of more coordinated technical
 decision-making.
 
 That said, it's true that I've had some ideas of how this *might* look. 
 
 The most obvious solution to me is the creation of a technical board,
 directly elected with membership restrictions by affiliation (basically,
 just like the foundation board).

Let me first point out that I think that such a technical board is a
very great idea and that I do believe that we should put it in place as
soon as possible.

Now my question.

How would this technical board be elected? Who will get voting rights?

- Will all foundation members get a single vote?

- Will projects get a vote too? And if so, at which point will a project
  get a vote? As soon as it's part of GNOME's modules? Its external
  dependencies too? Who gets to cast a project's vote (its maintainer?)?

- Will GNOME's (event) sponsors get a vote?

- Will companies involved in GNOME's development get a vote?

Basically the question is: how do we identify the stakeholders and how
do we make sure that all stakeholders are appropriately represented at
this technical board?

I fear that if we don't allow representation of such stakeholders, that
the legitimacy of the technical board wont be strong enough to
technically steer GNOME in such a way that it'll make a real difference.

[cut]

 I did intend to start a discussion.

Good! Thanks a lot Ryan!


Cheers,

Philip

-- 


Philip Van Hoof
freelance software developer
Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Candidacy: Ryan Lortie

2011-05-23 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 13:51 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
 hi Philip,
 
 (keeping in mind that creating a technical board is very much an open
 question)
 
 On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 19:48 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: 
  - Will all foundation members get a single vote?
 
 That was indeed my intention.
 
 I think your other proposals are too difficult to implement and possibly
 even undesirable. Do you have some others ideas about how it might be
 possible?

Yes I think that a project should get a vote and that its maintainer
could be assigned to decide how the project will vote.

I also think that a company having five or more developers assigned to
working on GNOME modules is in my opinion a formidable stakeholder who
should get votes per group of (let's say) five such developers. A
substantial amount of work should be done yearly by each developer, of
course. How to measure this is something I have no immediate idea for
(amount of bugs fixed, amount of commits, features, involvement at other
places, consensus, etc). I'm sure other people will have ideas (and
measuring can always be improved at a later time).

I think that event sponsors and other sponsors should not get a vote
(for the technical board), but they could or should be involved in
Foundation matters. Although I believe that this is De Facto already the
case.

I'm afraid that letting only foundation members get votes that populism
or time-of-the-year voting can cause a too big changes to the project.
It's good to have other stakeholders involved too (in my opinion).

Projects and companies putting human resources at work on GNOME modules
are in my opinion important stakeholders, and I think we should respect
their right to be involved in forming technical boards.

ps. A vote does not mean being part of the technical board, but it makes
it possible for you to vote for your representative (of course).


Cheers,

Philip


-- 


Philip Van Hoof
freelance software developer
Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GTK+/MeeGo Handset integration work, call for bids

2010-10-14 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 09:35 -0700, C.J. Adams-Collier KF7BMP wrote:
 I'm raising a red flag:
 
 W: Failed to fetch 
 http://download.meego.com/live/devel:/tools:/sdk:/host/${distribution}/Sources.gz
   404  Not Found
 
 E: Some index files failed to download, they have been ignored, or old ones 
 used instead.
 
 I don't think it's a good idea to put this kind of funding in to a
 project that does not comply with DSC/DFSG

Calm down. MeeGo is an operating system that is under development. I'm
sure the folks at Intel and Nokia will sort it out for you if you
politely ask them for the sources.

You're also referring to a Debian repo's Sources.gz. Most source code of
what you need for GTK+ integration in MeeGo is readily available either
as upstream projects (unchanged softwares) or on meego.gitorious.org

 http://www.debian.org/social_contract

Note that GNOME doesn't necessarily follow Debian's social contract.
GNOME has its own guidelines. Sure they match mostly with Debian's
social contract, but it's not helpful to intermix different project's
guidelines and raise red flags about them.

This indeed sounds better:

 The GNOME Project is an effort to create a complete, free and
 easy-to-use desktop environment for users, as well as a
 powerful application development framework for software
 developers. GNOME is part of the GNU Project, is Free
 Software, and developed as Open Source software. 
 
 The GNOME Foundation will work to further the goal of the
 GNOME project: to create a computing platform for use by the
 general public that is completely free software. 
 
 To achieve this goal, the Foundation will coordinate releases
 of GNOME and determine which projects are part of GNOME. The
 Foundation will act as an official voice for the GNOME
 project, providing a means of communication with the press and
 with commercial and noncommercial organizations interested in
 GNOME software. The foundation may produce educational
 materials and documentation to help the public learn about
 GNOME software. In addition, it may sponsor GNOME-related
 technical conferences, and represent GNOME at relevant
 conferences sponsored by others, help create technical
 standards for the project and promote the use and development
 of GNOME software. 

Yes, and if you can find any piece of software that the developer needs
of which the source code isn't available; then ask Intel or Nokia for
assistance. Or ask the MeeGo community on the FreeNode IRC server.

Non-availability of a Sources.gz while MeeGo is perhaps migrating to
another package repository format isn't necessarily a 'red flag'.

Cheers,

Philip


 On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 12:55 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: 
  The GNOME Foundation is looking for developers to enhance the developer
  experience of using GTK+ to port and create applications on MeeGo
  Handset devices.
  
  Knowledge of the MeeGo Handset development process, and GTK+ internals
  will be required to carry out the work.
  
  The tasks to be achieved are:
  - Ensure that GTK+ applications display as expected on the MeeGo Handset
  platform, including checking that fixes to the compositor are made if
  necessary.
  - Add to upstream GTK+ helper functionality to create stand-alone GTK+
  applications to run on MeeGo.
  - Merge Hildon widgets functionality into GTK+ upstream, where it makes
  sense to do so.
  
  The money available for the project is $50,000, and the bidder selection
  will be made by a group including professional consultants with GTK+ and
  MeeGo experience and GNOME Foundation Board members.
  
  Bids should include:
  - Results of testing stock GTK+ applications on the MeeGo Handset platform
  - Details of your research into what GTK+ functionality needs to be
  added to ease porting of stock applications to MeeGo Handset.
  - The list of widgets and functionality ported from Hildon to upstream
  GTK+, including a review of how the functionality would be integrated
  (extending existing widgets, new widgets, etc.)
  - A time line and schedule for the whole project
  - References to previous MeeGo, MeeGo Handset, Maemo, or GTK+ work.
  
  Note that the goal of the GNOME Foundation for this project is upstream
  acceptance of the various modifications made during the project.
  
  Please send your proposals to board-l...@gnome.org with the subject line
  MeeGo Handset Bid.
  
  Regards
  
  ___
  foundation-announce mailing list
  foundation-annou...@gnome.org
  http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-announce
 
 ___
 foundation-list mailing list
 foundation-list@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

-- 


Philip Van Hoof
freelance software developer
Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be

Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org

2010-08-17 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 04:24 +0300, Osama Khalid wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:00:06AM +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
  I do agree with this. Being condemned to freedom means that only we
  ourselves are responsible for justification. Giving freedom means
  allowing justifying the use of proprietary software.
 
 1. Everyone is, more or less, free to do whatever they wish.
 2. GNOME will only host and endorse free software.


Right now, #2 isn't accurate. GNOME will also host open-source
software: 

http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing 

Free-ness: Apps must be under a Free or Open license and support
open standards and protocols. In case of doubt about the module
license, send an email to the Release Team and the desktop-devel
mailing list. Support of proprietary protocols and closed
standards is part of the world we live in, but all applications
that support closed protocols should also support open
equivalents where those exist, and should default to those if at
all possible while still serving their intended purpose.


So, clearly, you guys want to change this, that means that i ask(ed)
this question:

  Why not open-source software?

 I don't think we need to get into the free software vs. open source
 debate here.

That debate isn't the question here.

The question was why not open-source software?

 The main point where they differ is not whether any given

Their main difference isn't the question.

 code *on the Internet* is free/open (and that's the important part
 here), but whether certain conditions, such as Tivoization, may turn
 the code into non-free/closed.

Sure, however, why not open-source software?

Cheers

-- 


Philip Van Hoof
freelance software developer
Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org

2010-08-17 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 10:41 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:

Hi Johannes!

  Sure, however, why not open-source software?

 As far as I see it, there is a clear definition for free software while
 Open Source can refer to many things and while all free software is open
 source not all open source software is free software.

 The minimal definition of open source is that you can look at the source
 code, that is not enough if you may not share/change/distribute/etc. it.
 All other definitions of open source are rather weak. There is the OSI[1]
 definition but there are also others.
 
 Point 4 of the OSI definition would be rather annoying for GNOME in
 pratical terms.

GNOME could allow all open source software[1] that is compatible with LGPL,
for example. I guess that's reasonable given that most lib* projects of
GNOME are LGPL. Now that copyright reassignment must be preapproved on a
case-by-case, GNOME could add no copyright assignment requirement to
the list of when in doubt too. Etcetera.


 IMHO this is leading to nothing and it is far easier to stick to open
 source. In the terms above there is a clear text saying that you should
 contact the release-team when in doubt. If you have a non-free but open
 source license then I am pretty sure there is some doubt.

I agree with sticking to open source with a text saying that you should
contact the release-team when in doubt, and that this is far easier.

Cheers,

Philip


[1] http://www.opensource.org/osd.html

-- 


Philip Van Hoof
freelance software developer
Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org

2010-08-16 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 04:33 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
 Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are
 LGPL'd or even [X11'd], for which non-free addons could legally be
 developed.
 
 In those cases, nonfree addons would be lawful, but they are still
 wrong.  So we should make sure not to include them in any list.

We should nothing except what GNOME as an organization agreed earlier.

These are the current rules for module proposing. I don't see why a
addons.gnome.org would need to be different:

http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing :

Free-ness: Apps must be under a Free or Open license and support
open standards and protocols. In case of doubt about the module
license, send an email to the Release Team and the desktop-devel
mailing list. Support of proprietary protocols and closed
standards is part of the world we live in, but all applications
that support closed protocols should also support open
equivalents where those exist, and should default to those if at
all possible while still serving their intended purpose.

That states free OR open. Given the context I guess open means open
source as defined here: http://www.opensource.org/ (fair enough?)


Cheers,

Philip


-- 


Philip Van Hoof
freelance software developer
Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org

2010-08-16 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 19:33 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
 It's not really a question of morality, how would we prevent a user
 from installing both a GPL and a non-OSI plugin for Tomboy at the same
 time?
 
 As someone already pointed out, we don't aim to _stop_ users from
 installing whatever they wish.  The question at hand is what we
 _suggest_ to users.  We should not steer users towards nonfree
 programs.
 
 What counts is whether the addon is free or nonfree.  (See the
 definition in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.)  The OSI
 has a different criterion, called open source.  It really is different;
 not all open source programs are free.  In the GNU Project, we don't
 follow the OSI; we insist on free programs.


But then again, that's the GNU project. GNOME, however, has different
guidelines:

http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing 

Free-ness: Apps must be under a Free or Open license and support
open standards and protocols. In case of doubt about the module
license, send an email to the Release Team and the desktop-devel
mailing list. Support of proprietary protocols and closed
standards is part of the world we live in, but all applications
that support closed protocols should also support open
equivalents where those exist, and should default to those if at
all possible while still serving their intended purpose.

You can see that these guidelines clarify that the license must either
be free OR open (BOTH are permitted).

I bet this guideline had a good reason to come into existence. So let's
stick to it. Whatever GNU's guideline is.


Cheers,

Philip


-- 


Philip Van Hoof
freelance software developer
Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org

2010-08-16 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 19:21 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
 Hi!
 
  Forgive my ignorance, but isn't that perfectly allowed as long as the
  user doesn't then distribute the combination?
 
 Yeah, that's perfectly OK as Tomboy as LGPL. And for me, Freedom also
 includes the freedom to use proprietary software if someone wants to.

I do agree with this. Being condemned to freedom means that only we
ourselves are responsible for justification. Giving freedom means
allowing justifying the use of proprietary software.

Defining an individual's freedom it is up to the individual, not to
dogma's nor organizations. Not even the FSF.

Let people have either anguish, their choice of adviser or their own
responsibility of choice. It's the core of freedom. Software in itself,
isn't.

Choosing for yourself and for all of mankind what is best ...

that could be freedom.

 Anyway, a.g.o will obviously only host free software!

Why not open-source software?

So far, I'm all but convinced that free software is good enough to
be the only possible option. Making this the only possible option is
quite a heavy philosophic requirement. Based on what philosophy is open
source not good enough? And please take your time and be elaborate.

I think that this decision is, by far, heavy enough for philosophy to be
put into action.


Cheers,

Philip

-- 


Philip Van Hoof
freelance software developer
Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Fwd: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy

2010-06-03 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 11:52 +0100, Iain wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org wrote:
  On 6/1/10 7:38 AM, Iain i...@gnome.org wrote:
 
  It seems to me that your underlying belief is that there is too much
  (large) corporate influence in GNOME. Would you say that you might
  have some conflict of interest here given that your project
  (Zeitgeist) was ignored/shunned by the GNOME Shell developers?
 
  Iain, this seems unreasonable to me. Is anyone who decides to run for the
  board who's ever had a disagreement with some group of GNOME developers or
  other going to be subject to the suggestion that they have a conflict of
  interest?
 
  If that's the case, I doubt we can really find a single qualified candidate.
 
  Everyone's got their interests and views, and (hopefully) the candidates are
  candid about what their views are. I think these suggestions of conflicts
  of interest are, honestly, a little out of line.
 
 I disagree, I don't remember any candidate who has quite glaringly
 obvious conflicts of interest running though their candidacy statement
 as Seif's. Its a struggle to find anything in his statement that
 doesn't come from his annoyance that Zeitgeist is not being picked up
 for GNOME 3.

The way I read Seif's candidacy is that he wants more coordination to
take place between different GNOME stakeholders (community, Canonical,
RH, Novell, etc) when it comes to the development and design of a
technology like GNOME's Shell.

This is _perfectly_ reasonable and several people have responded already
that they understand and agree with this. Include me in that group.

 In future, I would prefer it if you would reply in public,

In my opinion is your Seif - Zeitgeist conspiracy theory, crazy. It's
also my opinion that it doesn't belong on the foundation-list.

Can you stick to asking the candidates relevant questions?

 [Context] Lefty fwd'd his reply to the list, but not mine to him.
 In future, I would prefer it if you would reply in public,

Lefty did reply in public. Getting your reply on the foundation-list is
your responsibility, not Lefty's. It would even be impolite if he'd have
forwarded a private reply from you to him unto a public mailing list.


Cheers,

Philip

-- 


Philip Van Hoof
freelance software developer
Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Meeting Minutes Published - March 18, 2010

2010-03-26 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 21:31 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
 Le jeudi 25 mars 2010, à 15:56 -0500, Brian Cameron a écrit :
  * Code of Conduct and the Speaker Guidelines
o The board decided to vote to approve the proposed Code of
  Conduct and Speaker Guidelines at the next board meeting,
  and to require new Foundation members to sign them.
  Foundation members are encouraged to provide any feedback,
  ideas, or concerns before the next board meeting.
 
 Oops, missing link here:
  http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct/SpeakerGuidelines


Just like with the original CodeOfConduct I'd like to sign the
SpeakerGuidelines as soon as it's out of draft status (in case I then
still agree with the text, like I do now). 

Will this be made possible? Without a significant amount of signatures
these guidelines don't really have much authority yet :-\

 Matthew Garrett came with the first draft for those guidelines, and
 Murray Cumming improved the wording, so thanks to both of them! Also
 thanks to the advisory board for some initial feedback on the proposal.

Thanks!

 (I also need to check, but for the Code of Conduct, I think we said
 we'll vote on making it a requirement for new Foundation members, and
 not on approving the Code of Conduct itself)

So you'll vote on asking new foundation members to approve the code of
conduct, but the board itself wont vote for approval of the document
itself? Or? I didn't really get that :-)

What about existing members? In my opinion if we make it a requirement
to approve (and sign) the document for new members, we ought to also
make it a requirement to do the same thing .. for existing members. 

Else we create a difference between existing and new members. We're all
equal in my opinion: either it's all required, or no requirement, or the
requirement is completely meaningless and just appeasement making.

I atm think a full requirement for all is a good idea, by the way. Then
at least we can with a straight face point to people and say: Look, you
signed this. Everybody in GNOME is the same in this regard, so please
also follow it.



Cheers,

Philip


-- 


Philip Van Hoof
freelance software developer
Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Speaker Guidelines

2010-03-26 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 11:31 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
 Brian Cameron wrote:
   Oops, missing link here:
http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct/SpeakerGuidelines 
 
 I cleaned up some of the text on this page, though I didn't think deeply
 about the content.
 
 However, I think it is currently an invitation to the same old
 philosophical discussion every time there's a problem. I think we should
 state our position clearly, so it doesn't have to be said each time, at
 the end of a long thread. So I would add this text to the Dealing With
 Problems section:

I very much agree with stating the position clearly. 

 We are not interested in a debate about whether someone should feel
 offended. You should avoid offending people even if you do not share
 their views.

A clear position will avoid a lot of discussions, I agree. But then
somebody of the board (or a appointed person) should also as soon as
possible halt such offending statements with a reply like:

Please follow our guidelines as stated in the Code Of Conduct which,
 since it is a requirement for all members, you agreed with. End of
 discussion.

 We do not consider this to be excessive censorship. It does not stop
 you from offending outside of the community.

Exactly. Outside of GNOME's infrastructure people are free to do what
they want. When using its infrastructure, foundation members are a guest
and should stick to the principles and guidelines of the house. If they
disagree they can try to vote the guideline away or don't be a member.

A clear position makes happy people. Happy people contribute more.



Cheers,

Philip

-- 


Philip Van Hoof
freelance software developer
Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

2010-03-08 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 08:15 -0500, Jim Gettys wrote:
 Philip Van Hoof wrote:

Doing some more [CUT]ing.
 
  In other words:
  
  UI and client developers should learn to build state machines instead of
  threads that work like (where [...] is ~ an IP frame):
  
  [ask], wait, [receive], process, [ask], wait, [receive], process
  
  Instead of that, do this:
  
  [ask ask ask] [receive receive], process, process, [receive], process
 
 Thank you very much for explaining HTTP/1.1 pipelining to the former 
 editor of the HTTP/1.1 standard... ;-)

Okay, 'oeps' ;-)

I was of course referring more to pipelining in general. Not just
pipelining for HTTP/1.1

[CUT - I hope you don't mind -]

 No, this is not the incentive driving toward obfuscation of code: the 
 apps get cached just like other web content; what you say about latency 
 is true in the general case, but not the case I'm pointing out.
 
 I'm making the point that HTML 5 enables longer term and off line use of 
 cached apps, in a standardized way (a great improvement over google 
 gears or adobe air).
 
