Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
Been more than two weeks that the petition has been up and it did not attract support of 10% of membership as required by the charter. The request is dropped as far as I'm concerned. Thanks everyone for the support and/or useful discussion. behdad On 12/18/2009 09:27 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: On 12/15/2009 10:58 AM, Vincent Untz wrote: Le mardi 15 décembre 2009, à 11:57 +0330, Behnam Esfahbod ZWNJ a écrit : Also, is a referendum really necessary to create a new members-only mailing list? Noting that becoming membership and participation is always optional. It's not necessary to hold a vote to create a list, but I think Behdad's point by doing this is to see if there's real interest from the membership. Behdad, are you fine if we put a time limit for your proposal (2 weeks, 1 month, whatever)? Just to make sure we know when to close the topic in case there are not enough members signing the petition -- I'd hate to have someone come again in 2 years and say hey, we now have 50 signatures for this, while we will have all moved on ;-) Ok, lets wait till Monday. That would be one week. behdad Vincent ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 21:27 +0100, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: On 12/15/2009 10:58 AM, Vincent Untz wrote: Le mardi 15 décembre 2009, à 11:57 +0330, Behnam Esfahbod ZWNJ a écrit : Also, is a referendum really necessary to create a new members-only mailing list? Noting that becoming membership and participation is always optional. It's not necessary to hold a vote to create a list, but I think Behdad's point by doing this is to see if there's real interest from the membership. Behdad, are you fine if we put a time limit for your proposal (2 weeks, 1 month, whatever)? Just to make sure we know when to close the topic in case there are not enough members signing the petition -- I'd hate to have someone come again in 2 years and say hey, we now have 50 signatures for this, while we will have all moved on ;-) Ok, lets wait till Monday. That would be one week. I think that this is too short a notice considering that it is Christmas time. I have just signed the list. http://live.gnome.org/PrivateFoundationListPetition We would need 35 to 40 signatures to put this to vote, as Behdad said. My reason for signing up is mainly that critic in order to make improvements within the GNOME project itself are best done in private before the result is made public on the public list. A list for members only would also make it more attractive for new contributors to decide to become Foundation Members. Remember only GNOME Foundation Members should be able to be part of a consensus decision, and only Foundation Members can vote in elections and referendums. Thanks, Anne ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On 12/15/2009 10:58 AM, Vincent Untz wrote: Le mardi 15 décembre 2009, à 11:57 +0330, Behnam Esfahbod ZWNJ a écrit : Also, is a referendum really necessary to create a new members-only mailing list? Noting that becoming membership and participation is always optional. It's not necessary to hold a vote to create a list, but I think Behdad's point by doing this is to see if there's real interest from the membership. Behdad, are you fine if we put a time limit for your proposal (2 weeks, 1 month, whatever)? Just to make sure we know when to close the topic in case there are not enough members signing the petition -- I'd hate to have someone come again in 2 years and say hey, we now have 50 signatures for this, while we will have all moved on ;-) Ok, lets wait till Monday. That would be one week. behdad Vincent ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups I am being discriminated against because I can not make improvements or discuss where the project is headed. The definition of open source is a criterion for software licenses; I don't think it applies to mailing list usage at all. But I cannot speak for the Open Source Initiative. In the case of the Free Software Definition, I wrote it, so I can say this is a misinderstanding of it. The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. This freedom applies to any particular user. You have a freedom to make modified versions. This means that any discussions should be made public. I don't think that follows. The four freedoms state what a free software license must permit to any single user. It says nothing about how users that choose to work together ought to communicate or make their decisions. If project A has a public discussion list, and project B has a private one, they can both qualify as free software. How can I improve a program if I don't know where the project is headed and reasons why the project is headed in that direction (what are the goals of the project)? You can improve a program by making a copy and changing it. The point is that you are free to do this. You are not obliged to discuss it with anyone, get approval, etc. I think that you are talking about how to go about cooperating with others on a joint project. That's a different issue. A free software license gives people the freedom to organize a project to maintain their version of the program. A free software license does not say how they can or can't organize this project, so they can do it however they wish. If you want them to put your changes in their version, you need to work with their arrangements. But a free software license gives you the freedomt make and distribute your own modified version on your own. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
