Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2010-01-15 Thread Lefty (石鏡 )
On 12/15/09 4:09 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) zee...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
 Hi,
 
 Lefty wrote:
 Given the proposition that proprietary software is illegitimate, and
 the statement above, do you believe that the GNOME Foundation and
 community should distance itself from companies which produce proprietary
 software?
 
 Specifically, should the Advisory Board be dissolved, and should the
 Foundation refuse further financial support from the companies that
 are currently on the Ad Board?
 
 I for one am interested in Richard's position on this. Mine is clear: I have
 no problem at all working with companies who want to improve GNOME or the
 GNOME platform, even if they develop proprietary software. And the money they
 give to GNOME gets used to improve GNOME, so as long as there are no strings
 attached, I don't care particularly why they give it.
 
 On the other hand, I feel under no obligation to promote their non-free
 software offerings, or guilt in encouraging free equivalents of their
 proprietary components  products.
 
   I fee like you took thoughts out of my mind but unlike me were able
 to express them very nicely. :)

I'm actually still hoping to get a response on this...



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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-17 Thread guido iodice
Hi to all.

I'm not a GNOME Foundation member, then I apologize for this e-mail. But as
enthusiastic GNOME user, I would like to send you my opinion.

First at all: thank you Richard Stallman and Miguel De Icaza for GNOME idea.
Thank you Miguel for GNOME hacking and for Mono too. Thank you RMS for GCC,
Emacs and other packages of GNU system.  Especially thanks to all GNOME
hackers to improve GNOME every day.
If some of you use/develop/love some proprietary software, this not matter.
Thank you for your free code in GNOME.

As user, my vision is that free software is a competitor of non-free
software. It is simple for me: free software was born to replace proprietary
software.

Not only GNU/Linux is a competitor of Mac OS X and Windows, but all FLOSS
are a competitor of its proprietary counterparts. I.e.: Firefox is a
competitor of IE and Safari (and Chrome, that is partially non-free).
GCC is a competitor of proprietary compilers (and GCC won :-) ).
GNOME was born as a competitor of KDE because it was based on a proprietary
framework. Today GNOME and KDE are friends and both free/open source.

So the Free/Open Source Software is - taking it as a whole - a competitor of
proprietary software.

You may be not in agree with me, but many users see the issue in these
terms. They would like to have free/open tools to replace proprietary tools.
They feel free/open source software as a proprietary software
alternative/competitor/replacement.

I often read msdn blogs, google blogs, and other corporate and community
blogs and planets. I never read on msdn something to legitimate Mac. Oh
yes, you can read about MS Office for Mac, but it is different. You can read
on GNU website about GNU software for Windows or Mac too. For GNU Project it
is better to use Octave on Windows instead Matlab on Windows.

If floss is a non-floss competitor then it is logic do not advertise or
speaking favorably about non-free software in the GNOME Planet.

Obviously, it is good to analyze proprietary software and learn from it.
IMHO GNOME brings the better ideas from Windows an Mac, and it is better
than Mac and Windows.

But GNOME, on top of a free/open OS, is a replacement of Windows and Mac.
And I think that GNOME should advertise its brothers in virtualization
software, like QEMU and Virtualbox[1], not vmWare.

Then I think RMS suggestion is essentially logic and coherent with GNOME
mission and with what users expect from it.

Thank you and best regards.

Guido

http://guiodic.wordpress.com


[1] it is distributed as free software too.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership (Summary)

2009-12-15 Thread Andy Tai
It seems that a better idea is to consider the Planet not part of GNOME.
That way GNOME does not have to deal with whatever is in the planet, like
slashdot does not control and is not responsible for the messages by its
posters.

GNOME controls the official web page content.  This planet is not part of
that.

Easier for everyone.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Lucas Rocha luc...@gnome.org wrote:

 Hi all,

 It's quite obvious that the original thread ended up branching into
 several separate topics. I thought it would be useful to summarize
 some of the key points on each topic in an attempt to bring a more
 practical perspective to the whole discussion.

 This is not an official message from the Board. It's just me trying to
 make some sense out of the tons of messages in the thread and, maybe,
 bring a more useful (or at least more clear) closure to the
 discussed topics.

 -- The original topic: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-15 Thread Lefty (石鏡 )
On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
 
 ...I would not encourage anyone to use
 non-free software even to get money to give to a worthy cause.

I apologize to all, but given this, there's a question that _really_ has to
be asked:

Given the proposition that proprietary software is illegitimate, and the
statement above, do you believe that the GNOME Foundation and community
should distance itself from companies which produce proprietary software?

Specifically, should the Advisory Board be dissolved, and should the
Foundation refuse further financial support from the companies that are
currently on the Ad Board?


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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-15 Thread Juanjo Marin

El dom, 13-12-2009 a las 13:08 +0100, Peter Hjalmarsson escribió:
 For gentoo, they have two feeds: the planet, and the universe, where
 the planet only aggregates those blog posts that are tagged with gentoo,
 and the universe aggregates the rest.
 I cannot understand why GNOME cannot have this system also?