 The issue encouraging obfuscation is *first time* use of applications, 
 or updates to applications.  Web applications can and often are updated 
 much more often than conventional apps have been; it is a fundamental 
 advantage they have due to the improved distribution channel.

So... what you are suggesting (when it comes to local desktop apps) is
that GNOME should improve, fundamentally, its distribution channel?

For example by implementing far more functions of the software as
Javascript plugins? (a possible example script language)

I think conventional apps can be updated as often as web apps are, but
it will require a fundamental different mindset about how to distribute
software.

I'm pro this. But it requires a fundamental change in how programmers
think about distributing their software. It wont be the only fundamental
change they need to make to stay relevant. So yes.

 My point, fundamentally, is that we must ensure that free software 
 alternatives never work *worse* than proprietary.  This should be be a 
 minimum standard we strive always to achieve.


Obviously, yes.


Thanks for your reply, Jim. Always nice to chat a bit with the pros.



Cheers, 

Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

2010-03-05 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 21:24 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:

Hey Jud, 

 Sorry for intruding again, but it was recommended to me that I could
 post this message.  It was a sidenote on Philip Van Hoof's message,
 regarding the promotion of GtkBuilder.

Although the atmosphere just recovered from being tense, I don't think
that should make people like you, who have legitimate questions concerns
and / or ideas, hold back from posting them.

We debaters should decrease our traffic on this mailing list and improve
our methods of discussing things, and meanwhile does this list need more
questions like yours. Not less. Especially now that the strategic-goals
debate is ongoing.

Your question for example sheds a light on the problem that it's not
always clear what these tools, that everybody is talking about, are.
Where you can find them. How to use them. etc.

This certainly is a problem about GNOME's development experience.

Thanks. Now on to the answer of your question:

 On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
 
  I hope you guys really don't write the XML by hand now.)
 
  No, Glade-3, GtkBuilder or the integration in Anjuta
 

 I would make one small point:  I still have no idea what you mean by
 I can use Glade-3 or GtkBuilder.  I've never actually *seen* a tool
 called GtkBuilder.  :)  After the googling and reading, I'm assuming
 GtkBuilder is actually just a file format, and has nothing to do with
 IDE tools.

As for what GtkBuilder exactly is, GtkBuilder is a class in Gtk+ that
more or less does what the old libglade did. Which is:

A GtkBuilder is an auxiliary object that reads textual descriptions of
 a user interface and instantiates the described objects.

Glade-3 is among the softwares that you can use to create GtkBuilder
compatible .ui XML files (which often used to be called .glade files).

Some examples, for Vala:
http://code.valaide.org/content/gtkbuilder-example

Glade-3 manual:
http://library.gnome.org/devel/glade/stable/

Glade integration in Anjuta:
http://library.gnome.org/devel/anjuta-manual/stable/glade.html.en

The documentation of the GtkBuilder C class:
http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/unstable/GtkBuilder.html


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

2010-03-05 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 07:51 -0500, Jim Gettys wrote:

I'm doing a huge [CUT] here, I hope you don't mind?

 People like Google work *hard* on latency and understand 
 every byte counts (among many other things: go look at the google talks 
 by their engineers on the topic).

In my opinion you solve latency more by making services capable of
pipelining, than by compressing data. And by making clients that make
use of the remote service's pipelining capabilities.

The perceived latency will include the time to decompress the compressed
chunks (when using a compression algorithm instead of code obfuscating,
like they do with javascript as you point out), but I'll agree that this
is negligible compared to average network latency. Especially on 3G,
UMTS and (all) other mobile network protocols.

In other words:

UI and client developers should learn to build state machines instead of
threads that work like (where [...] is ~ an IP frame):

[ask], wait, [receive], process, [ask], wait, [receive], process

Instead of that, do this:

[ask ask ask] [receive receive], process, process, [receive], process

An example of this is Dave Cridland's Polymer and Telomer.

This, however, isn't always simple with the newest HTML5 + Javascript
technologies. Meaning that GNOME's desktop technologies has an advantage
here.

Especially for mobile is this interesting (where from quite some time to
come, network latency will be the problem numero uno).

I'm guessing Google has components and development tools for this in
their Weave stuff? They are catching up! ;)

 Right now, these are two disincentives for the source code to be 
 available at all.
 
 As a solution to 2), Gnome (and/or the FSF) could work in the web 
 community to standardize mechanisms and code for making such source 
 available.  So long as solutions to 2) do not exist, we're in a much 
 poorer position; free and open source code should not work *worse* than 
 proprietary, IMHO.

I agree.

 I'm concerned to have not seen this sort of strategic issue discussed 
 widely.

Me neither, although GIO's newest GNIO and the bug about TLS encryption
support is *very* promising and going in the right direction, I think.

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=588189


Cheers,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

2010-03-05 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:32 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
 On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:08 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
  We debaters should decrease our traffic on this mailing list
 
 No. Stubborn people who insist on having the last word should stop
 pointless arguments. It's bad enough when people think they can have a
 conversation with one of you. It's worse when you start trying to talk
 to each other.

Murray, can you discuss this with me off list?

I think everybody is tired of both what you call pointless arguments AND
the personal attacks. Both are in a symbiosis, and restarting it once
more ain't helpful.

Let's not do Jud a disservice.


Cheers,

Philip


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

2010-03-05 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:42 +, Alan Cox wrote:
  In my opinion you solve latency more by making services capable of
  pipelining, than by compressing data. And by making clients that make
  use of the remote service's pipelining capabilities.

 Thats a bit naïve. They two solve totally different problems and it is
 dependant upon the behaviour of the pipe which matters. Compression
 reduces latency by lowering time from initiation of transmit to
 completion of receive. Pipelining removes some of the other overheads but
 only if causality permits it, which can often be a big problem.

Right

 Now if you do look at serious mobile and web applications its not
 pipelining thats a key part of the design at all. It's understanding
 the transaction seequences, making bandwidth/latency tradeoffs and being
 able to figure them out on the fly.

 As bandwidth rises over latency you start to answer questions that are
 not asked - just in case. So for a typical 3G phone user you get some
 benefit from dumping chunks of info to the client to avoid round trips.
 Serious developers of these tools can actually show you the graphs of
 each transaction, and the decision trees for different transaction
 patterns that have been carefully plotted out to minimise the number of
 events.

Of course, Doing this in combination with compression of said data is a
very good way to reduce latency too.

Reducing events in general is perhaps what I should have written? :)

It's indeed better to ask once and receive 3 larger chunks compressed,
than 50 individual small questions, and each time wait for a small
answers.

Although serious web applications are good at this, I don't think it's
already at the point of being very easy for average developers.

This is where I think we might gain or already have an advantage.

(But, the web is catching up - of course)

 I've seen some of that with low level X toolkits, and nothing
 much with the GNOME desktop. Its taking people like Arjan and the Moblin
 startup work to turn up all the real uglies and dubmness in the desktop.

Yes

On a less related note, it's always nice when Arjan passes by and
reduces the startup time of your thumbnail service by two seconds ;-)

http://git.xfce.org/apps/tumbler/commit/?id=cfb3dd90f4e23d911c2d55853dcb5dc05ceb9516

Thanks Arjan!

  UI and client developers should learn to build state machines instead of
  threads that work like (where [...] is ~ an IP frame):
 
 Doesn't need to be a state machine, you just need enough parallelism to
 fill the pipe. Exceeding that can actually reduce performance for other
 reasons.
 
 But yes I think this is what the low level graphics people have been
 trying to tell the desktop people for years and where some work on the
 UI toolkits happened. It's what the kernel people have been trying to tell
 the Gnome people for years about disk I/O patterns, its what the component
 people tried to tell everyone years ago about Bonobo - 

Ok, I was referring more to client-service situations like HTTP or IMAP
on remote services with latencies that are much worse than local events.

Nonetheless, you're right about this (I'm not involved in this kind of
work, so I'm going to refrain from commenting much on this).

 which was ignored with horrible consequences that knocked GNOME
 performance way back,

DBus's latency is also a bit of a problem for us, sometimes :-\

 and again about gconf (go admire the stats on a nautilus startup) which
 still makes more round trips that a corporate sales executive.

Ryan Lortie is working on GSettings and DConf, which uses an mmap for
read access and DBus for writes. Writes will still suffer of course.

I think this is finally arriving in GLib now. I hope.

  This, however, isn't always simple with the newest HTML5 + Javascript
  technologies. Meaning that GNOME's desktop technologies has an advantage
  here.
 
 I don't see that as being the case. GNOME has a lot of horribly latency
 inducing code in it much of which needs a serious effort to get back out.
 It was designed for a different world.

Yes :-\

 I think the advantage is actually with the opposition. They have designed
 from day one for latency, they have avoided inheriting dumb latency heavy
 models and they don't have the compatibility legacy that GNOME has to
 worry about in solving them.

OK


Thanks for your very informative reply, Alan.



Cheers,

Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

2010-03-04 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 18:46 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:
 On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Andrew Savory wrote:
  Focusing in on one area that I can talk about: Qt is perceived by
  some to be stronger from a business perspective due to the 'more
  complete' offering: extensive documentation and an SDK.

Correct.

I have seen some people saying that Qt was picked over GTK+ by most
recent developments of the new Maemo platform because Nokia couldn't
buy GTK+, but they could buy Qt.

I think that's quite incorrect. AFAICT they had a big problem finding
competent developers, and big problems getting GTK+ to become more
innovative for mobile use cases. Mobile is changing way faster than GTK+
is, and that's a problem.

As I mentioned before in the earlier thread, I think it's a self
inflicted problem.

Putting the blame on Qt being buyable is being in la la land.

  Perhaps more focus on and promotion of GNOME's developer tools/sdk
  offerings would be a useful meta-goal for the coming year?

Yes

/me whispers Anjuta

  Somehow enunciating the proposition that you don't need to be an
  alpha-dog developer to get engaged with GTK etc.

I agree

/me whispers Vala

  For example, I only recently found out about Anjuta: it's presumably
  a fairly important tool for people developing using GNOME
  technologies, but look at the results at
  http://www.google.com/search?q=anjutaas_sitesearch=www.gnome.org
  (Yes, I know there's a ton of stuff at library.gnome.org, I'm being
  devil's advocate here ...)

 Looking at Anjuta, I have no idea if it's a great resource to start
 GTK programming with or not.  You say yourself presumably, and
 that's the greatest nail in the coffin - you're obviously involved in
 GNOME development and you have *no* idea, you're barely familiar with
 it either. Otherwise I'm pretty sure you'd use words a little less weasely
 about it.

GNOME developers (not to use we) don't dogfood Anjuta enough. I know
that some developers, like myself, use it on a daily basis. I have also
been filing a lot of mini bugs about small problems about it.

I must say that the Anjuta team are very responsive compared to other
GNOME components when it comes to addressing and fixing those.

So I think it's ready for some serious dogfooding.

 You don't have to be an alpha dog to realize that GNOME has no blessed
 development workflow.

For a project like Tracker it comes down to:

git pull
git branch newfeature
git checkout newfeature
Change src/Makefile.am
Possibly change configure.ac
touch src/newsourcefile.c
Create src/newsourcefile.c
git add src/newsourcefile.c
git commit -a
git push origin newfeature
/msg #project Hi! I just implemented newfeature in branch newfeature
/msg #project Sure, thanks for review, I'll push to master
git rebase master -i
git push origin newfeature:master
git push origin :newfeature


 Currently I don't program in GNOME/GTK.  I have no idea how people
 actually *are*, since GNOME has (almost by intention) no approved
 development environment (a liveCD full of every Linux development tool
 known does not count).  I assume most of them are probably just
 writing their code by hand in Vi and passing esoteric arguments to
 GCC.  Serious, I have no idea how real GNOME developers program in
 GNOME - and my guesses aren't flattering.  [If it's anywhere near my
 guess, then no, I won't be programming in GNOME anytime soon.  And I
 can use Vi just fine, and GCC with some effort.]

With Anjuta's gnome-build integration you can do most of the build
environment changes using the popup menus: it'll adapt your Makefile.am
without completely rewriting it (being afraid of that is why, I think,
most people change Makefile.am manually).


 In other words, I think I have to be an alpha-dog developer, and
 nothing I've seen convinced me otherwise.  There's just too much crud
 to wade through, pulling together API references, documents on GUI
 design, etc. (I still have no idea what GtkBuilder is, and if I should
 even still try making a GUI in Glade or not.  I hope you guys really
 don't write the XML by hand now.)

No, Glade-3, GtkBuilder or the integration in Anjuta

 And any tutorial that starts with describing how to manage and link
 my object files on the command line isn't going to convince me
 otherwise.

I think there are some tutorials on subjects like this already, but
you're right that it all isn't very coherent.

I recall that there was at some point a book written and published about
GTK+ development. I think it's quite outdated now. Perhaps a team should
step in to bring the sources of that book up to date, and get it
republished?



Cheers,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME

2010-03-04 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 04:35 -0600, Andrew Savory wrote:

Hey Andrew,

 Focussing in on one area that I can talk about: Qt is perceived by
 some to be stronger from a business perspective due to the 'more
 complete' offering: extensive documentation and an SDK.
 
 Perhaps more focus on and promotion of GNOME's developer tools/sdk
 offerings would be a useful meta-goal for the coming year? Somehow
 enunciating the proposition that you don't need to be an alpha-dog
 developer to get engaged with GTK etc.
 
 For example, I only recently found out about Anjuta: it's presumably a
 fairly important tool for people developing using GNOME technologies,
 but look at the results at
 http://www.google.com/search?q=anjutaas_sitesearch=www.gnome.org
 (Yes, I know there's a ton of stuff at library.gnome.org, I'm being
 devil's advocate here ...)

How about if we'd promote the GNOME devtools distribution more?

Its website is hardly inviting, it's not themed like the rest of
gnome.org at this moment: http://projects.gnome.org/devtools/

I think it deserves a tab on the homepage gnome.org and more attention. 

Perhaps have a blog aggregator that is maintained by somebody who cherry
picks blog items from planet-gnome (and other sources), so that only the
technical and development related articles appear?

-- I noticed several people asking for a technical-only blog aggregator.

The maintainer of that website could also be responsible for taking
interviews of GNOME developers. For asking developers of popular
libraries to write an article about how to use their library. And then
to style that article and put it on the developer's website.

All GNOME programmers should be involved and take up responsibility.

I remember the GNOME Scaffolding project and the increased interest in
things like this. I think gnome-build was created back then, and
GtkSourceView's origin can probably also be traced back to that period? 


Cheers,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

2010-03-02 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 17:39 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:

 2010/3/2 Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org
 
  Stop dragging the GNOME Foundation list down these off topic
  roads and stop this pissing contest. 

 I think you, and many other people, are misinterpreting this
 as a pissing contest. It's not. It's a quite serious debate.
 
 And I think it's insulting of you to call it a pissing
 contest.
 
 If you don't like the debate, then why aren't you simply
 ignoring us?

 Philip, I think a lot of people are saying they'd rather not see these
 arguments on the Foundation list.

And they are probably right.

I wonder why *nobody* so far is going into the things that I said in my
last reply, but why everybody so far is instead going into this.

Anyway (really, it's fine for me. You hate it more than I do)

Thing is, that I really want the GNOME Foundation to take a stance on
these matters. Rather than continuing to ignore it. I want it to stop
hiding. To stop being afraid.

It might be surprising, but I'm pro a strong GNOME Foundation.

 We've had several threads in the past month that go on and on without
 being productive at all and you are one of the most frequent posters
 to each of them.

Each of the threads had a different nuance.

That I'm one of the most frequent posters just means that I voice my
opinion.

Luis's text is vague about this, but it does allow the Foundation's
members to give their opinion:

http://www.co-ment.net/text/141/ (I'm using the last version here)

The intent of the Membership is to provide the opportunity for all
 contributors to have a place and a voice in the GNOME foundation.

 I believe the way you respond often takes the thread off topic and
 turns it argumentative.

Everybody has believes. Good for you.

 When I've asked in the past, you've been good about stopping the
 personal insults.

I tried. Thanks for acknowledging this.

 Now I'm asking you to seriously consider each post you make to the
 Foundation list and ask yourself whether each part contributes
 productively to the conversation.

When a person is saying that programmers often forget about ethical
values like freedom, he's saying things about the morality of said
programmers.

I'm such a programmer. Imagine that he would have said:

Women often forget about ethical values like freedom

Do I really have to illustrate how certain feminists within GNOME would
likely respond to that?

I'm willing to let go of this part of the debate. I'm not willing to
accept the insult. Not ever.

Why didn't the GNOME Foundation take a stance on that?

It's your responsibility, Stormy.

My opinion might not be popular, but this is what we expect.

 For example, the three sentences I quoted above do not contribute in
 any way to the conversation. They start an argument with J5. If you
 want to argue with people, take it off list.

You might be right about the last three sentences.

But why didn't you said the same thing to John who accused me of turning
this into a pissing contest?

I didn't formulate this term. I'm responding to it.

Wasn't that formulation starting an argument with me?

And how wasn't it? If it wasn't.




Cheers,

Philip


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

2010-03-02 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 18:19 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:


 Because you are being disruptive on the Foundation List.

Again. That's your believe. Good for you.

 People are not interested in having this argument and you are causing
 people to unsubscribe to the Foundation List and to quit
 participating.

That's their action. And you can't control that.

(what's your point?)

 If you do support GNOME, then please stop turning every thread into an
 argument. Respond to things you perceive as argumentative off list. 

I do support GNOME. I want its Foundation to be strong.

 If people don't respond, assume they are not interested in that topic.

Sure.

 I will not be replying to this thread publicly any more. 

Although your reply is fair, I did ask these three questions:

  1)  Why didn't the GNOME Foundation take a stance on that?

  2)  Wasn't that formulation starting an argument with me?

3)  And how wasn't it? If it wasn't.


Why aren't you answering those questions?



Cheers,


Philip


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

2010-02-27 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 21:32 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
 If people are going to use Facebook, they should access it with free software.
 And it is useful for GNOME to do a good job of that.

Richard,

I wish you and the FSF would focus more on user rights and licensing of
(meta)data coming from websites like Facebook, and that you'd focus less
on demeaning insinuations to GNOME programmers that they know not about
ethics.

Such websites and services are becoming increasingly important in the
real market.

If you'd care about the freedom of the population of this world, you'd
see that this is an area of focus and importance.

Just my two cents.

 At the same time, using Facebook is a harmful practice.  It gives a
 misleading impression of privacy, it has close ties with the CIA and
 probably lets the CIA look at everything people upload.  (See
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook.)  It uses
 Flash format for video, which is harmful to free software.  Some of
 its services are SaaS, which takes away control of your computing
 just as proprietary software does.


 So if GNOME is to provide a special feature for using Facebook, it
 should also warn people that they shouldn't trust Facebook with
 anything sensitive.  It should make sure Gnash is installed for
 playing Flash, rather than lead people to install non-free Adobe
 software.  And it should not do anything to facilitate or encourage
 use of the SaaS features of Facebook.