To deny a group or a person the legitimacy to keep intellectual property proprietary goes against criteria five of the Open Source Definition: A statement that uses the term intellectual property is tremendously vague, since that refers to many laws at once, and treats them as one single issue. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for more explanation of this. Thus, when you say intellectual property here, I need to ask what you are concretelt talking about. Program source code? Mailing list messages? Something else? 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. You're talking about the OSI's criteria for software licenses, The FSF does not agree with open source, so we don't try to follow any of the criteria of open source. We judge software licenses by the Free Software Definition. But it makes no sense to apply a license criterion to ethical views. The Free Software Definition criteria for licenses reflect our ethical views. We use them to judge software licenses, but judging other ethical questions is a different matter. 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. An ethical principle is not a license. A license is a legal requirement, and ethics are ideas of right and wrong. They are different; if you identify them the result is confusion. For instance, the ACLU calls Nazism unethical, and opposes censorship of Nazism. If you try to write down ethics as a license, you would transcribe the ACLU's ethical view Nazism is wrong into a nonexistent license requirement forbidding Nazism, and that would disagree squarely with the ACLU's real position. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
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: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
Hi, On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org wrote: 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. People who want to reply to this part: consider taking it private. I agree but I think you can set a better example by not yourself getting into the debate and explaining in great details (mostly irrelevant) about the open-source and it is all about ethics and morality. Are you in some way special? -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, Miguel de Icaza mig...@novell.com wrote: Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting. Actually, this is something I'd suggested in the Marketing BoF at the last GUADEC: GNOME needs people who (ideally) have been media trained, have appropriate contacts, and are willing and able to talk to press representatives when needed. I volunteered to be one, I don't know whether that are others, but we haven't followed up on it so far... ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
Typically, you work with a public relations firm. Media training is mostly a bunch of pointers (Never say, 'No comment'; Never cite specific numbers, unless you are confident you can back them up) and a bunch of structured practice in question-and-answer situations, confrontational and non-. We should probably collect a list of those who are willing (and able). On 12/16/09 3:51 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote: Hi, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, Miguel de Icaza mig...@novell.com wrote: Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting. Actually, this is something I'd suggested in the Marketing BoF at the last GUADEC: GNOME needs people who (ideally) have been media trained, have appropriate contacts, and are willing and able to talk to press representatives when needed. I volunteered to be one, I don't know whether that are others, but we haven't followed up on it so far... I've done this in the past, and would be happy to again. Can't speak for anyone else. How do you get media training, by the way? :) Cheers, Dave. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
El mié, 16-12-2009 a las 01:01 -0500, Richard Stallman escribió: 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. You are (once again) deviating the discussion out of its main topic. Since I've noticed that you have a tendency to do this frequently, as a fellow GNOME Foundation member, I'd like to respectfully ask you to please avoid this and allow GNOME Foundation discussions to remain on-topic. Kind regards, Claudio -- Claudio Saavedra csaave...@gnome.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
Hi, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, Miguel de Icaza mig...@novell.com wrote: Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting. Actually, this is something I'd suggested in the Marketing BoF at the last GUADEC: GNOME needs people who (ideally) have been media trained, have appropriate contacts, and are willing and able to talk to press representatives when needed. I volunteered to be one, I don't know whether that are others, but we haven't followed up on it so far... I've done this in the past, and would be happy to again. Can't speak for anyone else. How do you get media training, by the way? :) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Tobias Mueller mue...@cryptobitch.dewrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1On 15.12.2009 15:50, Jason D. Clinton wrote: No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian-devel-private and a kde-private. According to Jeff in 20091215033304.ge4...@node.waugh.id.au there is gnome-private as well: http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-private Problem solved. This referendum would probably rename that list to foundation-private and establish with clarity what the list is to be used for. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