I totally agree with Peter Hjalmarsson 

 Then for the planet you can have a code of conduct of what they are
 allowed to tag as GNOME (i.e. upcoming events in OSS-land where GNOME
 will be represented, development in projects blessed/used by GNOME,
 comments about projects being blessed/used by GNOME, projects
 interesting for people interested in GNOME),

Then Planet GNOME will be a window into the GNOME world, what GNOME
community is doing now, what their plans are and how we are conquer and
free the world ;)

This planet will be very useful because it will give a community vision
of our project. And this is useful not only for the community members,
but also for the people outside the community that want to know about
GNOME.

  and a universe with maybe
 an disclaimer that the posts there can have nothing what so ever to do
 with GNOME.
 

and Universe GNOME will be a window into the world, work and lives of
GNOME hackers and contributors. Basically Universe GNOME will be what
Planet GNOME is now, maybe without the GNOME related posts. You find
interesting people in the community and you want to know more about them
because you share a common hobby, you learn new things, he/she is
brilliant (there are many!) or whatever. 

I think foundation members, I'm not a member yet, should take into
consideration this solution IMHO.

best regards,

   -- Juanjo Marín


-- 
Juan José Marín Martínez
Tlf: 956009437 (Corp. 409437) Fax: 956009445 (Corp. 409445)
Informática. Consejería de Cultura. DP Cádiz.
Junta de Andalucía



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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership (Summary)

2009-12-15 Thread Dave Neary
Hi,

Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
 I will, except that I don't know what the process to do that is.  Just
 post to f-l?  How would we make a decision?  Or gather 10% to put it to
 vote?

Edit the Code, if a few people complain they can remove their signatures
(and remove their blogs from PGO, if the maintainers decide that
agreeing with the Code is a precondition for blog syndication). If many
people complain, you can revert the change. No need for a song  dance.

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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-15 Thread Richard Stallman
As a specific example, to the question, Do you agree that viewing
proprietary software as 'illegitimate', 'immoral', 'antisocial' and/or
'unethical' should be a pre-condition for syndication on Planet GNOME?, so
far 151 respondents have answered No, only 19 have answered Yes. That's
about an 8-to-1 ratio.

That goes far beyond what I said, and I would not propose it.  It
seems that a significant minority have views on this issue much
stronger than mine.

What worries me is that you presented this question inaccurately here
as pertaining to my views.  The readers here have seen what I said and
can see the difference.  But if you said the same thing elsewhere,
that would constitute misrepresenting my views to the public.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-15 Thread Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
Hi,

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
 Hi,

 Lefty wrote:
 Given the proposition that proprietary software is illegitimate, and
 the statement above, do you believe that the GNOME Foundation and
 community should distance itself from companies which produce proprietary
 software?

 Specifically, should the Advisory Board be dissolved, and should the
 Foundation refuse further financial support from the companies that
 are currently on the Ad Board?

 I for one am interested in Richard's position on this. Mine is clear: I have 
 no problem at all working with companies who want to improve GNOME or the 
 GNOME platform, even if they develop proprietary software. And the money they 
 give to GNOME gets used to improve GNOME, so as long as there are no strings 
 attached, I don't care particularly why they give it.

 On the other hand, I feel under no obligation to promote their non-free 
 software offerings, or guilt in encouraging free equivalents of their 
 proprietary components  products.

  I fee like you took thoughts out of my mind but unlike me were able
to express them very nicely. :)

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-14 Thread Miguel de Icaza
Hello,

 GNOME is not connected with the anti-hunting movement; there's no
 reason it should have any position on the question.  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.

Gnome supports both the free software movement as well as proprietary
developers, and that is why Gnome for years has encouraged the use of
the LGPL license for all of its libraries.

Gnome is a general purpose desktop, but it also recognizes the need for
proprietary applications to use these libraries and to build and
integrate properly with it.

Miguel.

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-14 Thread Richard Hughes
2009/12/10 Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org:
 The presence of articles discussing vmware, for instance,
 conveys the message that GNOME sees nothing wrong with it.

I think you've added 1 and 1 and made 7.

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-14 Thread Andre Klapper
Am Dienstag, den 08.12.2009, 15:24 -0500 schrieb Dr. Michael J.
Chudobiak:
 Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
  Say, any viewer of p.g.o can vote a post +1 or -1.  Then we can gather 
  two metrics per poster: 1) how impactful his/her posts are (avg / median 
  / max number of votes).  2) how interested are readers in his/her posts 
  (avg / median / min/max score.
  We can then have threshold to hide / collapse unpopular posts.
 
 Yes, please! Let the system fix itself through trendy crowd-sourcing, 
 rather than having a board spank people who speak foolishly!