Sure, I think such a warning should indeed be included in the UI work
that I'll let Adrian Bustany work on next few weeks.

I don't think we need ethics-teachings about this. We GNOME programmers
know. We do.

 (Can anyone tell me what what an empathy account does and what an
 f-spot export configuration does?)

You had a discussion with Ruben Vermeersh earlier, Ruben is a F-Spot
developer. I'm sure he can give you an answer (he's added in CC).

 It is also important to give equally good support to other systems
 people can use for telling each other about events; for instance,
 social networking sites of the free software community, and
 peer-to-peer methods.  This way, GNOME won't favor Facebook over those
 other methods.

Yes, as I posted in my earlier E-mail there are metadata miners for
flickr, twitter, etc. The service where the metadata ends up being
stored locally (Tracker's store) uses RDF with Nepomuk as ontology and
allows access to the metadata through SPARQL.

RDF, Nepomuk and SPARQL are all free standards and have multiple free
implementations (the free definition that FSF uses).

The problem with for example Facebook is that it's uncertain that this
metadata can be stored separately from Facebook for unlimited time.


Cheers,


Philip


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

2010-02-27 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 00:30 +, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
 I'm going to call for an end of thread,

I think you're wrong, this thread should not be closed yet.

 If people want to sort out what their personal points of view on what
 GNOME should be, I would suggest them to follow up that discussion in
 private and not in this list anymore.
 
 If people want to contribute to a strategic roadmap for GNOME, I think
 we all would welcome anyone coming up with a compelling set of goals
 and start working on action items to execute that vision and do so in
 the respective channels (marketing list to name an example).
 
 Talking forever about what GNOME should be and expecting for someone
 to follow that direction is not going to effectively change anything.

Sure it does.

 Thank you.


Cheers,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

2010-02-27 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 19:48 -0500, Diego Escalante Urrelo wrote:
Hey Diego,

 El dom, 28-02-2010 a las 00:49 +0100, Philip Van Hoof escribió:
  On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 21:32 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

[cut]

  I wish you and the FSF would focus more on user rights and licensing of
  (meta)data coming from websites like Facebook, and that you'd focus less
  on demeaning insinuations to GNOME programmers that they know not about
  ethics.

 I don't think Richard meant any of this. Being the one he replied to, I
 think he's reply was perfectly well behaved and his intentions the best
 of all to remind us that we should always try to promote Free Software. 

Being the one who replied to Richard, I don't think that I tried to
insinuate that Richard's behavior while replying to your E-mail was bad.

I don't understand why you try to rephrase it like that. However:

  Richard *has* insinuated that GNOME programmers forget about ethics
  like freedom, in this discussion thread. Let me illustrate:

  On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:27:21 -0500 Richard Stallman wrote:

  The values that programmers often forget are the ethical values such
   as freedom.

  http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2010-February/msg00129.html

When you talk about programmers within a context like a GNOME mailing
list, you're actually targeting GNOME programmers. Aren't you? Why not?

In case that wasn't the intent, I asked not to be ambiguous.

Is that somehow unfair? How then?

If not, then why was that remark made when we're already the most free
desktop in existence? With free being FSF's definition of free.

 And I think we all agree that our precise personal beliefs might be
 different but that as a whole we all enjoy Free Software and its
 consequences in society and technology. 

I enjoy wikipedia; wikipedia is about freed knowledge.

I enjoy opensource software; I can improve my skills by being involved
in its development. I also enjoy the freed knowledge of it.

I don't know about free software. Even after more than a decade it's
still an alien term for me. I know it is opensource for as far as I'm
concerned. And that's all I care about.

(yes, I read most of FSF's webpages, it's still alien)

I don't need the demeaning ethics-teachings that I should somehow be
religiously in love with this free software stuff. Why?

Either it helps me improve my skills, or it doesn't. Either it frees
knowledge, or it doesn't. Free software does both, good.

Free software does because it does what any opensource does. But there
it stops. Please stop idealizing it as something better. It's not.

 So it doesn't sound out of place to remind us about it.

It's out of place to insinuate that GNOME developers forget about
ethical values. Or that anybody does.

I actually do spend a significant amount of my life's time thinking
about philosophy; I don't accept that I'm unethical.

That claim is, for me, a direct insult; I don't accept it.

 IMHO talking about Facebook and who should demand them to free info is a
 bit out of place here. Please let's not diverge the thread into that or
 into a battle about how much we should promote Free Software or non Free
 alternatives.

The freedoms about data collected by websites like Facebook is likely
the most important discussion of our generation.

 I think the topic is clear for all of us: Free Software rocks

I can see you have an ideology. That's fine for you. I respectfully
disassociate myself from simplistic slogans, though.

 and we are trying to lure people who don't use it yet into using it
 so they can enjoy the same freedoms we do. Let's keep changing the
 world :-).

Ideology makes people blind for reality.

 Friendly and lovingly calling for the end of this branch of the thread,

Up to them.



Cheers,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
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)

2010-02-27 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 04:02 +0200, Zeeshan Ali wrote:
 Hi everyone, 
 
  I don't think we need ethics-teachings about this. We GNOME
 programmers  know. We do. 
 
 I can't say for others but I for one find it extremely insulting when
 Mr. Van Hoof represent me without my concent. I really want to know
 who in the the hell made him the GNOME developers' representative and
 be able to tell others what I know and need? 

Saying that we don't need lessons morality is extremely insulting to
you?

(that's all I said)


Cheers,

Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

2010-02-25 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 16:40 -0500, Diego Escalante Urrelo wrote:

Hi there,

 I agree with Frade, for example among my university friends facebook is
 quite important, it's how you interact with a lot of people you don't
 see daily and some times the way to find out about meetings, parties,
 etc. Why can't we provide an easy way for people to integrate all this
 info to the local apps?
 A small example that I believe is doable right now:
  - you login to GNOME for the first time
  - you are asked for personal info
  - you are asked also for your facebook id (example)
  - the fb id gets processed into an empathy account and a f-spot export
 configuration (or whatever wants to consume it)
  - the panel/clock show fb events you are attending, evolution reminds
 you of them also

Starting the first of March lasting until August will Adrien Bustany
(abustany on IRC) be working for me on a schoolwork internship.

Because his GSoc was about developing miners for web sources, I asked
him whether he'd be interested in finalizing this work.

He made me this plan. Each task is roughly a two week sprint:

* Adapting miner-web to get it merged it in Tracker's master

* Writeback for web miners: Twitter/Identi.ca, Flickr, PicasaWeb,
  Facebook (Facebook last because of licensing issues).

* UI integration for both the desktop and the mobile versions (using
  Harmattan's Qt).

* Automatic metadata improvement using web sources.

* UI integration to control the automatic metadata fetcher(s), both
  desktop and mobile, or only mobile to save some time. Discussion about
  privacy issues. Bandwidth control (when is it ok to pull data, when
  isn't it, etc).

* Integration with Harmattan core services: address book, GPS, pictures,
  videos. This will require more SDK information.

* A bugzilla miner and a issues ontology (to be planned in a sprint)


You can find an example of such a web miner here:

http://git.gnome.org/browse/tracker/tree/src/tracker-miner-facebook/facebook.vala?h=miner-web

Here you can find some of the code Adrien developed during his GSoc
(needs refactoring to Tracker's miner libraries):

git://git.mymadcat.com/bridge-twitter
git://git.mymadcat.com/vapi
git://git.mymadcat.com/ontologies
git://git.mymadcat.com/libtrackerbridge
git://git.mymadcat.com/bridge-manager
git://git.mymadcat.com/bridge-facebook
git://git.mymadcat.com/bridge-twitter
git://git.mymadcat.com/bridge-gdata 
git://git.mymadcat.com/bridge-flickr

I must add that, although many of the GNOME people are probably Facebook
fanboys, Facebook's license doesn't allow you to just start using and
copying the data. Even if the data is about yourself, it's owned by
Facebook. I think the licenses allow you to maximally cache things for
several hours. Not forever.

I think those cloud licenses will be quite a challenge in the years to
come, by the way.

 I'm sure my univ mates would appreciate a desktop that eases their FB
 experience. Notice how we would improve that without buzz-y words and
 without smoking crack.

How about inviting your university mates to join Adrien on this effort?

Given that I will be asking Adrien to focus mostly on what is publicly
released about Maemo's Harmattan, your university mates and yourself can
focus on providing similar UI integration with the GNOME desktop!



Cheers,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

2010-02-24 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 09:03 +, Martyn Russell wrote:
 On 23/02/10 22:52, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
  On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 16:53 +, Martyn Russell wrote:

Hi Martyn,

  Don't be confused: most of this reply isn't directed at you personally.
 
 Sure, but I will indulge all the same ;)

That's ok ;)

I'll be cutting the text a bit.

[CUT] (see?)

 We aren't waiting for anything :) But you can't refactor exposed public 
 struct pointers which are in common use since you break the API and any 
 application using that structure.

I think it's time for a few major API breaks in Gtk+, and why don't we
start doing more development of core components (like Gtk+) in Vala?

I bet it would make things a lot more easy for contributors. I remember
that at a hackfest in Berlin that it was proposed to have IDL files that
describe the API. 

Vala's VAPI files' syntax was proposed for this. With GIR (introspection
XMLs) much of this problem is also solved, of course.

Anyway, all this stuff is for the maintainers to decide. Of course.

 The GSEAL work is an initial step to make this refactoring process
 easier.

GSEAL is great, yes. (thank you Lanedo)

[CUT]

  I don't believe that GTK+ needs more cleaning up. Its architecture isn't
  that flawed at all.
 
 But that's your opinion as someone who is not and has not been a 
 maintainer. Talking to the maintainers is actually how I formulated my 
 opinion.

Yes (Gtk+ isn't a very exciting project to join, which is I think part
of the problem here).

[CUT]

 I think NASA had a lot more people working for them than the GTK+ 
 project and the GSEAL work is quite comprehensive.

Now what if we'd make Gtk+ a more exciting project to join? :-)

psst. Vala (I'm not saying it's the holy grail, but it is exciting)

 At one point Imendio labs time (1/2 a day per week) was used by the
 whole company for some months to JUST do sealing and we are still
 not quite done.

Thank you Lanedo! (the new Imendio)

  I think it's untrue to say that GTK+ needs more years of cleanups before
  it can start receiving innovation.
 
 Innovation can always be done, but if each time you want to do it you 
 really want to refactor the code base before you start, that dampens 
 your efforts and costs time to work around.
 
 Tracker is no different here. It has had a lot of clean ups before it 
 started getting any innovation.

That's true, fair enough. We did, however, innovate Tracker in parallel
with the massive cleanups that we did. And we're still in that process.

I call Tracker 0.7 and upcoming 0.8 an entirely new product than 0.6

[CUT]

 At some point you have to clean up your code base, that's been the case 
 in every project I have worked on. I don't think it is a bad thing that 
 GTK+ is released just more cleaned up, but others disagree and want 
 3.0 to have x, y and z major new features.

Yeah, I guess I'm one of those guys ;)

Or, if 3.0 is going to be GSEAL and cleanups: to start with 4.0 and
drastically innovate, change and develop it (and don't fear API changes
anymore at all) and throw 3.0 in maintenance. Same for GLib  Gdk.

Kinda like how the 1.x - 2.0 transition was. I think 2.0 was great for
Gtk+, and I think Gtk+ needs another one of those innovative periods.



Cheers,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

2010-02-24 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 11:07 +, Martyn Russell wrote:
  On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 09:03 +, Martyn Russell wrote:

[CUT]

 I think it is important to do releases when you have progress in the 
 project not just because you have some new shiny feature to give to 
 people.

I'm more in favor of releasing based on a set of features, to be honest.

Otherwise you inflate the value of a release for your audience.

 For 3.0 I can see why you want to have *something* more than a 
 cleaner code base of course but I quite like the idea of a GTK+ which 
 feels much more solid.

For 3.0, sure. But I think we shouldn't let 4.0's developments be
blocked by it. Innovating is too important for that, in my opinion.

Also, 4.0 should be a whole lot more exciting to join than 3.0 is in my
opinion.

 I suppose this comes down to if you think 3.0 should have the sort of
 changes 1.x-2.x had or not?

I'm not sure about 3.0, but as mentioned earlier I do think GTK+ could
use another such transition period of innovation and experimenting, yes.

  Now you've done the GSEAL() work then we could do bigger work in a
  branch before releasing an ABI breaking release (as stable) that gives
  people nothing but the expectation of another future ABI break, meaning
  that it won't be used much anyway.
 
 Of course. But an ABI break is always better than an API break and if 
 recompiling is all that's really needed, the effort by the developer 
 linking with GTK+ is really quite minimal (compared to the 1.x-2.x work 
 that was required when I ported all my apps back then).

This sudden effort that application developers had to do didn't only
have downsides: It made many people improve their oold code, they
drastically improved their UIs. It made GNOME a much better desktop.

And it created new kinds of innovation in many areas.

The same thing happens with the decay of CORBA and the introduction of
D-Bus. The emerging D-Bus inspired for example Telepathy (and a nice
symbiosis came to be).

Sometimes destruction is a good thing. It makes it possible for new
weeds to grow, and it cleans up the mess.

That doesn't mean I always advocate starting over. But I think GNOME
needs a new perspective for next few years:

Technology is changing. Perspectives are changing. And we'd be missing
the train in a big way if we let mobile slip (as we are, atm).



Cheers,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

2010-02-24 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 13:04 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
 Hi,
 
 Murray Cumming wrote:
  On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 11:07 +, Martyn Russell wrote:
  I think it is important to do releases when you have progress in the 
  project not just because you have some new shiny feature to give to 
  people. 
  
  Yes, releases are good, but we don't have to call them stable.
 
 While the abstract stay stable vs innovate discussion is
 interesting, I'm interested in hearing what kinds of features people
 would add if, tomorrow, someone said OK - out with the crack-pipes,
 let's turn the funky feature dial up to 100.
 
 What features/removal of bugs are desired for GTK+?

How about this stuff? (it's a far more simple object system)

http://gitorious.org/dova

How about a pluggable reference collecting garbage collector?

We all want to solve this cyclic references stuff in Vala, having to
mark things as weak. And since it would be pluggable, it wouldn't be
harmful for people who don't like garbage collectors.

How about having .vapi files for all of Gtk+ interfaces and classes?

How about finally moving GtkTreeModel out of Gtk+ and into GLib using a
proper collection framework?

Something like this:

http://git.codethink.co.uk/?p=glib;a=shortlog;h=collections

I'm sure many people have been experimenting similarly.

 I've been hearing:
 * more flexibility for the developer
 * easier theming (CSS theming, nice effects, make it easy to ship  get
 themes)

Right, with the new JavaScript and G-I stuff this is going to be great.

 * easier creation of new widgets
 * a great canvas widget
 * enable rendering of widgets in a scene graph
 * integration of Webkit

Yes, let's make a GtkWebkit as part of standard Gtk+ 4.0

 * enable easy animations (whatever this means)
 * a rocking IDE that makes it as easy to create visually attractive apps
 as it is on Mac

Great proposals, yes.

[CUT]


Cheers,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

2010-02-24 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 12:41 +, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
 Hi all,
 I think that this sort of discussion belongs to the gtk-devel mailing list,
 besides, all of this nice to have have been discussed in the past
 but none has actually stepped up to write actual code (as Martyn says,
 everytime you start writting something, you hit the legacy wall).

Ignore the legacy wall and allow major API and ABI breaks. It's time.

 The point that I'm trying to make is that, unless somebody steps up to
 implement some of those advancements and seriously push them for
 inclusion, this discussion is not really going anywhere.

Sorry but, you are absolutely wrong about nobody stepping up to
implement those advancements:

 o. Dova-core and Vala's dova patches are written and exists.

 o. The collection objects are written and exists. Both as a GLib branch
and in the form of libgee (but in GLib nobody uses it because libgee
can't be a dependency on GLib, as it would be circular. And the
mindset also isn't that collections should be used over C-only list
types - which is why you see with GVariant the introduction of yet
another iterable thing in GLib -)

 o. A webkit GTK+ component is written and exists

 o. The .vapi files for GTK+ already exist, they just need to be added
to the tree of GTK+, and an approval should be given by GTK+'s
maintainers to allow .vala to be used as language for future GTK+
development.

Every single thing I mentioned in my previous E-mail exists.

The code isn't the problem. The availability of experts isn't the
problem.

The problem is that GTK+'s development style is it must be stable, you
can't ever break the API nor ABI. This scares the young experts away.

And since this discussion matters for nothing less than the very
relevance of GTK+ and GNOME in future, I think it should be held at the
level of GNOME. It also concerns far more than just GTK+ itself.

But people might have different opinions on that.



Cheers,


Philip


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

2010-02-23 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 13:20 +0100, Alberto Garcia wrote:
 On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 09:37:46PM +, Martyn Russell wrote:
 
   seems gtk+'s object model overhead (for example, object method
   invocation) is too high, especially visible on mobile platforms...
   it should be possible to optimize to reduce this overhead...
  
  I agree with Emmanuele.
  Please provide evidence when making wild accusations.
 
 Admittedly the run-time type checking in GObject adds some overhead,
 and it's not hard to see g_type_check_instance_is_a() among the most
 called functions.

This check isn't strictly necessary for object method invocation (which
is what Andy was talking about).

Especially if your high-performance class isn't using the macro
G_TYPE_INSTANCE_GET_PRIVATE but instead has a pointer to the private in
its `GObject *parent' struct.

The I'm feeling lucky Google for that is:

http://sigquit.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/avoid-g_type_instance_get_private-in-gobjects/

 However during my work in Maemo I have *never* seen that being
 an actual problem. When there is a performance problem directly
 noticeable by the end user the root cause is elsewhere (which may
 include, of course, other parts of GTK).

Right

 Now, this probably doesn't have much value anymore, but as a funny
 side note I even remember back in 2000 or so that a friend of mine
 compared the performance of a C-based object system (inspired by GLib)
 with that of C++, and -to my surprise back then- found out that the
 former was noticeably faster.

To my surprise can in some cases virtual machines be faster than native
code at certain tasks, including their object system. Well, not to my
surprise as for many of them it's explained how this works.

It's fun to use as a counter argument when yet again one of those
ranting anti virtual machine people comes along.


Cheers,

Philip


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

2010-02-23 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 18:38 +0200, Claudio Saavedra wrote:
 El mar, 23-02-2010 a las 17:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof escribió:

Hey Claudio,
 
   On 23/02/10 12:36, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
I often hear complaints about how the RedHat guys turn down patches
from other contributors (mostly from members of companies competing
with them),

 Hold your horses right there. I don't know where are you reading any
 claim like that. No one has claimed that someone is under pressure by
 his company to reject patches from competitors, as you seem to interpret
 -- please be careful with your words.