I bet I could find such training. I'd like to do some of the media work. I'm a natural talker, but I need some rules to make sure that I say the right things as I can spew garbage from time to time. sri On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier j...@zonker.netwrote: On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote: How do you get media training, by the way? :) It's usually a pre-requisite for companies (like Novell) before they'll turn someone loose with the press. They usually have a consultant or in-house PR folks go through some guidelines, mock interviews, etc. What you should expect from an interview, the do's and don'ts and things you can/can't comment on. (For instance, I have a pretty free hand when talking about things with Novell, but you won't ever see me giving any answers/opinions on our financials. Which is A-OK with me...) Best, Zonker -- Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier j...@zonker.net openSUSE Community Manager Get openSUSE 11.2! http://bit.ly/EOV8a Twitter: jzb | Identica: jzb About: http://www.dissociatedpress.net/about/ ___ 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
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Heya, On 15.12.2009 15:50, Jason D. Clinton wrote: No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian-devel-private and a kde-private. According to Jeff in 20091215033304.ge4...@node.waugh.id.au there is gnome-private as well: http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-private Problem solved. Cheers, Tobi -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkso+gwACgkQPuBX/6ogjZ5m0ACfSKghqro25d4BA86IFQIUGD3v kK4AoIdbkLnNghHgQMGtU6dVbGRvn3xw =SQJM -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote: On 12/14/2009 09:04 PM, Stormy Peters wrote: Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to foundation-list and the value you see in it. I understand that it may seem disrespectful to ask people to leave. An alternative would be to introduce a foundation-private list. One way or the other, maybe that's a better idea. Humm. Yes, that is better. I'll amend my request (it has three other signatures already. Hope those people don't mind). Behdad, are you going to update the page? Also, is a referendum really necessary to create a new members-only mailing list? Noting that becoming membership and participation is always optional. -Behnam -- ' بهنام اسفهبد ' Behnam Esfahbod ' * .. http://behnam.esfahbod.info * ` * * o * http://zwnj.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
Hi, On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 07:04:50PM -0700, Stormy Peters wrote: Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to foundation-list and the value you see in it. Speaking up. I'm currently one of the main organisers for GUADEC 2010, and as such find it informative to keep up to speed with what moves the foundation. So if you decide to make this a private list, i hope an exception can be made for non-foundation members such as me who have a very valid excuse to be on the list.. Or at least share what's going on within the foundation on a regular and easily accesible manner. Gr, Koen -- K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/ Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence. Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:30 +0100, Koen Martens wrote: Hi, On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 07:04:50PM -0700, Stormy Peters wrote: Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to foundation-list and the value you see in it. Speaking up. I'm currently one of the main organisers for GUADEC 2010, and as such find it informative to keep up to speed with what moves the foundation. So if you decide to make this a private list, i hope an exception can be made for non-foundation members such as me who have a very valid excuse to be on the list.. Or at least share what's going on within the foundation on a regular and easily accesible manner. Speaking up, there's a GNOME microcosm you have to follow closely enough if you want to understand what happens on more general media like Planet GNOME. And those open discussions are sometimes very interesting to follow. I'm a nearly read-only Foundation-List subscriber, and intend to stay that way. Xav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
Le lundi 14 décembre 2009, à 19:04 -0700, Stormy Peters a écrit : Also, maybe someone with list admin privileges could tell us roughly the number of subscribers and how many of them appear to be GNOME Foundation members. We have 574 subscribers on the mailing list. However, there are quite a number of mail addresses which are marked as nomail, maybe something between 100 and 150, hard to tell. Sometimes it means that the email address just doesn't work anymore (eazel.com? heh), and sometimes it means the user chose to not receive mail (because he might be subscribed twice, or something else). For reference, if I'm not mistaken, we have 356 Foundation members as of today. A quick look makes me believe a lot of people are Foundation members, some are not, and a lot of 'no idea'. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:04:50 -0700 Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com wrote: Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to foundation-list and the value you see in it. Technically I'm not on the list - I read it through gmane. But I do read it because I want to know what is up with the GNOME project. I want to see what's coming, and, crucially, I want to see how the project's processes work. I watch a lot of projects. In my opinion, the projects which conduct their discussions in the open tend to be the most robust and the most successful. Those which hold their discussions behind closed doors, perhaps occasionally issuing a press release to tell the world what they are up to, have far less engaged user and developer communities. As long as GNOME is a project that matters, there will always be bozos who will post uneducated articles about what you are doing. If your discussions are in the open, people who really care can see what was *really* said and help to keep those bozos (people like me) honest. If you hide behind closed doors, the bozos get the last word. Articles about GNOME will be less frequent, less accurate, and less likely to be corrected. Is that really what you want? jon ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
Doesn't this undermines the values of the open source community? While where at making a private list for discussions, why not make the whole gnome project, closed source. The news we generate from such discussions, gives the gnome project public visibility that is needed for gnome to grow. The reason I love open source is that it open for ___anyone___ to participate in the community and allows for people to come up with ideas that Foundation Members never would of thought of. It's the whole point of open source. Thanks Brendan On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 20:49 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: [/me removes board hat] Hi everyone, I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss matters freely without making lots of news that more often than not are harmful to our image to the world in general. Please sign here: http://live.gnome.org/PrivateFoundationListPetition We would need 35 to 40 signatures to put this to vote. Cheers, behdad ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
Hi, Jonathan Corbet wrote: I watch a lot of projects. In my opinion, the projects which conduct their discussions in the open tend to be the most robust and the most successful. Those which hold their discussions behind closed doors, perhaps occasionally issuing a press release to tell the world what they are up to, have far less engaged user and developer communities. I agree with Jon. I don't support this particular move. Making foundation-list moderated membership member posting only, with public archives, would preserve the transparency while dealing with some of the noise. Although, as a counter-example, the KDE eV members list is private, and they appear to have an engaged user developer community. And occasionally we have gotten wind of things that have been said behind closed doors there which weren't very pleasant about us (I'm thinking in particular of a GUADEC report from a French guy some years ago which got leaked created something of a diplomatic incident). Cheers, dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
El lun, 14-12-2009 a las 19:04 -0700, Stormy Peters escribió: Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to foundation-list and the value you see in it. I'm not a foundation member, I subscribed here because I want to know what the GNOME foundations is doing. I'm a GNOME contributor but not a member yet. IMHO, there is nothing wrong about having a private list for GNOME foundation members. The degree of transparency in GNOME should not be hurt for having an only member list as far as all the decision will be published. The inconvenience of a total transparency management is that polemic topics can atract the focus of a lot of people and media. Not sure if this is a real problem or we can live with that, the price of being totally transparent. If so, go for a private list. hasta luego, -- Juanjo Marín ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
Le mardi 15 décembre 2009, à 11:57 +0330, Behnam Esfahbod ZWNJ a écrit : Also, is a referendum really necessary to create a new members-only mailing list? Noting that becoming membership and participation is always optional. It's not necessary to hold a vote to create a list, but I think Behdad's point by doing this is to see if there's real interest from the membership. Behdad, are you fine if we put a time limit for your proposal (2 weeks, 1 month, whatever)? Just to make sure we know when to close the topic in case there are not enough members signing the petition -- I'd hate to have someone come again in 2 years and say hey, we now have 50 signatures for this, while we will have all moved on ;-) Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 21:05 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss matters freely without making lots of news that more often than not are harmful to our image to the world in general. Can you cite a few examples of where this has been a problem in the past? Don't have to look much back. Sam Varghese have been making a living churning news out of f-l traffic. About the recent thread: You cannot stop silliness on the internet. If you try to hide things then you'll just make the hidden information seem even more interesting and you'll have to argue with random unrepresentative public statements without the benefit of pointing people to the archives for the facts. And I think it's not a real problem. For some reason people still write these articles but I really don't think many people read them. They are dull incoherent rants. Transparency is best. If it shows that we bike-shed too much then it's just our fault for bike-shedding. -- murr...@murrayc.com www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
