Hi Lefty,
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Lefty wrote:
> My constructive criticism is that you not take your code of conduct
> guidance from people who are unrepentant poster children for the need for a
> code of conduct.
>
>
> On Sep 14, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> Here's a code that I helped write:
> http://abstractions.io/policies/#code-of-conduct .
>
> I tried to avoid vague, subjective rules
> that could be interpreted in many ways.
Thanks, Richard! Let us know if you have any
Hi Lefty,
We want to keep this productive and constructive. Please feel free to email us
any specific language that you think we should stay away from and why, or any
resources you think are a good example of a CoC.
Remember, we want both examples of CoCs that you don't think work, and ones
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> My practical question is, which of those lists _do his messages
> actually get through to_?
>
> I should send my reactions to the lists that his messages
> actually reach, and not to those his messages do not reach.
I would
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> I don't know, but maybe he's just not subscribed. If so, his posts
> won't
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 08:29:50PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> We should judge proposals based on what they say and their effects,
> not based on personalities.
FYI: Those messages were moderated (IIRC Lefty is), there's nobody
really actively looking at moderated emails (various reasons).
On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 20:33 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Ironically, I was serving as his conduit into the list(s).
> I will certainly stop.
>
> Which of these lists is he banned from? Both?
I don't know, but maybe he's just not subscribed. If so, his posts
won't appear until approved by a
> My guess is that Lefty is replying publicly, that his posts are not
> being allowed through the list for some reason, and that Richard
> understandably does not realize nobody else can see the posts he is
> replying to.
Ironically, I was serving as his conduit into the list(s).
I will
> I do not understand. What I am doing is sending the reply to a
> message to the same lists that the other message went to. I do that
> because these messages attack me and I deserve a chance to respond.
I assumed that you were accidently moving a conversation from the
private ML to the
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Can you please stop leaking half a conversation from a private mailing
> > list to a public one? Thank you.
>
> I do not understand. What I am doing is sending the reply to a
> message to the same lists that the
> Can you please stop leaking half a conversation from a private mailing
> list to a public one? Thank you.
I do not understand. What I am doing is sending the reply to a
message to the same lists that the other message went to. I do that
because these messages attack me and I deserve a
On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 07:04 +0200, Jens Georg wrote:
> Can you please stop leaking half a conversation from a private
> mailing
> list to a public one? Thank you.
In Richard's defense, I don't believe the emails he's replying to are
intended to be private. In the mailing list archives, there are
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Jens Georg wrote:
>>
>> I do agree that seeing only part of the conversation isn't
>> particularly helpful,
>
>
> Sorry for not making this clear, that was the point I was trying to make
> here. Nothing else.
Indeed, now an apology from me, if it
I do agree that seeing only part of the conversation isn't
particularly helpful,
Sorry for not making this clear, that was the point I was trying to make
here. Nothing else.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Jens Georg wrote:
> Can you please stop leaking half a conversation from a private mailing list
> to a public one? Thank you.
I have to interject here. What it sounds like is that one foundation
list member (doesn't matter who it is) is getting
Can you please stop leaking half a conversation from a private mailing
list to a public one? Thank you.
My constructive criticism is that you not take your code of
> conduct guidance from people who are unrepentant poster children
> for the need for a code of conduct.
He's exaggerating
> My constructive criticism is that you not take your code of
> conduct guidance from people who are unrepentant poster children
> for the need for a code of conduct.
He's exaggerating about me, but that's the smaller error. His
fundamental error is in the general premise that he wants us
"Lefty" has resumed his old practice of attacking anything that is
associated with me, mainly as a way of associating my name with
a cloud of vague disapproval.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No
Here's a code that I helped write:
http://abstractions.io/policies/#code-of-conduct .
I tried to avoid vague, subjective rules
that could be interpreted in many ways.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Liam R. E. Quin wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 12:07 -0700, Nuritzi Sanchez wrote:
> > proposing to draw up a standard code of conduct for GNOME events.
>
> You could maybe start with the libregraphicsmeeting.org policy,
>
On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 12:07 -0700, Nuritzi Sanchez wrote:
> proposing to draw up a standard code of conduct for GNOME events.
You could maybe start with the libregraphicsmeeting.org policy,
http://libregraphicsmeeting.org/lgm/public-documentation/code-of-conduc
t/
Liam
--
Liam R. E. Quin
This is terrific to see. I'm sorry that I probably don't have time to help
out much, but look forward to the final result.
Luis
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:49 PM Nuritzi Sanchez <
nurit...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
> Dear Foundation Members,
>
> GNOME has never had a standard code of conduct
22 matches
Mail list logo