That contradicts with what you quote from Alberto:

I often hear complaints about how the RedHat guys turn down patches
 from other contributors (mostly from members of companies competing
 with them)

Those people complaining are apparently claiming (to Alberto) that they
perceive this to be the case.

I wrote, however:

 I don't know nor do I claim this to be the case. I have not seen this
 being the case, not for Gtk+ (I'm not involved in its development).

That means that I said that I don't perceive it like that.

I don't know how much more careful in wording one can be.

It is true, however, that it's hard to get a review for certain core
components (I'm thinking about the gobject.c performance improvements,
which took almost a full year to get any reaction). This is an area for
improvement (it would help if more people would be invited to help with
said maintenance, I think).


Cheers,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

2010-02-23 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 16:53 +, Martyn Russell wrote:

Hi Martyn,

Don't be confused: most of this reply isn't directed at you personally.

 On 23/02/10 16:09, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
  Le mar. 23 févr. 2010 à 14:12:47 (+), Martyn Russell a écrit:
  Actually, I think that the Red Hat maintainers of the toolkit had an
  interest in stability (for ISVs) and that stifled development. As
  such developing anything in GTK+ takes a lot longer than it should
  and that's why it is always hard to get into development there or to
  fix something. This has long been the internal politic of GTK+.
 
  Wasn't it possible to develop the new things in branches to showcase
  your ideas and tell the world about those new features?
 
 Yes and it still is, see the MPX branch, the GSEAL work was also started 
 in a branch and many things are done that way.
 
  Just to make things clear, this is a real question, not an attempt to
  point finger or anything like that.
 
  I am asking because, even in layers like X.org where compatibility is
  key, trying things in branches and showing the world proved to have
  worked quite well.
 
 When talking to some of the core maintainers, they often say they want 
 to refactor things internally in GTK+ to make maintaining it easier and 
 getting new people into the toolkit easier.

What are we waiting for? The Gods? Ideology?

Let's be serious..

 Just today on #gnome-hackers, I saw someone interested in getting
 into GTK+ development and he said it was really hard. I agree.

I agree with this person too. It is extraordinary hard: that's not good.

Not at all.

 Johannes makes a really good point too. At some point you could probably 
 say that GTK+ was _THE_ exciting project to work on and a lot of code 
 got in that should have had more reviews and perhaps that's why it needs 
 cleaning up in places now.

Comon! How many years of cleaning up does a team need unless it admits
that its entire architecture was one big design flaw?

I don't believe that GTK+ needs more cleaning up. Its architecture isn't
that flawed at all.

Let's not be childish and let's be honest about our technology; its
future.

Not even a mission to the moon ever needed as much years of cleaning up
as GTK+ seems to need if you do follow the logic that the GSEAL work is
the only big thing a group can do within a year.

I think it's untrue to say that GTK+ needs more years of cleanups before
it can start receiving innovation.

Let's stop being children. No matter how impolite my statements are.

 GTK+ has also been too exposed to change some of these issues (hence
 the GSEAL work).

I applaud the GSEAL work. It just hasn't been enough for a year or more
of work on GTK+: no matter how you look at it, GTK+'s innovation is
stalled. To the point that it gets ridiculous.

If that statement takes all of my karma, whatever karma means, then it
does. So be it.



Cheers,


Philip



-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

2010-02-22 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 13:39 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:

Hi Lefty,

 I hesitate to reopen this discussion, frankly. Look at the archives for
 December and January.

We need to consider that that wasn't our community.

In that Alberto has a point that our community itself isn't negative or
hostile towards commercial mobile ecosystems.

Cheers,

Philip

 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 to an alternative, quasi-open-source platform, like Android,
  largely through a couple of years' worth of inattention and, more
  importantly, an ongoing failure to engage with the commercial mobile
  ecosystem in any positive and meaningful way. Hopefully, some efforts might
  be made to correct that in the coming year; whether or not that actually
  happens, or will be effective if it does, is very much up in the air in my
  mind.
  
  Do you have any examples of the GNOME community being negative or
  hostile towards the commercial mobile ecosystem?
  
  The viewpoint held in some quarters which is directly hostile to such
  engagement has been a negative factor for us in the past and continues to 
  be
  one. Google, for all that its Android efforts have been competitive to
  GNOME's interests in the mobile space, has done a much better job here.
  
  
  ___
  foundation-list mailing list
  foundation-list@gnome.org
  http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
  
  
  
 
 
 ___
 foundation-list mailing list
 foundation-list@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
 

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

2010-02-22 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 20:27 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:

 Juanjo Marin wrote:
  * GTK is losing popularity. It is perceived by a lot of people as old
  and difficult. I think we need any kind of action on this area because
  is a cornerstone issue. Less programmers means less applications and
  contributions. We need to care of our platform users in the same way we
  care of our desktop users. Some people has pointed this in the past, eg
  [1]
 
 Perhaps the fact that GTK+ is seen as a cornerstone issue is a
 cornerstone issue... there's no specific reason why GTK+, FLTK or EFL
 would do the job just as well of providing a toolkit.

I agree.

 What's important to GNOME is the vision and the philosophy of open
 access, but that vision has somehow lost the hustle that comes from
 homesteading.

I'm going to decline from commenting much on philosophy this time. Mine
is probably known, and people must be (really) tired of listening to it.

After talking with some of the doers at our conferences, at FOSDEM too,
I believe our doers have a pragmatic, not a puristic philosophy.

That's why I made my earlier comment that our community itself isn't
negative or hostile towards commercial mobile ecosystems.

  * 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 battle? It certainly appears that GTK+ has lost
 the mobile battle, but all of the hard work that GNOME hackers have put
 into the middleware platform and components like Gstreamer, Dbus,
 Telepathy and Pulseaudio are now cornerstone parts of both the free
 desktop and the mobile platform.

In mobile we're doing pretty well at the middleware segment.

But indeed ...

 I would agree that the GNOME GUI platform is not exciting application
 developers right now, and that's something we need to fix. And it's not
 an easy problem.

I think that's a self inflected problem. Because for years wasn't Gtk+
(the toolkit) being innovated on. Instead is the focus 'stability'. 

Regretfully we see the same thing in most of the original core
components: the focus isn't innovation. We're not leading.

We are seeing a lot of innovation in middleware, though. I am very, very
pleased that the GUADEC organizers have put a focus on metadata in their
call for papers.


Cheers,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: New GNOME Foundation Members

2010-02-12 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 11:45 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
 On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:31 -0300, Bruno Boaventura wrote:

 Dear membership committee,
 
 Could you at least include a small description of these people when
 sending out these announcements (it's part of the application,
 copy-paste!)? I'd love to welcome them and collaborate with those that
 work in related areas, but unfortunately I don't know all of them.
 
 I've been bringing this point up since GUADEC 2008 in Istanbul and I
 still haven't seen any response to it. It's a two minute effort, but it
 would make the integration of new members so much nicer.
 
 Is this possible please, or will I have to complain about this again in
 six months?

Why don't we ask the new members to give a short introduction
themselves?



-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: New GNOME Foundation Members

2010-02-12 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 13:31 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
 On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 13:24 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
  On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 11:45 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
   On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:31 -0300, Bruno Boaventura wrote:
  
   Dear membership committee,
   
   Could you at least include a small description of these people when
   sending out these announcements (it's part of the application,
   copy-paste!)? I'd love to welcome them and collaborate with those that
   work in related areas, but unfortunately I don't know all of them.
   
   I've been bringing this point up since GUADEC 2008 in Istanbul and I
   still haven't seen any response to it. It's a two minute effort, but it
   would make the integration of new members so much nicer.
   
   Is this possible please, or will I have to complain about this again in
   six months?
  
  Why don't we ask the new members to give a short introduction
  themselves?
 
 That has been suggested before and it never happens. Only rarely does a
 new member introduce himself/herself (kudos to them).

Okay, that's easy to solve.

We just make it a requirement for becoming a foundation member. And we
document this requirement on the live pages and in a welcome mail.

If they don't introduce themselves, we just unmember them a few days
later.

I'm guessing the foundation board can make a decision about this?  It
doesn't sound to me like something we need to do a vote on ;)


Cheers,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: New GNOME Foundation Members

2010-02-12 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 15:02 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
 Philip Van Hoof wrote:
  Okay, that's easy to solve.
  
  We just make it a requirement for becoming a foundation member. And we
  document this requirement on the live pages and in a welcome mail.
  
  If they don't introduce themselves, we just unmember them a few days
  later.
  
  I'm guessing the foundation board can make a decision about this?  It
  doesn't sound to me like something we need to do a vote on ;)
 
 Just to point out that the process for becoming a foundation member is
 already quite intimidating - 

OTOH we've had complaints about that we should clean up the membership
list (remove old inactive members, I recall that came from you). So
apparently the existing base wants some sort of quality? Fair enough.

I also don't think that introducing yourself is asking too much. It
feels natural to me to expect that from a new member, to be honest.

Membership does come with services, having to briefly present yourself
is a small price to pay for that.

If becoming a foundation member is intimidating, then we should try to
find out why. We shouldn't avoid adding reasonable new requirements.

In my opinion can clear requirements (that count for everybody) make
things less intimidating. Whereas vagueness is counterproductive here.

Clarity works.

 one has to ask, suggest people who can give
 references, give reasons why one is worthy to join the club, and often
 wait weeks or months for any reaction. Often the reaction is your
 references haven't gotten back to us. We also don't hear about the
 people who hear back sorry, you haven't proven yourself yet, try again
 later.
 
 People joining the foundation have already included a lot of information
 in their application - Ruben's suggestion that that be included in the
 welcome mail is a reasonable one.

Yeah, that sounds fine to me too. But then I would propose to require
filling in this field.

Cheers,

Philip


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Survey: GUADEC and Akadamy co-location in 2011

2010-02-03 Thread Philip Van Hoof
 in with a bid. Perhaps the new model is to decide where we
 want to go, and then find a group to organise?


Cheers,

Thanks for the overview of events, Dave


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Survey: GUADEC and Akadamy co-location in 2011

2010-02-02 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 12:33 -0500, john palmieri wrote:

 I would like to point out that the survey was pretty narrow. For
 instance I said do it but I have the same reservations I had when I
 voted to not do it for this years GUADEC.  I want to see this happen
 right, which is to have us collaborate but at the same time keep our
 identities.

I think we should stop being afraid and just do it.

It's more than clear that this is what our community wants.

These numbers are unambiguous (just like last year's survey):

 Do it vs Don't do it
 - contributors: 54 vs 25 (64.23% vs 29.76%)
 - foundation members: 49 vs 22 (65.33% vs 29.33%)
 - attended GCDS: 46 vs 19 (67.65% vs 27.94%)
 - attended guadec once: 9 vs 4 (69.23% vs 30.77%)
 - attended guadec more than once: 35 vs 19 (60.34% vs 32.76%)
 - never attended guadec: 22 vs 5 (70.97% vs 16.13%)

That's an overwhelming majority who want to co-locate.

 Productive improvements for GNOME:
 - yes, directly: 15 (14.56%)
 - yes, indirectly: 61 (59.22%)
 - no: 17 (16.50%) 

This is an even greater overwhelming majority.


Cheers,

Philip


 2010/2/1 Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org
 Le lundi 01 février 2010, à 17:11 +0100, Vincent Untz a
 écrit :
  Le lundi 01 février 2010, à 10:39 -0500, Joe 'Zonker'
 Brockmeier a écrit :
   On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Vincent Untz
 vu...@gnome.org wrote:
   
Is there anyone who would like to help create a useful
 summary of the
results? I have some stats already, but if you let me do
 this alone,
I'll likely only present some less-effort stats ;-)
  
   Depends on how time-sensitive it is. I should have some
 time towards
   the end of the week, but right now am pretty swamped.
 
  Well, I would be hoping to be able to send some analysis in
 the next few
  days. I guess if nobody steps up soon enough, I'll just
 publish what I
  have and the raw results, so people could take a look and
 produce more
  interesting stats.
 
 
 Here are the stats I did (hopefully, I didn't get anything
 wrong ;-)).
 I'm attaching the results in case anybody wants to play with
 them. Note
 that I removed the answers to the free form entry since it
 made it
 possible to guess who replied what in a few cases (it
 shouldn't be a big
 loss, though).
 
 + 103 people replied
  - 84 are contributors (81.55%) and 18 aren't (17.48%)
  - 75 are foundation members (72.82%) and 27 aren't (26.21%)
  - 68 attended GCDS (66.02%) and 33 didn't (32.04%)
  - 13 (12.62%) attended a GUADEC (before GCDS), 58 (56.31%)
 attended 2
or more, and 31 (30.10%) never went to GUADEC
 
 + Do it vs Don't do it
  - contributors: 54 vs 25 (64.23% vs 29.76%)
  - foundation members: 49 vs 22 (65.33% vs 29.33%)
  - attended GCDS: 46 vs 19 (67.65% vs 27.94%)
  - attended guadec once: 9 vs 4 (69.23% vs 30.77%)
  - attended guadec more than once: 35 vs 19 (60.34% vs 32.76%)
  - never attended guadec: 22 vs 5 (70.97% vs 16.13%)
 
 + only/more likely to attend vs will not/less likely to attend
 if
  co-located
  - contributors: 9 vs 10 (10.71% vs 11.90%)
  - non-contributors: 10 vs 0 (55.56% vs 0%)
 
 + productive improvements for GNOME:
  - yes, directly: 15 (14.56%)
  - yes, indirectly: 61 (59.22%)
  - no: 17 (16.50%)
 
 + misc:
  - nobody said do it and it won't lead to any improvement
 for GNOME
  - 10 people said don't do it and it will lead to
 direct/indirect
improvements for GNOME
  - 9 people replied while they don't plan to go to GUADEC in
 2011
(4 of them said do it, 2 said don't do it)
 
 
 Vincent
 
 --
 Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
 
 
 ___
 foundation-list mailing list
 foundation-list@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
 
 
 ___
 foundation-list mailing list
 foundation-list@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME Foundation and CEO Goals

2010-01-26 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 14:19 -0500, Og Maciel wrote:
 On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
  So far we've gotten very little feedback on what people think the GNOME
  Foundation should accomplish in 2010.
 
  I've put together a short survey if you'd like to weigh in that way.

Awesome!

 Guess my previous emails were my wish list for the Board to look into
 for 2010 (though my initial email was more like a list for the CEO)...
 I like this survey and have already submitted my choices. I look
 forward to seeing the results and the discussions that will issue from
 it.

Yes, this survey is very useful. Thanks a lot for this, Stormy.

I hope the survey results will be made available soon.

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey

2010-01-19 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 08:20 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:



 I think we gain more by being excited and asking them to join our
 community, meet us, learn more about free software, etc than if we
 temper it down. When you praise someone that's learning something, you
 don't say that's ok but it'd be better if ..., you say that's
 great! nice job! And then the next time you say how about if you try
 xyz this time?


Thank you Stormy, this is a great point of view.

You really understood what people like me and Lefty want to point out.

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey

2010-01-17 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 22:58 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:

Dave,

[CUT]

  If you're suggesting that _this_ survey is somehow biased, as your example
  question would appear to, I'd appreciate more specific information.
 
 Not at all. I even voted in it. I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of
 Phillip's suggestion that the only way to respect a survey is to
 implement whatever results from it.

Two times in this thread I clarified what for me respecting the
results of a survey means and how the board should deal with it.

This quote goes straight to the soul of what I suggest:

  I would accept that the foundation's board has a decisive role in
  this. Why else do we elect you guys and don't replace you with
  surveys?

This quote, a reply to Vincent, is more vague but it also illustrates:

  I don't (didn't) mean any immediate action is needed. I do believe
  that these results should be kept in mind for future decisions.

What is absurd is that you insist on misrepresenting me.

It's not the first time in this thread that you, even after I corrected
you repeatedly, misinform people about what I said. It's impolite and
disrespectful.

 Absolutely - the results are a useful data point. If nothing gets done
 with the results, because our leaders adopt a stance on behalf of the
 project, I hope that the people who voted don't feel disrespected.

When the board doesn't use the results then you hope that the members
who gave their opinion ignore their feelings about that?

I'm not sure what you meant, but if that's it then I disagree.

I agree that a board can have a different point of view and that it is
elected to do a job on behalf of not just members but the project too.

If the board can't justify such a decision or if in future the decision
turns out to have been the wrong one, then the members should as soon as
possible get the opportunity to vote away or to vote to keep that board.

If you can't deal with responsibility, you shouldn't be a board.

I think it's fair that in return for being voted as a board, the members
get the respect from the board that it takes up its responsibility for
their decisions. Especially for the ones when they ignore the opinion of
most of its members: they better be right when they do that.


Cheers,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey

2010-01-17 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 22:52 +, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:

[CUT]

 The last few mails in this thread suggest that people are happy with this
 aspect of GNOME's philosophy.  So it's something worth maintaining.  How do
 we ensure that newcomers see the philosophy and the reasons for avoiding or
 rewriting non-free/non-open-source software?

 Using the term free software helps because it leads people to make a
 connection with a philosophy that answers exactly that question. Other
 helpful measures can include more prominently displaying the fact that GNOME
 insists on freedom, and explanations of why software freedom is valuable.

As the GNOME community's values have a strong ethical ground, I question
the necessity of the FSF's philosophical help.

I believe the insinuation that we do is misplaced.


[CUT]


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey

2010-01-15 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:11 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:

Hi Vincent,

 Le vendredi 15 janvier 2010, à 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof a écrit :
  I also hope the foundation board will respect the results of these
  surveys.
 
 What do you mean?

I don't (didn't) mean any immediate action is needed. I do believe that
these results should be kept in mind for future decisions.

Cheers,

Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey

2010-01-15 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 14:38 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:

Hi Xavier,

 On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
  I disrespect people who claim that this last survey has intentional
  bias. For me they are being intellectually dishonest.
 
 Giving one definition of a word, 

Lefty gave accurate definitions for the words he used. For example the
word illegitimate: Richard clearly questioned the legitimacy of
proprietary software and asked us to mirror this statement. This is
archived if you don't believe me.

Firstly:

The only person who here might have intentionally created the ambiguity
is the person who first used the word to describe proprietary: Richard.

I use might wisely, I'm not saying this was the intention.

Pointing to Lefty for being guilty of intentionally creating ambiguity
is nothing more than either being a moron, or being so disinterested
that you don't know who said what first.

Moron:

1. a person who is (notably stupid or) lacking in good judgment.
   
 
Secondly:

Lefty's last survey's exact words:

Legitimate means both not contrary to existing law and in accordance
 with recognized or accepted standards or principles. Do you believe
 that proprietary software is illegitimate?

Possible meanings according to an English dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegitimate


1. born of parents who are not
married to each other; born out of
wedlock: an illegitimate child. 

- Not relevant here


2. not legitimate; not sanctioned by
law or custom.