Since there isn't a place to do this that I'm aware, here is my vote against this petition. For the same reasons that many here have already expressed, I want to keep GNOME open for everyone. And even though GNOME != GNOME Foundation when it comes down to our code, GNOME == GNOME Foundation when it comes down to all other aspects, including openness, tolerance and fairness. Cheers, -- Og B. Maciel omac...@foresightlinux.org ogmac...@gnome.org ogmac...@ubuntu.com GPG Keys: D5CFC202 http://www.ogmaciel.com (en_US) http://blog.ogmaciel.com (pt_BR) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On 12/15/2009 08:52 AM, Og Maciel wrote: Since there isn't a place to do this that I'm aware, here is my vote against this petition. For the same reasons that many here have already expressed, I want to keep GNOME open for everyone. And even though GNOME != GNOME Foundation when it comes down to our code, GNOME == GNOME Foundation when it comes down to all other aspects, including openness, tolerance and fairness. I'll respond to the other posts in the thread later. Just a quick note on the procedure though: we are not voting on the proposal yet. Right now I'm just gathering support to propose voting on the issue. Given the excellent comments so far, I'm leaning towards retracting the proposal. However, there's quite a few others who support it now. So I let it move forward naturally. Cheers, behdad Cheers, ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote: Given the excellent comments so far, I'm leaning towards retracting the proposal. However, there's quite a few others who support it now. So I let it move forward naturally. No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian-devel-private and a kde-private. Sometimes reaching concensus requires meeting behind closed doors away from the noise of those who are not as informed or involved as others. Look at any world democracy or any treaty negotiation. Having a -private will improve our process. This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not about keeping secrets. It doesn't matter if someone leaks the discussion; in fact, we should always behave on -private as though it could and should happen. It objective is to cohesively attain consensus amongst ourselves without constant, distracting nit-picking by others whose weight of opinion is not as equal as ours. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote: No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian-devel-private and a kde-private. Sometimes reaching concensus requires meeting behind closed doors away from the noise of those who are not as informed or involved as others. Look at any world democracy or any treaty negotiation. Having a -private will improve our process. This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not about keeping secrets. I agree. In real life, it's easy to restrain who can hear our discussions until we agree on something. Online, we need to have some privacy for debates and come out with a united voice (or a discordant one, but we'll have heard all arguments first and had a chance to argue on it). Pierre-Luc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
Hi all, 2009/12/14 Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com: Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to foundation-list and the value you see in it. I am not a GNOME Foundation member, but was a WSOP'06 participant. It's a good way to keep myself updated on the latest trend/news/thoughts in free software by subscribing to this mailing list. Clare ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote: This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not about keeping secrets. So why not just moderate the list? In fact, I thought that non-foundation-members were not even allowed to post here? For instance, I don't understand why RMS's emails even showed up on this mailing list. -- murr...@murrayc.com www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote: On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote: This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not about keeping secrets. So why not just moderate the list? In fact, I thought that non-foundation-members were not even allowed to post here? Not sure that this ever got written down, if that was the intent. I seem to remember some thoughts/mails about foundation-list vs foundation-announce way back when, but I can't find them right now. For instance, I don't understand why RMS's emails even showed up on this mailing list. Well, he's a member of the Gnome Foundation. http://foundation.gnome.org/membership/members.php Greg ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.comwrote: On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote: This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not about keeping secrets. So why not just moderate the list? Because part of increasing signal-to-noise is giving those in a discussion a reasonable expectation that they do not have to advocate their position in public. When one is in a quiet, side-conversation amongst a few people, there's a lower probability that people will reply just so that they have the last word in a conversation. And there's a lower probability that people will feel that their good name is being drug through the mud because someone doesn't agree with their ideas. In short: it changes the tone for the better. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
