Re: pvanhoof issue (was: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap)

2010-02-28 Thread Olav Vitters
Take this stuff off list please. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: pvanhoof issue (was: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap)

2010-02-28 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 19:20 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: [cut] > Thing is that Philip had been using the word 'we' quite a lot in the > recent endless discussions ... [cut] > I didn't complain so far because it wasn't always 100% clear if he > means 'all GNOME developers' by 'we' until no

Re: pvanhoof issue (was: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap)

2010-02-28 Thread Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
Hi, On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote: > Le dim. 28 févr. 2010 à 19:20:39 (+0200), Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) a écrit: >>   Thanks for your clarification. Thing is that Philip had been using >> the word 'we' quite a lot in the recent endless discussions as part of >> his crusade to

Re: pvanhoof issue (was: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap)

2010-02-28 Thread Dodji Seketeli
Le dim. 28 févr. 2010 à 19:20:39 (+0200), Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) a écrit: > Thanks for your clarification. Thing is that Philip had been using > the word 'we' quite a lot in the recent endless discussions as part of > his crusade to draw a thick border between Free Software and GNOME[1]. > I didn'

Re: pvanhoof issue (was: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap)

2010-02-28 Thread Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
Hi, On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Jonathon Jongsma wrote: > On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 03:11 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: >> 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

Re: pvanhoof issue (was: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap)

2010-02-27 Thread Jonathon Jongsma
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 03:11 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > 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 i

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 w

pvanhoof issue (was: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap)

2010-02-27 Thread Zeeshan Ali
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' re