3. unlawful; illegal: an
illegitimate action. 

- Relevant, Richard used illegitimate within the context of
   laws and legality. When talking about the proprietary nature
   of a work, you are discussing legal aspects of its license.


4. irregular; not in good usage.

- Somewhat relevant, it's clear that proprietary sets the
   context firmly to law systems and legality. Richard could
   have used less ambiguity if he meant this. He didn't.


5. Logic. not in accordance with the
principles of valid inference.

- Logic is not relevant here.


6. Obsolete

a.
of or pertaining
to stage plays in
which musical
numbers were
inserted because
of laws that gave
only a few
theaters the
exclusive right to
produce straight
dramas.
b.
acting in or
producing such
productions.

- Not relevant, it's not about music, dramas or theaters. Also
   like point #4 is it clear that proprietary sets the context
   firmly to law systems and legality in case you insist on
   skewing #6 until it suits you.


I know people claimed that with illegitimate Richard meant unethical. To
be honest doesn't illegitimate mean unethical. Not according to the
English dictionaries that I own, nor the online ones that I know about.

Nonetheless has Lefty, being unbiased, added morality to his surveys'
questions. The results for those questions aren't ambiguous either.

 then asking if someone else's sentence
 containing that word is true is at best partial.

 Feel free to disrespect me.

You didn't illustrate Lefty's intent to put a bias in the survey, nor
are you intellectually proving that there is any in it. If that's your
claim then I indeed feel myself free to disrespect you for it.

I don't see why I need to respect people who falsely accuse others.

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey

2010-01-15 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:37 -0500, john palmieri wrote:


 On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org
 wrote:

  The results are more than enlightening to me. The surveys definitely
  are useful and insightful.
 
  They sharply illustrate that open source developers are far more
  pragmatic than certain people in the audience would like us to be.


 Thanks for relegating the opposing view to certain people.  It is
 certainly intelectually honest of you to put them in all in the same
 bucket and then crap in it. 

These people aren't who I refer to as certain people.

In the next section I clarify that certain people means the people who
are very disruptive. Cutting it away doesn't change that I wrote exactly
that.

Let me be helpful and put it back for you:

  Given that some of those people have been very disruptive, it for me
  absolutely was needed to confront them with numerical reality.

I'll [cut] the rest of your E-mail away now, because this renders it all
not relevant to what I wrote.

Cheers,

Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey

2010-01-15 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:34 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:

Hi Stormy!

 I believe we can state it this way ...
 
 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.

I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open
source.

 We are excited when companies and individuals use GNOME technologies
 because we believe it brings us closer to our mission and vision of a
 free desktop (or mobile interface) accessible to everyone.

Awesome (the use of the word free is fine if above you use open source).

 Sometimes those companies are proprietary software companies and while
 we hope that they move closer to free software in the future (and that

s/free software/open source/g

 we are helping them do so with the use of GNOME), we are delighted
 that they have chosen to use GNOME and will help them and their
 customers.

Fantastic.

In my opinion we can only reconsider to use of the word free software in
a text like this when the free-software foundation comes to its senses.

This is an excerpt of a private E-mail that Lefty sent me. The survey's
results are open for everybody so this ain't a secret anyway:

There's about twice the uptake for the term open source software as 
 there is for free software.

If the board respects the results of the survey, which I think it should
do, it takes this into account.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey

2010-01-15 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 08:58 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
 On 1/15/10 8:49 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org wrote:

Hi Stormy!
 
  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
 respondents.
 
 That said, I can personally live with free (in spite of it not being the
 terminology I personally use) if that's the consensus among the members
 here.

Like you say, the survey's data seems to suggest a broader uptake
among the respondents for open source. I don't know but I'm inclined to
believe that the consensus among the members is open source, not free
software then.

Because we can't be sure it might be wise to do a survey at some point
in future to find out what the actual consensus on this is.

Although I would accept that the foundation board has a decisive role in
this. Why else do we elect you guys and don't replace you with surveys? 

Free software vs. open source isn't a matter of just picking words, in
my opinion. I think we should get this right.

/opinions

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey

2010-01-15 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:50 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:

Hi Stormy,

 Please refrain from calling people crazy or disruptive. Please keep
 the discussion on the actions not people's characters. 
 
 By labelling people with negative terms, these debates turn into
 arguments instead of productive discussions.

I agree, apologizes for the labelling.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey

2010-01-15 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 18:05 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
 On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 08:58 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
  On 1/15/10 8:49 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org wrote:
 
 Hi Stormy!

Mistake, I was replying to Lefty.

Sorry Lefty. You know I like your féminin side ;)


   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
  respondents.
  
  That said, I can personally live with free (in spite of it not being the
  terminology I personally use) if that's the consensus among the members
  here.
 
 Like you say, the survey's data seems to suggest a broader uptake
 among the respondents for open source. I don't know but I'm inclined to
 believe that the consensus among the members is open source, not free
 software then.
 
 Because we can't be sure it might be wise to do a survey at some point
 in future to find out what the actual consensus on this is.
 
 Although I would accept that the foundation board has a decisive role in
 this. Why else do we elect you guys and don't replace you with surveys? 
 
 Free software vs. open source isn't a matter of just picking words, in
 my opinion. I think we should get this right.
 
 /opinions
 

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey

2010-01-15 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:37 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:

[CUT]

 We could also amend the statement to say free and open source
 software but it gets awkward. 

I think it's a great idea to (at least) use both.

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.

What about the companies and people, like me, who don't feel attached to
free software ideology and yet develop for and with GNOME technologies?

If anything I think this debate and the survey's data legitimizes the
claim that GNOME is far from only a free software community.

This the GNOME foundation should be unambiguously clear about in its
statements and texts. In my opinion.


Cheers,


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum

2009-12-16 Thread Philip Van Hoof

Hi there,

Right now I think we should do the vote Behdad is calling for. I'm
waiting until the discussion about it goes to sleep to make up my mind
about it (and then either add or don't add my name to the wiki page).

I think the implementation should be broader than only foundation
members. I think foundation members should always be allowed to join,
and then other people can ask the foundation members to be voted in.

I think the vote should present us with a few such implementation ideas.


Cheers,

Philip


ps. The rest is off topic. It's a bit silly that yet another off topic
thread is starting. Richard, the topic is Behdad's call for a vote. Not
your ethical believe system. No matter how important you think that is.

Brendan also wasn't talking about your movement, but about open source.

People who want to reply to this part: consider taking it private.

On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 01:01 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
 Doesn't this undermines the values of the open source community?
 
 To cite the values of open source as an ethical standard is ironic,
 because the motive for open source was to avoid presenting an ethical
 standard.

To deny a group or a person the legitimacy to keep intellectual property
proprietary goes against criteria five of the Open Source Definition:

http://opensource.org/docs/osd

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
persons.

And against criteria number six:

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the
program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not
restrict the program from being used in a business, or from
being used for genetic research.

And very much against criteria number nine:

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that
is distributed along with the licensed software. For example,
the license must not insist that all other programs distributed
on the same medium must be open-source software.

And when broadly interpreted against criteria number ten:

10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual
technology or style of interface.

I conclude that would the Free Software Foundation's (= your) ethics
have been written down in the form of a license, that it wouldn't be
compatible with the Open Source Definition at all.

In fact, would the minimal support for GNU be that the FSF's ethics
would have to be compatible with the soul of the GPL (which you
summarized in The Foundations of the GPL), then neither would FSF's
ethics be compatible:

o. The freedom to use the software for any purpose.

You, however, as as head of the FSF, claim that proprietary software is
illegitimate. Meaning that you say that it's 'unlawful' under FSF's
ethical code.

This suggests (strongly) that the FSF's ethics denies a person the right
to choose a proprietary license for his own work (you called it
illegitimate. In multiple posts and under that context).


 The founders of open source split off from the free software movement
 in 1998 with the aim of rejecting our ethical principles and values --
 for instance, the idea that we must respect the freedom of the users
 when we develop software.  They decided to present the matter as
 purely a practical recommendation, and not as principle at all.
 (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
 for more explanation of how open source differs from free software.)
 So it is ironic that some see it as a principle in itself.
 
 Openness as a principle is no substitute for freedom, which is why
 GNOME needs to remember the free software ideals and not identify
 primarily with open source.  But openness does have value, so I'd
 prefer not to limit access to this list.
 ___
 foundation-list mailing list
 foundation-list@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
 

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: foundation-list Digest, Vol 68, Issue 13

2009-12-13 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 13:34 +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
 Em 13-12-2009 12:44, Philip Van Hoof escreveu:

  Richard's claim that proprietary is illegitimate is enforcement. He's
  making a philosophic mistake that contradicts his own ideology of free
  choice.
 
 Choice of the master is not free choice for a slave. It only looks like 
 free choice to other masters uninvolved in the choice.

Ridiculous hyperbole.

  Free choice isn't enforceable. You can only convince people of it.
  
   I think Richard has correctly highlighted the fact that the GNOME
   Planet could better promote free software.
  
   That's not his only request, though. He's requesting GNOME to claim
   that proprietary software is illegitimate. Let's focus on that.
 
 The coin of software freedom has two sides to conving people to buy it:
   0) promotion of Free Software
   1) critic of proprietary software
 
 Just like you can't educate a child just by teaching him the good 
 examples, you have to critic the bad examples in front of the child: 
 there's no law against being unpolite, it's perfectly legal, but 
 shouldn't one repress unpolite behaviours when a child exhibits them?

You're assuming developers are children who have to be punished into
making choices.

 GNOME, both as a community and as a foundation, should teach the good 
 examples and critic the bad ones.

GNOME should stick to teaching the good examples. Criticizing the bad
ones is only counter productive.

You teach people by cooperating with them. What Miguel has been doing is
a good example how to convince people of (some) new ideas.

 As such, I don't think this is enough:
 
   We already do this:
  
   http://www.gnome.org/about/
 
 Stopping here is quite insufficient. To me, proprietary software is 
 illegitimate. Not in the legal sense, as the law allows that, but in the 
 human sense. It teaches that sharing is evil. It tries to hold you as a 
 slave to it's proprietary formats, and lock you in as a defenseless 
 customer.
 
 But to me it's no wonder you should think it is, specially since you 
 seem pretty adamant against critic of proprietary software.
 
 It seems to me you're one of those people who think the freedom of 
 speech of others is a shotgun pointed at your head forcing you to do 
 stuff in a certain way they prefer.

It's stunning that first you are talking about repressing childish
behavior, talking about how bad being impolite is ...

And here you are doing argumentum ad hominem.

It undermines your credibility.

 Ever heard of filters? If Richard Stallman get's so much into your 
 nerves, just make a filter to delete his emails automatically.

Did I say Richard gets into my nerves? Why would I want to delete his
E-mails? Why wouldn't I want to know how he thinks, what he writes?

Why are you talking on behalf of me, anyway?

 Don't create more pointless flame wars or appeal to loose-loose schisms 
 as that's what you're doing.

Nonsense and more ad hominem.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: foundation-list Digest, Vol 68, Issue 13

2009-12-12 Thread Philip Van Hoof
(I'm replying the two of you at the same time in an attempt at reducing
the thread's size)

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:20:50 -0600 Brian Cameron wrote:

 Richard's suggestion that a mild approach may be appropriate does
 not seem over-the-top to me.  Perhaps a mild approach could be
 something simple like a disclaimer on planet...

I don't think Richard is suggesting that as mild approach we should
just put such a disclaimer on the planet while still allowing planet
contributors to talk about proprietary software. Let's take a look at
one of Richard's quotes:

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:38:07 -0500 Richard Stallman wrote:

 They should not do this, unless VmWare becomes free software.  GNOME
 should not provide proprietary software developers with a platform to
 present non-free software as a good or legitimate thing.

This goes a lot further than the mild approach disclaimer that some
information on planet may advertise non-free software, and we want to
make clear that GNOME does not endorse non-free software and instead
encourages people to consider free alternatives.

What Richard is asking for, is a rule:

 Perhaps the statement of Planet GNOME's philosophy should be
 interpreted differently. It should not invite people to talk about
 their proprietary software projects just because they are also GNOME
 contributors.

And here he writes about that rule:

 The most minimal support for the free software movement is
 to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid
 presenting proprietary software as legitimate.
 
 I think Planet GNOME should have a rule to this effect.
   ^^

On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 09:51 +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

 I have a personal blog and when I asked planet.openmoko.org to add my 
 posts, I gave them the RSS feed corresponding to posts under the tag 
 OpenMoko.
 
 Perhaps it would be a simpler suggestion to pass on the aggregated 
 bloggers that after date X only posts with the tag GNOME will be aggregated?

This is what Stormy replied in the thread:

 From: 
 Stormy Peters
 stormy.pet...@gmail.com
 Date: 
 12/10/2009 03:46:37 PM (Thu, 10 Dec
 2009 07:46:37 -0700)

 Planet GNOME is about people and we display everyone's full blog feed
 as it represents them. ^^
  ^
 There are people that work on proprietary software as well as GNOME
 and that's who they are. I don't think we should reject people because
 they don't agree with us 100% of the time. 

[CUT about hunting]

 Now, if they aren't doing any GNOME work and all they talk about it
 non-free, non-GNOME software, that's different.
 
 Stormy

I agree with Stormy here:

People can choose to have a tag on english, which is what I did
because some people complained about my Dutch posts and this was
proposed by the planet maintainers as resolution.

But for example Lionel Dricot, a French speaking Belgian, told us in
this thread that he enjoys reading Reinhout's Dutch posts (Reinhout is
from the Netherlands) to practice his Dutch knowledge.

This is just to illustrate what going full monty on gnome tags will
have as impact. It would change the entire philosophy of the planet. The
same philosophy that made it a success would be changed into a cold one.

I'm against the proposal because the planet is doing just fine. Why is
that so hard for some people to accept?



Cheers,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-11 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 10:12 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

 But GNOME is part of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free 
 software movement. The most minimal support for the free software movement
 is to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid presenting
 proprietary software as legitimate.

I understand your position. I think you might not understand the
position of a lot of GNOME foundation members and contributors.

Their position isn't necessarily compatible with your position that
GNOME should avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate.

The way I see it is that most members want GNOME to stay out of that
philosophic discussion. Although GNOME usually advises to work
upstream and to do things opensource when possible, as much as
possible. This is just a personal point of view, of course.

You, as one of the key FSF people, appear to be keen[1] on enforcing a
strict policy on how GNU's member-projects should behave. So ...

I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.

 I think Planet GNOME should have a rule to this effect. 

I think it's clear that I disagree. Philosophically.

 There are many ways to implement such a rule, of which block the 
 whole blog is about the toughest one we might consider.  I'd suggest
 rather to try a mild approach; I'm sure that can do the job.

Let's first get a consensus from our members on GNOME's status as being
or not being a well-behaving GNU project, or having its own identity.


Cheers,

Philip


[1] You write minimal support. Minimal to me means: either you do
this, or you're out. Feel free to correct me.

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-11 Thread Philip Van Hoof
(repost, I didn't use the right E-mail address)

On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 10:12 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

 But GNOME is part of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free 
 software movement. The most minimal support for the free software movement
 is to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid presenting
 proprietary software as legitimate.

I understand your position. I think you might not understand the
position of a lot of GNOME foundation members and contributors.

Their position isn't necessarily compatible with your position that
GNOME should avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate.

The way I see it is that most members want GNOME to stay out of that
philosophic discussion. Although GNOME usually advises to work
upstream and to do things opensource when possible, as much as
possible. This is just a personal point of view, of course.

You, as one of the key FSF people, appear to be keen[1] on enforcing a
strict policy on how GNU's member-projects should behave. So ...

I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.

 I think Planet GNOME should have a rule to this effect. 

I think it's clear that I disagree. Philosophically.

 There are many ways to implement such a rule, of which block the 
 whole blog is about the toughest one we might consider.  I'd suggest
 rather to try a mild approach; I'm sure that can do the job.

Let's first get a consensus from our members on GNOME's status as being
or not being a well-behaving GNU project, or having its own identity.


Cheers,

Philip


[1] You write minimal support. Minimal to me means: either you do
this, or you're out. Feel free to correct me.

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-11 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 17:40 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:

Hi Dave!

(Are you coming to FOSDEM? We need another of those IRL chats, no?)

 Philip Van Hoof wrote:
  I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.
 
 Such a vote, whatever the outcome, would have little effect on the GNOME
 project.

I'd agree.

 The debate during the vote could cause a lot of harm  discord for the
 GNOME community.

I actually do agree, yes.

I don't think being afraid of that is sufficient reason to sidestep this
issue We're an intelligent group of people. We can deal with this.

 An outcome whereby GNOME is no longer a GNU project could cause a lot of
 harm to the free software and open source movements in general - there
 would be massive negative publicity.

I agree but we cannot be blind when the leader of the Free Software
Foundation is requesting that the minimal thing GNOME should do, is to
support it by, and I quote, avoiding presenting proprietary software as
legitimate.

I fully understand that ignoring Richard's request is the easy way. But
his request cannot be ignored any longer. He really wants this as a
minimal commitment from GNOME.

No matter what feels good for us. We've been ignoring this for too long.

Such a commitment is, as far as I understand our community, not entirely
compatible with the current mindset of a lot of its members, so ...

I think we should be intellectually honest; by doing this vote.

 Since there is very little up-side and substantial down-side, both real
 and in terms of image (which is an important consideration, I think), I
 do not think that we should vote on this issue.
 
 Don't we have more concrete issues to address?

I ask the same about the apparent necessity to address certain moral
issues like policing the behaviour of our members and introducing a set
of punishments for bad behaviour.

That doesn't mean it can't be discussed. It can.


Cheers,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-11 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 12:32 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
 On 12/11/2009 11:32 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
  Philip van Hoof writes
 
  I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.
 
  I'd second this.
 
 Quick procedural note: If you really want to pursue this, according to the 
 bylaws you need support of 5% of the membership IIRC to put something to 
 vote. 
   I'm not sure the vote would be binding though.

Okay, thanks for the information.

 I thought I point that out since that's your rights as members of the 
 foundation.  That said, I agree with Dave.

I'll support whoever proposes this as a vote. Being a member I'd like to
propose this vote (but apparently I need '5% - 1 person' of the other
members, I don't know how they can officially support the proposal).

As a reply to the legitimate concerns you and Dave have:

o. I don't think being afraid of that is sufficient reason to sidestep
   the issue. We're an intelligent group of people. We can deal with
   this.

o. I think we should be intellectually honest. We owe it to ourselves.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-09 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 08:19 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
  I don't believe Frederic was pointing at Miguel.  There are people who
  have left the Gnome community working on products that don't use any
  Gnome technology posting blog post/ads for said product on PGO.
 
 I wonder whether these products are free software.
 If not, they certainly shouldn't promote them on Planet GNOME.

Nonsense.