Hello, I believe that we should keep the foundation-list open for anyone to read. As Jeff said, trollumnists do not need to play by the same rules that we do, they do not need to stick to the facts when they do not serve their purpose. When facts get in the way, they will just invent their own or lie by omission [1]. Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting. Raw community discussion is like a kitchen, it might not be pretty, but what counts is the result. We should be proud of the software that we create, how we got there, and the fact that we have nothing to hide. If we close down the list because of a trollumnist, then fear, hate and trollumnism win. We can improve our Code of Conduct to help us harmonize our discussions and harmonize the public outcome. As I have mentioned in the past on my blog, I very much like The Art of Possibility and perhaps we could grab some of those concepts for the code of conduct. Miguel. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
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. 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
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 05:02:15PM +1000, brendan edmonds wrote: I used the term 'open source' to refer to the following criteria of the definition for a project to be open source (http://opensource.org/docs/osd). I approved this non-member email. However, from http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list This is a forum for discussion relating to the GNOME Foundation This discussion is getting way offtopic, there is no reason why these posts should be approved when they hit the moderator queue. Suggest to move it where it is ontopic. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote: [/me removes board hat] Hi everyone, I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss matters freely without making lots of news that more often than not are harmful to our image to the world in general. Can you cite a few examples of where this has been a problem in the past? I think that our transparency is one of our greatest assets. Thanks, Greg ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to foundation-list and the value you see in it. Also, maybe someone with list admin privileges could tell us roughly the number of subscribers and how many of them appear to be GNOME Foundation members. I know it might be hard to relate the email addresses to names of members but even an estimate would be good data. It would also be interesting to know of people that have posted in the past year, how many of them are GNOME Foundation members. We could figure this out from the archives. Thanks, Stormy On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote: [/me removes board hat] Hi everyone, I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss matters freely without making lots of news that more often than not are harmful to our image to the world in general. Please sign here: http://live.gnome.org/PrivateFoundationListPetition We would need 35 to 40 signatures to put this to vote. Cheers, behdad ___ 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
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On 15/12/2009, at 2:49 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: [/me removes board hat] Hi everyone, I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss matters freely without making lots of news that more often than not are harmful to our image to the world in general. Remember gnome-hackers? Mails get leaked all the time, and I doubt moving foundation-list private would make any difference. GNOME needs to continue to promote itself as a transparent and welcoming community, which we do very very well for the most part. Let's be careful not to throw all that progress away. Glynn (Yes, I'm still alive and regularly reading the Planet GNOME and the lists - I still consider myself a GNOME member for as long as I feel welcome, though not as active as I'd like to be with other committments) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
2009/12/15 Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com: Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to foundation-list and the value you see in it. Hi there. I'm not a GNOME Foundation member but on the last few months I'm a GNOME user and a foundation list subscriber and if I'm not wrong, I donated some bucks as a GNOME friend/associate this year. Need to confirm this. Before using GNOME I was using XFCE and Slackware (on the past other configurations too - I'm a GNU/Linux user for more than one decade), but as I'm involved with some events, trainning and classes regarding Free Software, I use Ubuntu with GNOME now on my desktop because I really think that it can add real value to the public who doesn't know GNU/Linux, so my personal choice for a distro/desktop environment was really less important than what a first impression of a stable, easy and cool solution like Ubuntu with GNOME provides to this kind of public, so, I changed. I think, as Gregory said, the transparency here is very healthy and important. As a GNOME user and free software enthusiast, I like to know what the foundation members think about the project behavior, rules and future. I don't agree with a lot of opinions here, but