The people who work at VmWare also very often posted (and still post)
about their work and appear on Planet GNOME. There's nothing wrong with
that. Same goes for Nokia and many other companies involved.

Forbidding those contributors to talk about their work goes directly and
philosophically against the Planet GNOME is a window into the world,
work and lives of GNOME hackers and contributors slogan of the project.

You see that word work there? Right.



-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-09 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 14:27 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:

 So, let's start (this is list done quickly by me and I haven't contacted 
 anybody from it), as basis:
 
 - Robert Love
 - Christopher Blizzard
 - Miguel De Icaza
 - Nat Friedman
 - Daniel Veillard
 - Edd Dumbill
 - Glynn Foster
 - James Henstridge
 - Jeff Waugh
 - Mark McLoughlin
 - Scott James Remnant

Many of these people are and have been top GNOME people.

You'd be insane if you wanted to remove them from the planet.

If you want to destroy GNOME as a community, you're on the right track.

  [1] How does one define that they have left the GNOME community ?
 
 this list is based on people either no longer blogging at all or not 
 blogging about GNOME and not being active in GNOME. I don't have any 
 problem about people who blogs about non-political oriented things in 
 their life, as long as GNOME is one of those things...
 
 I'm not even sure I should still be on Planet GNOME (even if I'm release 
 team member), since most of my posts aren't about GNOME but about the 
 distribution I work on. And I sometime feels those posts could be seen 
 as propaganda for my distribution.

This is nonsense. The planet-gnome slogan is:

Planet GNOME is __ a window into the world, work and lives __ of GNOME
hackers and contributors.

This is what made the planet a successful project, initiated by Jeff
Waugh (who you propose for removal ^).

If you want to fundamentally change the planet, why don't you start your
own planet and convince the world that yours is better?

 Regarding what bedhad said, nothing prevent people to read those people 
 blog outside Planet GNOME (like Planet Mono or anything else).

Nothing prevents you from starting your own planet.

I'm pretty sure that you can even get a neat subdomain under GNOME's
from the admins.

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-09 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 14:07 +, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
  about their work and appear on Planet GNOME. There's nothing wrong with
  that. Same goes for Nokia and many other companies involved.
 
 I wonder if there's a misunderstanding here.  No one said that companies
 shouldn't be allowed to post.
 
 Richard said that Planet GNOME shouldn't be used to promote non-free
 software (i.e. software that denies freedom by witholding source code or
 witholding permission to use/modify/distribute).
 
 This means some software from Nokia shouldn't be promoted on Planet GNOME,
 but Nokia (like many other companies) also develops and distributes lots of
 free software.  No one's objecting to promoting Nokia's work on free
 software for GNOME.

That's why I wrote talk about their work. There's no misunderstanding.

Mentioning that they are using some piece of LGPL software to build a
closed source component is fine. Personally I most definitely want to
know about such things.

As for what Miguel works on (to go back to the origin of the proposal):

The vast majority of what he's blogging  and working on *is* free and/or
opensource software or about free and/or opensource software being used
in the field.

Making it forbidden to use planet-gnome for that is like wanting to deny
a reality. If GNOME wants to be relevant, it must not boycott reality.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-09 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 13:32 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
 On 12/09/2009 08:48 AM, Lionel Dricot wrote:

  I know some planets that choose to have a code of conduct about what
  should be posted or not (like planet Ubuntu-f or planet-libre.org). They
  all ended by not selecting the people on a quality basis but selecting
  posts that respect the subject of the planet. It results in very-low
  quality planet, not interesting and, more importantly, without any soul,
  any spirit.
 
  Planet.gnome has a spirit. There's something (called it soul if you
  want). Don't break it. Remember planet.climate-change joke? That was huge
  and enjoyable.
 
 EXACTLY.  EXACTLY.  EXACTLY.

EXACTLY

+1, and a big whatever

  - Each year, a mail is sent to those member asking if they want to stay on
  pgo and if they consider themselves still on-topic.
 
 Lets limit it to a reminder that you're on PGO.  if you want to be removed, 
 email xxx if we have to do something like that.

I fully agree with this solution.

Thanks, behdad.

You hereby have my vote and support for next board elections. As usual.
Because you're one of the few people who's pragmatic and realistic to
earn my vote. Not one of those crazy people.

Sorry for being direct. It's just my personality.

Thank you.

Let's now go back to solving some real problems in GNOME.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-26 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 22:48 +, Alan Cox wrote:
 1. People speak on their own behalf, not on behalf of GNOME.  Unless 
  they 
  ARE talking on behalf of GNOME (say, board, release team, etc),

Indeed

 On things like the planet that can be addressed by suitable tags and
 styling (as could inappropriate content - if there is a 'rant filter'
 option or similar)

I agree with this

 4. In any kind of discussion and/or medium, one should learn who's words 
  matter.  Is he the maintainer of the module?  Is he a developer?  Does he 
  generally offer useful insight?  Does he know what he's talking about?  Do 
  others take this person seriously?  When you learn to ignore the noise, 
  life 
  is beautiful again.
 
 With the kernel hat on this is why LWN and Jon Masters summaries are so
 important. They distill the relevant material from the bloodbath that is
 linux-kernel (and which btw does put off a lot of people and cause big
 issues with some cultural groups). Please btw don't use Linux kernel as a
 shining example of why rules are not needed. The kernel works despite not
 because of the list attitude. Also there may be no code of conduct but
 certain people have at times been taken aside at conferences and
 educated on how they are coming across.

This happens at our GNOME conferences too.

Not as group meetings, but individual contact. This has most impact and
no Code of Conduct or enforcement amendment can compete.

 - Learn to agree to disagree.
  
 - Criticize ideas, not people presenting them.

I would likely support such amendments to our code of conduct. We worked
hard to get the often ignored Assume people mean well bullet point in
our Code Of Conduct:

Although often ignored, it's also the most important one.

Learning to agree to disagree goes alongside assuming people mean well.

 And perhaps also - Remmeber that different cultures have different
 attitudes, styles and touchy subjects.

Yes, good point.

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Meeting Minutes Published - October 29, 2009

2009-11-25 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 23:53 +0100, Andy Wingo wrote:

Hi Andy,

 On Fri 13 Nov 2009 22:27, Brian Cameron brian.came...@sun.com writes:
 
  Minutes for Meeting of October 29th, 2009
 [...]
More generally, we need to make sure that GNOME Foundation members
sign the GNOME Code of Conduct, and perhaps make it a requirement
for new members to sign. Also need to update the GNOME blog and
planet so that it is more clear that people should follow the
GNOME Code of Conduct.
 
 A couple of thoughts:
 
 First, the planet has always been under editorial control; it has a
 maintainer, like any other module -- actually a few of them.
 
 Therefore, what is or is not on the planet may fairly be seen to be
 under the purview of the maintainer(s), who are there due to their
 respected position in the field of their module, in this case in the
 public discourse of GNOME. So they can promote or censure certain
 kinds of speech as they see fit.

I'm glad that you write this, Andy. 

This is how I see it too. I often still get told that this is not the
case and that each individual blogger is himself responsible.

That way it's chaotic and very hard to manage, enforce.

I agree that each individual blogger should consider that each article,
that he puts in a category that he gave the planet maintainers, can
appear on the planet. He's responsible for his own blog and reputation.

but

I too think that in the end the planet is a project like any other
GNOME-one, with its own maintainers and, thus, editorial control. What
is or is not on the planet may indeed be seen to be under the purview of
those maintainers (in my opinion).

Furthermore I don't think it's censorship or wrong to skip blog posts,
if a planet maintainer doesn't want it on the planet. Maybe it should be
possible to ask the project members why a blog article got skipped?
Maybe some guidelines need to be set up? Sure (is a maintainer decision)

 Secondly, binding or pseudo-binding resolutions on the Foundation
 membership should probably be ratified by the Foundation membership
 itself via some more formal process. As it is I don't think a majority
 have signed the CoC. (FWIW, I have.)

Before committing ourselves to require it, I think we'd first need to
convince all current members to sign the CoC themselves. 

Else it'll be a quagmire of people who have and people don't have to,
and people who had to sign it. (FWIW, I have.)

I'm not against requiring this. I'm against public punishments for
people who violate it. I'm not against telling somebody in private to
chill: Assume people mean well is an important advice in the Coc.


Greetings,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 12:05 -0500, john palmieri wrote:

 I'm against an enshrined code of conduct which suddenly kicks you out
 of GNOME, or gets you shunned.  A Terms of Service for hosted sites
 which gets your account unsubscribed for that site might be better if
 it is very narrowly defined, e.g. no spamming, no porn, etc.  However
 as we move into the realm of who offended who it gets dicey and
 predicated on the sentiments of who is making the final call.  We've
 survived the oGalaxys and Bowie Poags of the past and I don't think I
 have seen any worse conduct.  I'm defering to the board if they really
 feel they need an enshrined document but there should be a vote on the
 final draft if we go in this direction.

I (fully) agree with John here.

The lawyer-talk proposal of Jason is a no for me personally.

It's also not the document that I've put my name under when I signed the
Code of Conduct any longer if that amendment is indeed added.


 On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Lionel Dricot pl...@ploum.net
 wrote:
 
 I believe that this discussion is becoming far too bloated.
 
 How often do we have to deal with offended people? What energy
 will we
 spend to deal with each case on a case by case basis? Answer
 is A.
 
 How much energy will we spend to try to design a law/rule that
 might fit
 every use case and will be discussed each time we have a case?
 Answer is B.
 
 I expect A  B by at least one order of magnitude.
 
 What is exactly the problem here? Sometimes some people are
 offended by
 the content of planet GNOME? OK, it has always be the case but
 it's a
 problem. A rare one but still a problem.
 What effect will have deciding of rules, CoC or punishment on
 that
 particular problem? I don't see how it could have an effect.
 
 There will still be offending stuff from time to time on pgo.
 This was
 never a problem in the past as it was handled on a case by
 case basis.
 Anyway, there are always people offended by everything.
 
 
 When you have to type a command once a year, you don't start
 developing a
 framework that will handle every possible situation. (it has
 already been
 done, it's called J2EE)
 
 Cheers,
 
 Lionel
 
 
 On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:36:41 -0700, Stormy Peters
 stormy.pet...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Mukund Sivaraman
 m...@banu.com wrote:
 
 
  I think this is taking it too far. The Code of Conduct
 being
  presented as a set of guidelines is OK, but it is not wise
 to make it
  policy.  The GNOME project is not a sect, to control what I
 can and
  cannot say/do in public.
 
 
  We are talking about GNOME hosted platforms. Planet GNOME,
 
  blogs.gnome.organd the GNOME mailing lists are all forums we
 host and
  I think we can (and
  do) expect a certain standard of conduct on them. For
 example, if
 someone
  started spamming the Foundation list, we would block them.
 
  (Public does not mean you can do whatever you want. In most
 public
 places
  there are laws you have to follow.)
 
  Stormy
 
 
 ___
 foundation-list mailing list
 foundation-list@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
 
 
 ___
 foundation-list mailing list
 foundation-list@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 12:13 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
 On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org
 wrote:
 I (fully) agree with John here.
 
 The lawyer-talk proposal of Jason is a no for me personally.
 
 It's also not the document that I've put my name under when I
 signed the
 Code of Conduct any longer if that amendment is indeed added.
 
 We would put any such official CoC up for a vote; that seems like the
 only reasonable course of action. 

Yes

 So can you tell me what you don't like about it and propose some
 changes that make it better? Let's move this conversation forward.

I don't like the entire intention of enforcement.

Cheers,

Philip


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Free Desktop Communities come together at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit

2009-08-12 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 10:36 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
 On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Philip Van Hoofpvanh...@gnome.org wrote:

[CUT]

  You can see that in all configurations the majority want to co-locate
  next year. Even if it means not having a profit.
 
  Can you elaborate why the board didn't first discuss this decision with
  the community?
 
 The board members actually used the poll and discussed few other
 points in deciding this.

How did they use those numbers? Can you clarify this? What I'm seeing is
that the board went against the numbers.

Your explanation so far doesn't convince me that they didn't:

 The main, and most important, reason for not wanting to co-locate
 next year is because the GNOME  community needs to focus on GNOME 3.0,
 and next year's GUADEC will be the most sensible place to plan and do
 whatever finishing work needs to be done. While we support doing
 co-located conferences in the future, next year simply doesn't make
 the most sense to do this again.  We need to make sure our focus is on
 making GNOME 3.0 a finished product and co-locating would likely be a
 distraction to this goal.

A very big part of GNOME 3.0 are desktop services. Especially for those
pieces of technology is cooperation, negotiation and discussion with
KDE ... much needed.

In fact should GNOME's 3.0 and KDE's 4.x be the desktop environment
releases that *finally* works well together.

So some people want GNOME Shell stuff. I want KDE's software to
integrate, be used-by and be rendered into that GNOME Shell UI thing.

 There were few more points like preserving GUADEC and Academy as one
 of main conferences for GNOME and KDE respectively. We co located this
 year and if we do next year also, the message could be a bit
 different.
 
 It was a hard decision because, there is real interest in making KDE
 and GNOME work well together. While this is also an important goal,
 but we don't need to co-locate every year for this. We might have
 hackfests together with KDE/GNOME in the future.

When? Because if this date still isn't decided yet, then it's quite
likely that it just wont happen at all.

 Board voted for not co-locating it next year, but consider co-locating
 in the future. Every body(board) had some opinions, thoughts behind
 voting for that. I felt no one in the comments/poll said that they
 wanted only 'KDE/GNOME Desktop summit' and not GUADEC alone. But the
 people who voted against it, definitely wanted only GUADEC.

This is a very confusing, non-coherent explanation for a decision that
goes against something that is quite clear in the poll's results.

 Its surely not a yes/no voting for a decison,

So what is a majority 'yes' in 'all configurations' then ?

Besides, if it wasn't clear for all people then why didn't the board
further discuss the issue on the foundation member mailing list?

 but, we should take care of the entire community.

Good point, and in all configurations did the entire community voted
with a majority 'yes' over 'no'.
   

 For the 56% of the people, who said they want the 'Desktop summit'
 would still benefit out of GUADEC,

You are *again* confusing and miss-representing the poll results.

Those 56% of the people said that they want to co-locate *next* year.
They didn't say in some future, no, they said next year.

Let me paste the line again for you:

* 56% said we should co-locate next year, 35% said no

Note that the 35% includes the people who don't ever want to co-locate
again. So the question was asked unfairly for the yes-vote. And STILL
did the yes vote win with a majority of 56%.

Sorry, there's just no misinterpreting possible: the poll *clearly*
indicates that people want to co-locate *next* year.

 and to meet these people's need we would consider colocating
 with KDE in future.

* 26% said we should co-locate in the future but not next year, 31%
 said no 

This *again* means that people want to co-locate *next* year and that
the board's solution is *not* what the poll suggests at all.

 Its just not for the next one.

But that is not what the people who voted in the poll suggest. And you
are making it sound as if that is what they said, but they didn't.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Free Desktop Communities come together at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit

2009-08-12 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 17:05 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Philip Van Hoofpvanh...@gnome.org wrote:

  It was a hard decision because, there is real interest in making KDE
  and GNOME work well together. While this is also an important goal,
  but we don't need to co-locate every year for this. We might have
  hackfests together with KDE/GNOME in the future.
 
  When? Because if this date still isn't decided yet, then it's quite
  likely that it just wont happen at all.
 
 Wait!. You haven't heard much about the hackfests, because, they
 aren't decided on what  where yet. But it was discussed tbh.

Keep me in touch. I'd certainly want to join that hackfest, if time
permits. Especially if the semantic desktop people are joining that
hackfest would it be very interesting for me and other Tracker
team-members to sit together with them once more.

We still have many things to discuss, cooperate and agree on.

  Board voted for not co-locating it next year, but consider co-locating
  in the future. Every body(board) had some opinions, thoughts behind
  voting for that. I felt no one in the comments/poll said that they
  wanted only 'KDE/GNOME Desktop summit' and not GUADEC alone. But the
  people who voted against it, definitely wanted only GUADEC.
 
  This is a very confusing, non-coherent explanation for a decision that
  goes against something that is quite clear in the poll's results.
 
 Firstly, the last statement started with 'I felt'. Its my personal
 opinion on the results of poll, like every one had their own and that
 wasn't the explanation for the decision during the board meeting.

Ok, but you combined I felt something with a punctuation. Then you
wrote But the people who voted against it, 'definitely' wanted only
GUADEC. (it's still quoted, go look ^).

Wouldn't it be more accurate to write?:

   I felt that the people who voted against it might have wanted to only
   have a GUADEC next year, and I felt that there is a possibility that
   the people within that group of 56% are not all very decisive about
   their 'yes' vote.

And then I would answer: yeah, sure. I feel that there's a possibility
that tomorrow all newborn pigs will have wings..  Let's just ask the
community instead of having feelings about their opinions, shall we?

 Philip, this is not a vote, where every body entered their opinion. In
 my view, this represents a sample of the entire community. We can't
 derive boolean results out of this survey.

I wasn't saying that. I was saying that nonetheless 56% of the people
who did know about the poll (and most people apparently didn't) selected
the option on the poll to do a co-located conference again *next* year.

Maybe if the foundation's board would more clearly articulate why
exactly we can't do a co-located event *next* year, they'll convince the
community about their decision? Why didn't they?

Personal opinion on this:

GNOME 3.0 and focus are not convincing for me, to be honest. About
not making profits the community has already, in the poll, voiced its
opinion:

* 44% said we should do it even if we lose profit, 32% said no

By the way, nobody has yet explained why a co-located event is per
definition not profitable. Taking this year as an example is not a good
explanation. With the financial crisis in mind you can't just say that
we didn't find a lot of sponsors just because we co-located.

  i.e, I wont be able to
 choose YES or NO from these. The 140 GNOME people part of a bigger
 community who just had a chance to say their opinion. But there is an
 another part of people who didnt have  time/chance to see this to
 enter a vote or what ever.

Exactly. Why not?

 But when a poll like this was ran, I would use this to see, what is
 the view from a sample of the community. I felt that its divided.

 Even a voting on a bigger group is done, its going to be divided.

Like how the git vs bzr vote was going to be divided, you mean?

 It surely wont be 90% vs 10% or lesser or whatever..

Let's see? For the small sample we have 56% yeses.

 A part of the community is for it and a part of the
 community is against it. Both the parts of the community  aren't
 negligible.

Note that both parts have multiple opportunities. I for example think
that GNOME 3.0 - focus should be done at smaller hackfests and at for
example the Boston Summit.

DesktopSummit/GUADEC is for meeting people. People rarely code at that
event. GNOME 3.0 needs engineering at this moment.

Meeting people is a reason why you do co-located conferences.

[CUT - old reply content]

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Free Desktop Communities come together at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit

2009-08-07 Thread Philip Van Hoof
 idea
 either, make people have a good
 time together. :)
 190
 There should be one unified
 schedule, to let everyone see what
 talks they could attend on the
 other side.
 192
 The talks should not be separated
 in two different tracks. I believe
 the tracks should be logical
 grouping of topics (say, semantic,
 and indexing), instead of the two
 different 'conferences'.
 194
 not really. there was very little
 overlap and it just meant that good
 venues were harder to find. c'est
 la vie.
 198
 Organize some GNOME
 state-of-the-art talks in the KDE
 conference and the other way
 around. After the summit, i still
 don't know what are the hottest
 topics in the KDE community.
 202
 Don't change the venue half-way
 through the conference.
 209
 The cross desktop track was packed
 in only two days, we should have a
 lot more of it. And there were too
 many Gnome/kde stuff for the other
 desktop and not enough joint
 things. Maybe encourage gnome/kde
 people who work on similar stuff to
 make joint presentations (would
 also force them to talk together
 more).
 210
 It wasn't as useful as it could,
 because of separate talks related
 to one or another desktop.
 212
 I think the way the schedule was
 laid out wasn't really conducive to
 cross-desktop pollination. There
 were separate tracks and I don't
 think many people looked at the
 track they weren't affiliated with.
 It would have probably worked
 better if the talks were
 interleaved on the same schedule.
 Still, I don't think there's a lot
 of value to be had anyway.
 213
 Seemed OK, but I would have loved
 to have seen more structure around
 getting things done between
 desktops.
 214
 I felt that the schedule was overly
 populated early on with popular
 talks and that by the time we got
 to the last 2-3 days, we had less
 popular talks scheduled and the
 attendance was decreased
 considerably.
 215
 quite a few of the cross-desktop
 talks were not cross-desktop at
 all. it would have made sense to
 drop those and replace them by some
 of the cross-desktop related bofs
 instead. 
 217
 I think we should have some BoFs
 dedicated to finding ways we can
 maximize overlap between Gnome and
 KDE, to help make us more
 interoperable and reduce overhead.
 Specifically, I think we should
 pick well-defined areas of overlap
 and try to find agreement on
 deprecating all but one solution.
 218
 I wasn't there; I just think
 co-locating sounds like a good
 idea. Reading Planet GNOME, there
 wasn't much talk about the
 co-location (except for occasional
 i met some kde guys). Maybe
 because it's the first time. But
 for the future events, I'd like to
 see projects being discussed, joint
 hack sessions etc.
 220
 Cross desktop talks were good but
 other wise i attended mostly gnome
 sessions. 
 221
 More cross-desktop talks would be
 good. Without giving up on the
 unique style of both desktops,
 sharing ideas and interfaces that
 allow applications to interoperate
 is good for both projects.
 
 
 On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Sandy Armstrong
 sanfordarmstr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Philip Van
 Hoofpvanh...@gnome.org wrote:
  On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 21:06 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
  On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Philip Van
 Hoofpvanh...@gnome.org wrote:
   Apologizes for asking.
  
   When was the community consulted about this decision?
 
  There was a survey request on the foundation list about the
 opinion
  from the members.
 
 http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-July/msg6.html
 
  Aha, thanks.
 
  Are the results of that survey available?
 
 
 Looks like there is at least a FAQ addressing the reasons for
 the decision:
 
 
 http://www.gnome.org/press/releases/2009-08-desktop-summit-conclusion.html
 
 (scroll down a lot)
 
 I'd be curious to see the survey results, too.  I do not
 disagree with
 the decision to split, though I think we could have done the
 joint
 conference a bit better.
 
 Sandy
 
 ___
 foundation-list mailing list
 foundation-list@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
 
 
-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo

Re: Free Desktop Communities come together at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit

2009-08-06 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 17:10 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:

 The cooperation and conversations that began between
 the KDE and GNOME communities will continue into the future and in
 events like hackfests throughout the year, but next year the conferences
 will be hosted separately.

Apologizes for asking.

When was the community consulted about this decision? 

Cheers,

Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Free Desktop Communities come together at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit

2009-08-06 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 21:06 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
 On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Philip Van Hoofpvanh...@gnome.org wrote:
  Apologizes for asking.
 
  When was the community consulted about this decision?
 
 There was a survey request on the foundation list about the opinion
 from the members.
 http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-July/msg6.html

Aha, thanks.

Are the results of that survey available?

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Stormy's update: Week of July 13th

2009-07-22 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 21:43 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
 Another problem with trying to find an issue here is that, depending on
 the point of view, Amazon acted within their own Terms (point iii under
 Subscriptions).
 
 Legally, that would make a difference; ethically, it is beside the
 point.  Some people are willing to sign away their freedom for some
 sort of convenience.

I don't see it as signing your freedom away. I see it as receiving a
convenience in exchange for an agreement.

Surely ain't every agreement 'ethical'. The implicit agreement of your
opponent's knight that is going to take either a rook or your queen, and
you having the option, means that you don't really have an option.

You have to pick the least evil one (wrt your strategy). But you still
had the option to play or not to play chess (with that opponent).

Just like you had the option to buy, or not to buy, an Amazon Kindle.
There are similar devices that have similar functionality that don't
come with 'evil' knights (if you prefer a different opponent).

Is it really bad when people get punished for making the wrong choices?
Is it really true that we must shield all people from every imaginable
danger? Ain't this part of learning?

I think that choice is a freedom that people ought to have. Freedom of
choice is in fact more important than having access to source code. For
me, these two don't conflict. And yes, having access to source code
hypothetically creates more choice. But that's just a goal. Goals aren't
very interesting once reached, the path towards it was more interesting.

Besides, I want opensource developers to feel competition. Competition
is the best thing that has ever happened to us. 

 In societies where appreciation of freedom is
 weak, many people may be willing to do this -- especially when unjust
 laws such as the DMCA and the EU Copyright Directive forbid the
 existence of an equally convenient alternsative,
 
 We cannot accept proprietary software as legitimate merely because
 users at some point said yes to the license agreement.

I guess this is where you and me differ on opinion. I think this is a
black and white point of view. The reality of it is gray.

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Stormy's update: Week of July 13th

2009-07-21 Thread Philip Van Hoof
Dear Richard,

An organizations like GNOME is free to decide for themselves which of
the online services they will use.

There are two things you can do here.

o. First is to set up a business that operates the way you want and that
   allows an organization like GNOME to sell the kind of things it
   wants to sell. This means offering competition for Amazon and then
   convince groups like GNOME to use your service instead. 

   I personally think this is the best option for you. Perhaps sit
   together with people like Stormy Peters to get an idea of the
   requirements that GNOME has?

o. Second is to try and get yourself elected on the GNOME foundation
   board, and that way have a more direct influence in such decisions.

When I read the article that you referred to it seems to be mostly about
Amazon's Kindle device. I fail to see much relevance with what GNOME
wants to do with Amazon.

Besides (and a bit off topic here), the terms[1] referred to in the
article state this under Subscriptions:

(iii) if we terminate a subscription in advance of the end of
its term, we will give you a prorated refund; (iv) we reserve
the right to change subscription terms and fees from time to
time, effective as of the beginning of the next term;

Interestingly failed the EFF.org author to mention this. If people don't
agree with such terms, then why do they buy a Kindle device?

Although I'm not sure whether this would hold in a European court. As it
seems to go in conflict with a previous statement in the Use of Digital
Content section.

It's up to the people who bought a Kindle, and had content that is
affected, to settle this with Amazon. This isn't GNOME's responsibility.

We're not the Internet police.


--- 
[1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200144530


On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 10:41 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
 Created some Amazon affiliate accounts in US, UK, Canada and Germany so tha=
 t
 Jaap can set up stores and a Firefox widget that will enable people to
 direct Amazon referral fees for their purchase to GNOME.
 
 It is not a good thing for the GNOME Foundation to support Amazon in
 this way.  Amazon is one of the main perpetrators of DRM
 (see http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/07/orwell-2009-dystopia).

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Stormy's update: Week of July 13th

2009-07-21 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 11:22 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:

Hey Luis!

 On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Philip Van Hoofpvanh...@gnome.org wrote:

  An organizations like GNOME is free to decide for themselves which of
  the online services they will use.
 
 And as Richard is a member of GNOME (honorary if not in fact) he's
 certainly welcome to politely share his opinion of the move with other
 members, as he has done. You certainly have not shied away from
 sharing your opinions without getting elected to the board; Richard
 should be no different.

No worries, I obviously agree. The two possibilities that I gave Richard
clarify that position.

 [Mind you, I think Richard has crossed many lines in the past, and I
 don't condone that (I will have more to say about that in August), but
 when he is behaving he's entitled to his opinion.]

ok

  We're not the Internet police.
 
 No, but we're an organization with moral goals as well as practical
 ones, and we should continually question our motivations and
 strategies to make sure we're doing the best possible job of balancing
 those ends. Richard and I have loudly disagreed about how to strike
 that balance in the past, we disagree on this issue, and I assume we
 will again in the future. But the day we don't at least take into
 account moral considerations is the day I write a very large check at
 the Apple store.

Problem is that Amazon's Kindle story has little relevance to GNOME's
Amazon plans.

I wont say an issue with little relevance is never a reason to stay away
from a company. But when it is, the 'problem' should in my opinion be a
large one (like a human rights violation or something).

Else we make it a black  white thing. This is something GNOME should
never do: nothing in life is b  w (except some people's ideas).

Another problem with trying to find an issue here is that, depending on
the point of view, Amazon acted within their own Terms (point iii under
Subscriptions). This makes the 'problem' even smaller and the article,
that Richard referred to, less relevant.

That's why in my opinion it's not GNOME's responsibility.

I think this is a sufficient amount of morality checking.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME leadership [was Re: So what do people *except* me want from the foundation?]

2009-06-08 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 14:47 +0100, Lucas Rocha wrote:
 Hi,
 
 2009/6/8 Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org:
  2009/6/5 Luis Villa luis.vi...@gmail.com:
  At any rate, I agree completely that we need some strong leaders to 
  develop in GNOME. But the Foundation is not the place for it. I think the 
  right question is 'why have leaders not come from other sources? what can 
  the Foundation do, if anything, to help other leaders emerge and get the 
  support they need to do their work?' I have no easy answers to either of 
  these, though.
 
  Or to put it more bluntly, now that I think of it: why don't we have a
  BDFL? Why have we chewed up and spit out all the potential candidates
  for the title?
 
 Another important question is: leader of what? BDFL of what? I
 honestly don't see how only one leader could alone set the direction
 for desktop, platform, mobile, web, marketing, release management,
 etc. We're just too big today. I've commented before[1] that we should
 definitely consider having more clear/official leadership on specific
 domains of the project.

I agree with this.

I think it would be best if foundation members would elect a small board
and then the different teams would produce a ambassador themselves.

The board would then delegates tasks to this ambassador, who if he knows
somebody more competent at the task, could again delegate it (although I
think the ambassador should remain the responsible wrt the board).

The question how the ambassador would be chosen per team is something
that I would leave up to the teams to choose.

The procedure to choose an ambassador per team might not always be the
same as having a meeting together at GUADEC, noticing nobody wants to do
it, in the evening making somebody drunk enough to accept this task,
giving him more drinks to congratulate and thank him, etc..

Like how we'd probably end up doing it for mobile, platform and desktop.

I would also give certain leadership capabilities to said ambassador.
Like for example conflict resolution between members of the same team.
Moderation. Architectural decision making. Talking with the release team
about those architectural decisions, etc (we can adjust this list
whenever we notice it needs adjustment).

I'm not usually pro hierarchical systems like this. But as long as it's
two or three levels deep, provided everyone understands the necessity of
it, I think it's fine.

Just don't create three overlapping governments with on top a federal
one. I can tell you how bad that is. Bad.

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: What do you think of the foundation?

2009-06-01 Thread Philip Van Hoof
 will not 
 stand for this - and let the facts speak for themselves. You call that 
 public embarrassment. So be it. You know the archives of these lists are 
 mostly public too? Is it public embarrassment if we point to a publicly 
 accessible email in a list archive and say this kind of behaviour is 
 uncalled for, and the board does not approve of it?

 To my mind, the person is embarrassing themselves by behaving in a way 
 that is rude.

This is irrelevant and not even always going to be the case. Not all
fights happen publicly, for example.

The public repeating by the board is still a public embarrassment.

In fact, if it all happened in public, then why is the board repeating
it anyway? Rub sand and salt in the wounds?

Other than the board wanting to perform such childish behaviour, what
would be the purpose of that?

Worsening the situation?

Your steps achieved nothing constructive in this hypothetical case.

Nothing at all. Not one single thing.

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: What do you think of the foundation?

2009-06-01 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 13:06 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:

snip

 Here's the nut of the issue.
 
 I want the board to protect people from being shouted down by people who 
 disagree with them.
 
 You want the board to not make waves among the shouters.

I think an ombudsman wouldn't be a bad idea. 

Which is why I'm not criticizing your steps 0, 1 and 2.

 You point to the majority of people posting in this thread disagreeing 
 with me. A cynic would say that all these people so vehemently opposed 
 to this are (a) scaring away all the people who agree with me and who 
 have spoken to me about this, and (b) the first people who would likely 
 be censured, because they exhibit the type of behaviour which others 
 find offensive.

  To my mind, the person is embarrassing themselves by behaving in a way 
  that is rude.
  
  This is irrelevant and not even always going to be the case. Not all
  fights happen publicly, for example.
 
 Indeed - the private mails are often worse, more insulting, and more 
 damaging to the project.

It's not really appropriate for a board to publicize private mails.

But I don't think you are proposing this.


-- 


My reply to/about Emmanuele Bassi's personal criticism:

First of all, I think it's offtopic in this thread. People who aren't
interested in this that safely ignore this part completely.

I don't remember that I ever had a discussion with you, Emmanuele. Not
at a conference nor online. We just never talked with each other. Maybe
we have crossed a few words. Won't be much, because I have no memory of
it.

If you have a personal issue with me, you should talk with me in person.
Not this way.

I also don't understand how you make a conclusion about IRC tirades and
then explain that you're ignoring me on IRC. How can you know? Looking
at my logs I have not had a lot very long conversations in channels that
you also join, lately.

Only the technical ones in #xesam and #tracker are longer, to name just
the public ones. Looking at my blog items, the majority are purely
technical about the project I'm involved in lately (which is Tracker).

My others blog posts had subjects about (in date order) European finance
 Euro bonds, about the fukin newz, about becoming an Astronomer, about
my girlfriend being touched by his noodly appendage, about that I like
Sally Shapiro's music, a dutch post about our state sponsored television
channel's news reporting (shouldn't have appeared on the planet, as it
wasn't in English), E-mail as a desktop service, about some dude talking
about freedom of speech vs. religions trying to forbid criticizing their
book (I only posted his youtube videos), ...

Oh yes ... the post titled utilitarianism. But that one also received
positive comments. For example Ian Hurst's.

And that's it for this year. That's a half year of blog items.

Maybe the utilitarianism one could be linked to your criticism. And if
that one wasn't appropriate then planet.gnome's moderator should have
skipped it. I have always said I wouldn't mind that.

I kindly invite you, in case I'm incompatible with you, to indeed ignore
me. Fully. I wont even feel bad about it, nor will I think you're wrong
or something. Just ignore me. It's fine.

Meanwhile you're also invited to contact me and discuss this. Would be
the first time. Would also be more fair than how you are doing it now.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: What do you think of the foundation?

2009-05-31 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 07:47 -0600, Stormy Peters wrote:

[CUT]


 But I think we are still arguing over whether or not we have a
 problem ... (and I really wish we were talking about Dave's original
 email - what would you like to see from the Foundation because I for
 one would really like to know what people would like to see from their
 Foundation membership and the Foundation in general.)

I already voiced that perhaps we need a ombudsman (ombudswoman) who'll
pick up the task of having a group discussion together with the two
fighters. The rest of the board should not even be involved.

The discussion shouldn't be made public (of course).

For example on how they'll communicate about and with each other in
future. Making a simple agreement between three human beings that it's
better for everybody that we try to be respectful to everybody.

The board shouldn't try do to more. And if it really wants do do
anything afterward, then that would have to be an immediate removal.

Possibly of both members.

Not the whole nine yards of then commandments or steps to officially
kick one person out. You can't make that look good by making ten
official steps, so you shouldn't try. It's always going to be ugly, so
better make it look even more ugly IF this is necessary. 

That way it wont happen often. As this action is ALWAYS highly
disruptive for our community. Potentially flat out killing it.

I'd like to stress that this has never been necessary. Neither will it
ever be necessary.

SO

We are trying to fix a non-existing problem.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: What do you think of the foundation?

2009-05-29 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 18:25 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:

 I think that the foundation should be more involved in conflict 
 resolution and policing the tone of the community.

 I have talked to too many people who don't read pgo, or have turned off
 individual blogs, don't use IRC any more, or avoid certain mailing lists,
 because they are  unhappy with the tone  content of discussions  posts.

If it'is possible for one to create the perception that his behaviour is
representative for the GNOME community, then the problem isn't that the
board should have stepped in.

The problem would be that this was possible. However, let me quote you
the bottom of planet.gnome.org:

Quote:
 - Planet GNOME is a window into the world, work and lives of GNOME
 - hackers and contributors.
 -
 - Blog entries aggregated on this page are owned by, and represent the
 - opinion of the author.

I'd agree that the last paragraph should probably go to the top of the
page, to make it more clear. And perhaps we should make it bold too.

A person who, with this disclaimer kept in mind, insists on blaming the
entire GNOME community for the behaviour of a single individual on the
planet, is simply being intellectually dishonest. 

I refuse to allow people to minimize human culture to a situation where
*they* try to enforce their ideology of P.C. purism simply by being
intellectually dishonest. They'll have to try much much harder, for me.

P.C.P.O.S. : http://lyricwiki.org/De_Heideroosjes:P.C.P.O.S.

Quote:
- Politically Correct Piece Of Shit. You kill fun in music, just get out
- of the pit. 

 If someone is behaving in a way which is negatively affecting a 
 significant portion of the GNOME community,

Then that significant portion of the GNOME community should be grown up
enough to understand that the behaviour of an individual doesn't mean
that you need to change your culture into a P.C.P.O.S.

 the board should be the place to go where you can complain, and have 
 your complaint publicly recorded (in the minutes of a  board meeting,
 for example) with anonymity,

Your concept of how you see our community has a conflict:

You want the board to have respect for anonymity with such complaints,
but at the same time you write a bit later:

   The GNOME project is small enough  intimate enough that we can talk
   freely, no?

The project being intimate also means that there's almost zero
anonymity. At least no guaranteed anonymity. 

It means that your proposal will create friction and could eventually
disintegrate our already fragile community.

I think these proposals will only widen the existing gaps, and could be
dangerous for that matter.

 investigated and evaluated, and if necessary, have the guilty party 
 censured and/or punished. 