who agrees 100%, right? The foundation members are still discussing this thread for long weeks. While the discussion can look pointless, confuse or even overrated by some, I think it's an important subject and the transparency as a public list give us ideas on how you guys are dealing with a piece of software we use every day. That's important for us, users, contributors and Free Software advocates. I really have some opinions that are more on the, let me say, extremist RMS field than on some of the pragmatic members (and former members - specially) field, but as an user, I use this list to know what you guys are thinking about GNOME, and never sent a unsolicited email because I think here is really a place for Foundation members. But as Stormy asked this time, here I am. I don't know if there are very others *writing* here like me, but I think if you guys are thinking on closing this list for people that are not Foundation members, you could give us at least read only access to it. For good or bad, on the IT Wire, Slashdot or Boycott Novell websites with articles you guys like or not, the transparency of the discussion here is really appreciated and adds a value that cannot be refuted. Best regards, ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
2009/12/14 Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com: Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to foundation-list and the value you see in it. Yes. I'm not a Foundation member, but I am on the advisory board. Obviously the discussions are still of interest, even though I'm not a member. Best, Zonker -- Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier j...@zonker.net openSUSE Community Manager Get openSUSE 11.2! http://bit.ly/EOV8a Twitter: jzb | Identica: jzb About: http://www.dissociatedpress.net/about/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On 12/14/2009 10:20 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: As long as GNOME is a project that matters, there will always be bozos who will post uneducated articles about what you are doing. If your discussions are in the open, people who really care can see what was *really* said and help to keep those bozos (people like me) honest. If you hide behind closed doors, the bozos get the last word. Articles about GNOME will be less frequent, less accurate, and less likely to be corrected. Is that really what you want? When you put it that way, no, that's not what I want :). I understand that there is value in keeping most discussions in the open. I still see legitimate uses for a foundation-private list though. For meta-discussions mostly. behdad jon ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
quote who=Behdad Esfahbod [/me removes board hat] Hi everyone, I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss matters freely without making lots of news that more often than not are harmful to our image to the world in general. Please sign here: http://live.gnome.org/PrivateFoundationListPetition We would need 35 to 40 signatures to put this to vote. Changing the existing foundation-list to private: I would hate to see the GNOME community move towards non-transparency largely due to the efforts of an ambulance-chasing trollumnist, and no other credible media (because they rightly don't regard any of this as news). Don't over-compensate because an idiot with a platform got his latest non-story about Open Source people and arguments onto Slashdot (of all places). New private mailing list for Foundation members: Much like gnome-private of yore, everyone will still chatter on the public list because it's easier and more useful to post there, and practically impossible to move threads away from the public list once they've started. By all means, rename the unused gnome-private to foundation-private, but I'm sure it'll stay as dead as it has for *years* now. So a sensible discussion was run off the rails by argumentative boofheads -- happens all the time, and most of the adults in the GNOME community know who the boofheads are (which is why practically the entire board didn't pay attention to the thread until it went off the rails; unfortunate, but there it is). Everyone should be embarrassed by momentary lapses of sanity like this. But it has happened before, it'll happen again, and it barely registers on the radar compared to the great work being done towards GNOME's mission. Remember your priorities and carry on. None of this is worth your time. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2010: Wellington, NZhttp://www.lca2010.org.nz/ The existence of 'someone' is a common myth in volunteer projects. - Mary Gardiner ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On 12/14/09 7:14 PM, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier j...@zonker.net wrote: 2009/12/14 Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com: Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to foundation-list and the value you see in it. Actually, I'm in the same situation as Zonker, mostly through bad prioritization on my part (i.e., I've been meaning to do it). Application's in now. As a member of the Ad Board for a fair while, having both sponsored and presented at GUADEC more than once, participating in things like the GNOME Mobile effort, marketing, etc., I've got a definite interest in what goes on within the Foundation... ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote: [/me removes board hat] I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss matters freely without making lots of news that more often than not are harmful to our image to the world in general. Please sign here: http://live.gnome.org/PrivateFoundationListPetition We would need 35 to 40 signatures to put this to vote. This isn't the way to go. Trolls will be everywhere and, discussions will float on to news sites. For example, I see that happen for Fedora far often. Taking the discussions into a -private might stop news from percolating via journalistic sources, but get out it will. Keeping the discussions open and transparent might actually help emphasizing the ethos of transparency that GNOME has. Watching two or three folks take a discussion totally off-track is nothing new. It happens all the time. A -private, I feel, isn't the solution. Please don't do this. -- sankarshan mukhopadhyay http://sankarshan.randomink.org/blog Sent from Brisbane, Qld, Australia ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On 12/15/2009 12:23 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: In any case, journalist-impersonators like Mr. Varghese are going to write a load of smack, no matter what, even if they have to simply invent it. After all, they have in the past. Given that all the past incidents I can think of involve that same person, I tend to agree that this may be a non-issue. behdad ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
2009/12/15 Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com: Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to foundation-list and the value you see in it. Pick me! :-) I just like to follow what happens since I spend most of my spare time hacking Gnome-related projects. I probably should be a member, but as it stands it is just another one of those todo's I one never gets around to. -- Cheers, Mikkel ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
I am one of those old farts on foundation list (first e-mail in my gfnd folder is from Sep 19 2000). I left foundation because I thought I was not contributing (I did some i18n work, while I had free time). I was following the recent controversy closely. I am with Dave Neary on a subject of that crazy idea to split from GNU. Sergey Panov = Politics aside, what was Lefty(Open source advocate for ACCESS Co., Ltd.) and Philip Van Hoof (self-appointed propitiatory software advocate) contribution to GNOME in the last year? Are those two still members of the foundation? On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 20:49 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: [/me removes board hat] Hi everyone, I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss matters freely without making lots of news that more often than not are harmful to our image to the world in general. Please sign here: http://live.gnome.org/PrivateFoundationListPetition We would need 35 to 40 signatures to put this to vote. Cheers, behdad ___ 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
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On 12/15/2009 01:50 AM, Sergey Panov wrote: Politics aside, what was Lefty(Open source advocate for ACCESS Co., Ltd.) and Philip Van Hoof (self-appointed propitiatory software advocate) contribution to GNOME in the last year? Are those two still members of the foundation? As per Code of Conduct, please assume people mean well. Which both Lefty and Philip do. Philip is a major developer of many current and emerging GNOME technologies. Lefty represents ACCESS in the Advisory board and is a regular contributor to the adboard meetings as well as being a regular at GUADEC and other GNOME conferences. FWIW, just being a regular at GUADEC is enough contribution to apply for Foundation membership. We have that in our rules and we have accepted members just passing that criteria. behdad ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 01:56 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: As per Code of Conduct, please assume people mean well. Which both Lefty and Philip do. Sorry, if I managed to brake some CoC. I have no idea what you mean by mean well, but their attack on RMS was quite tasteless. Philip is a major developer of many current and emerging GNOME technologies. Which technologies? TinyMail? Lefty represents ACCESS in the Advisory board and is a regular contributor to the adboard meetings as well as being a regular at GUADEC and other GNOME conferences. Nothing personal, but I never trusted those corporate Open Source Advocates ... . Besides, Lefty does not work for ACCESS Inc. anymore -- he is a director of the Open Source Technologies http://www.blogger.com/profile/08971976622291862537. FWIW, just being a regular at GUADEC is enough contribution to apply for Foundation membership. We have that in our rules and we have accepted members just passing that criteria. I did not know the threshold was dropped that low. -Sergey Panov ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On 12/14/09 11:35 PM, Sergey Panov si...@sipan.org wrote: Nothing personal, but I never trusted those corporate Open Source Advocates ... . No offense taken, I'm sure... I fear you distrust a fair proportion of the Foundation's Advisory Board. Besides, Lefty does not work for ACCESS Inc. anymore -- he is a director of the Open Source Technologies http://www.blogger.com/profile/08971976622291862537. I do, indeed, work for ACCESS. My _title_ is Director of Open Source Technologies. I did not know the threshold was dropped that low. It's that pesky open and welcoming thing, I'm afraid. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