We had to listen to euphemisms for a decade in world politics. 

You're going to kick people out, right?

You didn't even say talk with them about their behaviour first. No,
you want to censure them, and punish them.

What do you think punishment like censoring means in practice? That
everything will be fine afterward? 

It's identical to kicking them out.

Which for example opens the doors for political agendas. And no I'm not
a conspiracy theorists, but it's a crazy proposal.

 Currently, this social policing role has been completely ignored by
 the foundation and its leaders.

Howso?

 I think that the foundation should be more frugal, and I expect the 
 board to transmit the frugal values to the membership. 

[CUT]

About the rest of your proposals I have no particular strong feelings.

But hey, it's not the first time that your and mine ideology on how to
act on people's behaviour clash. It's no surprise to me, and you have
done similar proposals frequently. And I frequently disagreed with you.

I want to voice my opinion that it's certainly not the case that every-
body in this community thinks like you that we should start having
more control over people's behaviours, if they want to be part of the
group, by punishing them.

I'd certainly like to see a more friendly community too. I believe you
do that by having more team activities. 

Like the hackfests, the conferences:  giving people infrastructure to
communicate better, more often and faster.

And on top of all, learn our members to Assume people mean well

http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct

Because that item is the most violated one of all the items on our
Code Of Conduct.

Thanks, and I hope you understand my concerns. For me, they are as real
as your concerns about bad behaviour of individuals.



-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: What do you think of the foundation?

2009-05-29 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 16:46 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:

 Philip Van Hoof wrote:

 snip aggressive rant

As every opinion of me is looked as being aggressive, it's no longer
possible for me to have this discussion in a constructive kind of way.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Supporting GTK+

2009-04-29 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 19:14 +0200, Olivier ESSERTEL wrote:

 I’m French developer (beginner), I’ve create an application using GTK+
 on Windows platform, and I wish to sell it.
 
 But, I don’t know if I must donate to Gnome Foundation some money for
 each program sold or other thing …

This is not necessary. GTK+ is LGPL licensed which means that you can
link it against a non free software application. If you'd sell your
software and yet wouldn't offer LGPL or GPL licensed copies of the code,
your application wont be free software. But for GTK+ that's fine.

If you do want to donate money, the best place to start is here:

http://www.gnome.org/friends/

Note that this doesn't apply for libraries in the GNOME platform that
are GPL. Only for LGPL licensed ones. Most libraries in the GNOME
platform are LGPL licensed, though.


 Could you explain me want I must do?

You can just sell your application.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Sponsorship for hackfests

2009-03-31 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 09:37 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
 Hi Philip,
 
 I agree with you that when the foundation has spent money on
 initiatives, the people who have benefitted have not always done
 everything they might have to publicise the support and ensure that
 people could see a clear value to the spending. The difficulty that
 Lucas has had getting articles  reports about events for the annual
 report testifies to this, as does the long lay-off in GNOME Journal
 editions.

 I believe that the foundation board at least does request things like
 this - they've asked people to blog about events where they're funded to
 attend, and (as you say) I've seen proposals that attendees do
 interviews during co-ordinated events like the hackfest.

Push for it, in a much more formal way. Don't just request them. It's
the foundation's money: you can request things like this. We voted for
you people so that you can.

And if people don't like how you guys handle things like this, they
should just vote different next year.

You are already planning to start paying a sysadmin. In a similar way
I'm guessing you can pay a journalist writing the articles and editing
the interviews. I must say I have few experience with what is involved
in this, so I can't comment myself on how this should be planned and
executed exactly. I'm sure we have people who do in our group.

 But we don't have a whip, and we don't have a full-time editor to go
 around and constantly remind people of the things they promised they'd
 do. In a volunteer organisation, the members need to take personal
 responsibility for things like this, more often than not.

Sure you have a whip: flight tickets.

Don't pay them unless you have your interviews. You can even make a
contract that says that. I also don't see what would be wrong with
making clear agreements with participants. Especially not if every
participant knows why the agreement is made. If the context of the
agreement is reasonable, most of them will (I think) agree.

I must note that when I participated myself I did note a sense of
responsibility among the developers participating. Nobody was trying to
be on a free holiday, everybody worked hard. But in their passion and
being busy they wont all remember that they should also help with the
interviews and writing blogs unless you make this as a requirement for
the foundation's help.

Clarity is I think the keyword. 


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Sponsorship for hackfests

2009-03-31 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 11:44 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:

  You are already planning to start paying a sysadmin.
 
 I'm against this particular expense, I don't think we can afford it.
 
  In a similar way
  I'm guessing you can pay a journalist writing the articles and editing
  the interviews.
 
 Budget = trade-offs. More money for paying people = less money for
 air-fares.

Why would for example the mobile vendors use upstream infrastructure if
it's constantly slow or broken? In that case, they wont. Isn't this what
we all want to avoid?

  Don't pay them unless you have your interviews. You can even make a
  contract that says that. I also don't see what would be wrong with
  making clear agreements with participants. Especially not if every
  participant knows why the agreement is made. If the context of the
  agreement is reasonable, most of them will (I think) agree.
 
 You may have missed the recent animated debate on the sponsorship
 agreement which Stormy drafted for travel sponsorship? Adding extra
 conditions to being reimbursed is likely to have people up in arms. The
 role of the foundation is to help the GNOME project to function and
 develop as much as possible.
 
 I'm not completely against something like this, but I don't think it's
 politically or practically feasible.

But if we need absolute agreement with every single individual involved
in GNOME, we'll be a lame-duck just like the UN is. Caused by vetos of
its permanent members. And that organization has just five of them. We'd
have hundreds.

People who don't understand that building something together means
making compromises aren't the people who are going to produce much
anyway. So why would we give a veto to such people?

An animated debate just means that we have healthy meme competitions
going on. It doesn't mean that we must refrain from making decisions.

And yes, some people will be so angry that they'll leave. You can't do
good for everybody. Bad luck. Life goes on.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Sponsorship for hackfests

2009-03-31 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 13:56 +0200, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
 Philip Van Hoof wrote:
  I for example remember that in Berlin we had the idea of putting
  interviews with the hackers online. I never found those.
   
 I believe Mirco is still working on the editing of those.
 It appears he is almost done with them now though.
 http://macslow.net/?p=249

Yeah, some time ago there was a hosting question. Has Micro already
found a location for hosting the (large) video files?

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Sponsorship for hackfests

2009-03-31 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 13:02 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
 2009/3/31 Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org:

 Sorry, but being on a foreign country, for hacking purposes and still
 doing some blogging is hard enough. You can ask, but you can't enforce
 people to do it. 

Sorry, but I flat out disagree.

Those people get the opportunity to meet and work together with top
software developers and still often get travel expenses paid by the
foundation.

I don't know how spoiled you can be claiming that it's too hard to do
some work in return for that.

People who don't want to do something for the foundation in return
should realize how fscking lucky they are having a foundation paying for
such opportunities.

I have also rarely met people, at such hackfests, who sounded to me like
unwilling to help the foundation with this. Actually never.

 You're forgetting the nature of the project, some
 people is willing to do some work, like write code, and the foundation
 helps, forcing people to blog or write articles is going to do nothing
 but hold people back from gathering together and write code, and if it
 doesn't they can just not blog and say they didn't have time (and they
 will be probably right about this).
 
 I understand your concern, but I encourage you to organize a hackfest,
 and try to push everyone to blog about it, and still, people in the
 outside would feel that the activities haven't been publitized enough.
 I'm talking with my experience on organizing the theming api hackfest
 here.

It's not only about people. It's also done for companies who would do
sponsorship offers. Management and architects at such companies value
such publicity different. They ie. learn from it what our future will
look like, whether or not we're heading in the right direction, etc.

I do think it's *very* important to show what we are up to.

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Sponsorship for hackfests

2009-03-30 Thread Philip Van Hoof
Hi there,

In Behdad's mail on gtk-devel-list, Behdad explains on why the
foundation has decided to cut back on hackfests. This is a fair and
reasonable reason, by the way (his last mail in the thread explains the
financial aspect of it pretty well).

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2009-March/msg00165.html

I think that during those hackfests people work on problems that
companies, who donate sponsorship-money, are interested in.

I fear that we have done a bad job at explaining them what the things
were that we worked on. Maybe we didn't make the scope of those
hackfests broad enough.

I for example remember that in Berlin we had the idea of putting
interviews with the hackers online. I never found those.

This should be something the Foundation pushes for (given that they
funded many hackers' flights I think it's fair that the Foundation gets
at least some interviews with the hackers, to put online, in return).

I think that if we'd include a few of the young projects into the
hackfests, while explaining clearly to companies who are interested in
these projects that our hackers work on these projects and that their
sponsorship-money is used to for example pay for those hackfests, that
we'll get at least some of those 90% sponsor offers back.

That way they'll know that their sponsorship has a return of investment
in code too (not just advertisement at conferences and on the website).

Right now I can imagine that it's not always clear for sponsoring
companies to estimate what they get in return. In economic hard times
that means your sponsoring gets slashed from their budgets, indeed.

Candidate projects that come to my mind include: GObject-introspection,
Vala, Clutter, Tracker, GeoClue, Poky, DConf,  WebKit, ... 

I'm sure I'm forgetting about a few hundred projects and I know gobject-
introspection has been among the hackfest projects.

To decide the projects we need a group that decides on how our horizon
towards the future should look like. Which is also something we lack at
GNOME in my humble opinion. (for many years)

I don't think waiting for better economic times is even an option.

Let's instead solve this.


Cheers,


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

2009-01-04 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:01 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:

  To be honest,
  I really wonder if something else would happen that I'd qualify as a
  good switch.
 
   How about we set-up a task-force of volunteers who would want to
 help in the move, each volunteer promising at least 3 hours a week? 3
 hours is a very small amount of time but I am hoping that we'll be
 able to gather at least 10 volunteers and together we can do it, even
 using our spare time.

This would be a good idea in my opinion. For example an expert in the
target DVCS writes up a list of tasks. In such a way that people can
execute them one by one.

We've done this several times with migrating away from old APIs. I
remember for example the GOptionContext and GVFS migrations. 

Our community-members are smart people: they 'are' qualified to perform
such tasks.

I think that it wouldn't be bad for our community if multiple people
would get involved here. Didn't we need more people in the sysadmin
team? And wouldn't this be an opportunity for newcomers to join the
team?

   In any case, after looking at the results of the survey we should
 only look at hybrid/dual proposal like John's when we don't find any
 way of moving to git in a reasonable amount of time ( 6 months).

The First-Picks-Permutations graphs illustrate that people who know both
git and bzr pick git two to one. Also the ranking results show this.

We must draw conclusions from that. Even if it's not about winning or
losing: it's still about making the right choice. 

I'm not against the hybrid solution. But it's my opinion that the
solution must make sure that the full git experience is guaranteed.

ps. I don't think a lot of developers care about the actual format on
GNOME servers. If it doesn't interfere with any of git's use-cases.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Using the proper feed for pvanhoof

2008-09-11 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 22:53 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
 On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 06:15:06PM +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
  Could someone with access please change pvanhoof's feed for pgo to
  http://pvanhoof.be/blog/index.php/category/prog/feed/ please?
 
 Why? He should specifically ask for it.
 
 I don't interpret his remark the same at all. IMO he's saying that
 planet gnome policy is to contain everything and that people should not
 complain to him regarding the policy of pgo.

That is indeed the right interpretation. Although I don't consider my
own opinion about it to be of any value for decision making about this.

I don't mind it myself, and my personal preference is the same as the
current active policy.  

Although the policy is like how I prefer it, I don't feel responsible
for it. Therefore shouldn't people complain to me.

I do think you can like a policy yet not feel responsible for it, and
that fits within my philosophy about such things.

I don't think I need to baby-sit the pgo maintainer. He can decide for
himself what to do with either my or with other people's categories.

This person has done a good job at this int he past, too.

I like the policies that Jeff Waugh has been using in the past for pgo,
for that reason I'm not asking to change any of those policies.

I'm also not specifically asking for consuming a specific category from
my blog. I know pgo right now consumes a category called english. That
is fine for me (and I'm not specifically asking for it, but I'm
perfectly happy with the decision).

I think it's reasonable to say that pgo has been a success, and I
consider that success to be a direct result of Jeff's policies. I
strongly believe that the fact that not-only technical items appear
plays a most significant role.

Which also means that I think Jeff is a good maintainer, and has been a
good maintainer. No matter what criticism he has received from either me
or from anybody else.

In other words: let the maintainer keep making such decisions. Although
I might have had the silly idea of using the foundation-list for micro
managing pgo before, in the end I don't think it's the right strategy
for this GNOME product. Electing a maintainer, for example, would rather
be something for foundation-list.

In which case, unless he no longer wants to maintain it, I vote for Jeff


I think the idea behind planet.gnome.org was the work of a genius. And
that genius is Jeff. We just write the (sometimes silly) content.


Thanks

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be




___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Akademy+GUADEC *2009* Hosting Proposals

2008-06-23 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 18:17 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:

 The GNOME Foundation and KDE e.V. boards received three proposals to
 host Akademy+GUADEC 2009. The bids are available for review here:
 
   http://www.gnome.org/~behdad/akademy+guadec-2009-bids/
 
 The boards did not receive any separate bids for Akademy-only or
 GUADEC-only hosting.

I'm looking forward already to this event! Combining Guadec and Akademy
as the main event for both GNOME and KDE sounds like the best idea ever
proposed to me.

Let it be a moment of collaboration between two friendly competing
groups of passionate software development professionals.

I have great respect for the previous Guademy conferences. I noticed
Spain played a pioneering role in that. That's definitely a plus for the
Spanish proposals.

Nonetheless I'm a big fan of Finland (Saunas, forests, Nokia). My
personal preference therefore goes to Tampere.

My second choice is Coruña in Galicia. The nice guys at Igalia have been
telling me a lot about Galicia ... I just think I should visit it for
holidays instead of conference reasons.

I'm sure both the people in Coruña and Tampere both have the expertise
and infrastructure to host the event.

 At this time we are soliciting comments from the GNOME community and
 other GUADEC regulars.  Please use this thread on foundation-list to
 submit your comments.  The review period closes on July 4th, in
 preparation for making a decision in Istanbul.


Regards,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be




___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Call for hosts for GUADEC 2009

2008-04-29 Thread Philip Van Hoof

On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 22:39 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
 On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 08:48 +1000, Andrew Cowie wrote:
  
  If keeping the costs down is a factor, then perhaps some attempt
  should
  be made to return the conference forward in the calendar a bit.  Too
  late for 2008, of course, but something we may want to consider for
  2009.
 
 GUADEC was pushed into the high-season to avoid conflicts with school
 exams.  It just happens that school exams determine high season too.

With all these discussions about changing things about GUADEC, like not
choosing Europe as a location and changing the date ... Didn't Guadec
work out quite well the other years? If the formula, then why change it?

However.

I would love an extra conference in Canada, for example. But the GNOME
User and Developer EUROPEAN Conference is ... well, European. Right?

Although a lot of Canadians and Europeans would love Canada to become
part of Europe! We once made a tunnel* to the guys living on the British
Islands, maybe we can make one to Canada too? ;-)



* Regretfully is air-travel nonetheless cheaper than using the tunnel.

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be




___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Can we improve things?

2007-12-19 Thread Philip Van Hoof

On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 18:33 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
 On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 15:06 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:

 I just find it funny that this has been going on since September.
 That's three months to write a few guidelines and give the OK to some
 co-maintainers.
 
 So either the list of guidelines is horribly long, or the co-maintainers
 are not doing their job.  I'd like to know who they are, if you please,
 so that I can help :)

I think setting up a public mailing list like pgo-devel, just like most
other GNOME projects have, could be part of the solution here. I don't
think a public debate about pgo on our foundation mailing list is
helping our community a lot right now.

You want to attract people who are willing to constructively work with
the maintainer on improving things into such debates. You want to ignore
all other people.


ps. I would also like to point out, Federico, that if you dislike how
Jeff maintains pgo, that you can start a competitor right now.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Can we improve things?

2007-12-15 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 18:38 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
 quote who=Julien PUYDT
 
  You've been asked to be more open, don't get annoyed if people are pissed
  by closed non-answers!
 
 I'm mostly annoyed at the attitude rather than the questions (even the ones
 that have already been answered). I don't really feel an obligation to give
 answers to people who have negative intent, which I know many onlookers can
 appreciate. I'm writing an email now that will resolve some of these issues,
 with the knowledge that nothing will satisfy those who want negativity more
 than they want resolution. :-)

I'm with Jeff on this one. Even I'm getting frustrated by the attitude
of you guys.

Planet-gnome is Jeff's project. In order to comply with what people want
he's setting up a team of maintainers. That's far more than anybody else
has been asked to do. And some of our core modules are more important
than planet.gnome.org.

Although yes, pgo is now the public face of GNOME. In my opinion  Jeff
has played an important role in making it become what it has become.
With flaws, yes. Just like how I did things wrong while maintaining my
projects.

Doing things wrong is an art of being human.

He's nonetheless willing to do all this and still the attitude here is a
negative one.

Let me remind people that this is a free software community based on
collaboration, friendship and cooperation. Federico at least tried to
ask it in a friendly way.

If you don't like how Jeff maintains planet.gnome.org, ask the people
controlling the domain start a world.gnome.org and maintain it the way
you want it maintained.

Or wait for Jeff's judgement on the issue and let's see how the
maintainers he'll put forward will perform.

If that's bad, you can complain just like how you can complain that
important for GNOME software package x is being badly maintained. By
starting a competitor that works better.

You can even fork Jeff's work if you think that's the solution.

I have had enough of this mud slinging. It's getting ridiculous, really.
A lot of people are showing how unprofessional they are.



-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be




___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Money spending, questions for the candidates

2007-12-01 Thread Philip Van Hoof

On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 10:18 +, Diego Escalante Urrelo wrote:
 On 12/1/07, Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Doing that quality control could eat some (human) resources. Also as
 John says this could easily lead to an unintentioned favouritism. 

Unintentioned favouritism is a cheap reason to avoid all innovation from
now on:

o. Let's start with our license: I think that picking the GPL license
   implies an unintentioned favouritism for GNU.

o. We should also not support ODF, because that implies an unintentioned
   favouritism for a company called Sun, and also for Novell!

Please feel the sarcasm.

If we are going to try to stop expressing any form of unintentioned
favouritism, we might as well just stop at all.


 The cons would outweight the benefits, I think we would get a lot of
 free problems from stuff like this.

Name one that any one of our technology decisions doesn't have,

My project creates opinions from people who prefer MAPI over IMAP, web
clients over normal E-mail, XMPP over SMTP, ...

Lot's of free problems.

Realism!

 I imagine fountains of FUD on
 every corner.

That's unavoidable for anything we do.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be




___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


  1   2   >