Actually the system on Planet Maemo is a bit complexer and is not only
based on thumbs up / thumbs down votes. See
http://maemo.org/community/maemo-community/how_social_news_ranks_news_items/

andre

-- 
 mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed
 http://www.iomc.de/  | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-14 Thread Dave Neary
Hi,

Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
 As a specific example, to the question, Do you agree that viewing
 proprietary software as 'illegitimate', 'immoral', 'antisocial' and/or
 'unethical' should be a pre-condition for syndication on Planet GNOME?, so
 far 151 respondents have answered No, only 19 have answered Yes. That's
 about an 8-to-1 ratio.

I'm no statistician (well, not any more at any rate), but I know that
you can construct surveys to say anything. If you ask someone Do you
want to bring our boys home? in the US, people are anti-war - if you
ask Should we surrender in Iraq? they're pro-war. Leading questions
prove nothing.

Your survey, in particular, is not particularly impartial. I would say
that it is somewhere between leading and push polling. It's the type
of thing you rightly criticise when it is used by Boycott Novell.

Quite honestly, like others, I would just like to see this discussion
end. As I said before the weekend (50 emails ago), no opinions are being
changed, no new information of interest to GNOME Foundation members has
surfaced.

I'd like to ask both Lefty  Richard to refrain from mailing to this
thread again.

Thank you,
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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-14 Thread Vincent Untz
Le mercredi 09 décembre 2009, à 19:47 +0100, Dodji Seketeli a écrit :
 Le mer. 09 déc. 2009 à 14:45:55 (+0100), Philip Van Hoof a écrit:
  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 ^).
 
 The way I understand what Frédéric said is, there is an (yet another
 one?) interesting question not answered by the p.g.o slogan. What does the
 planet maintainers do with people who stop being involved in the project.

Quoting http://live.gnome.org/PlanetGnome

I stopped contributing to GNOME two years ago. Can I still stay there?

Sure, no problem. We still love you :-) Past contributors often stay
involved in areas that are of interest to GNOME (even if not directly
related to GNOME), so we're not worried about the content of your blog.

That being said, if the editors know of a blog from a past contributor
who's annoying to most Planet GNOME readers, we can feel free to remove
the blog after contacting the person.

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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-14 Thread Vincent Untz
Hey,

Le mercredi 09 décembre 2009, à 13:32 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
 On 12/09/2009 08:48 AM, Lionel Dricot wrote:
 - Each GNOME member should be able to add his feed to pgo. He might want
 to change his feed whenever he wants to take a more specialized one or not.

The consensus in the past is that we don't want to have anybody able to
change the planet configuration, and that this is what has enabled Planet
GNOME to stay (relatively) high quality.

 - 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'm fine with this idea. If Lucas and Jeff are fine, we can start doing
it, but I'm sure that help would be welcome to gather the list of mail
addresses to contact. If anybody wants to do that part of the work,
please just contact the planet editors.

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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-14 Thread Vincent Untz
Le vendredi 11 décembre 2009, à 17:20 +0100, Philip Van Hoof a écrit :
 I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.

So, as far as I can tell, nobody is collecting a list of members who
support such a vote proposal. I still wanted to reply there.

For many of the reasons Dave wrote, I would believe splitting up from
the GNU project is a bad idea. Let me add a few things...

The GNOME Foundation itself is a free software supporter, and advocates
for free software, and I believe this reflects the opinion of the vast
majority of the GNOME community. So I would think it's safe to say that
this is the position of the GNOME project. As such, I think the GNOME
project definitely has its place in the GNU project, whose goal is to
create a free software operating system.

That doesn't mean the GNOME Foundation fights against non-free software
by saying that non-free software is bad and should not be used nor
exist. We have a policy of having the GNOME platform LGPL, and so it can
be used by non-free applications. We're happy this way. Our way to fight
against non-free software is by writing better code, that is free.

Also, the GNU project is not the FSF. When reading the thread, I have
the feeling that some people want the GNOME project to not be part of
the FSF, or to disagree with the FSF. The GNOME Foundation is part of
the FSF, and we sometimes disagree with the FSF, and we're all fine this
way. (Note that the FSF is an advisory board member of the GNOME
Foundation, though, and it's valuable one that we're happy to have). I
think Andy wrote more on this [1], but I didn't take the time to read
his post so I won't put words in his mouth :-)

Cheers,

Vincent

[1] http://wingolog.org/archives/2009/12/13/gnu-gnome-and-the-fsf

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-14 Thread Vincent Untz
Hey,

Le jeudi 10 décembre 2009, à 07:46 -0700, Stormy Peters a écrit :
 My post on hunting comes to mind. I self censor now because I didn't like
 the negative comments directed at my kids. But would you block my whole blog
 because a vocal portion of the community is anti-hunting and people in my
 family hunt?

I read a few times in this thread that people are self-censoring
themselves in their blog. It's possible to avoid that by using a
tag-based RSS feed; so if you want to blog the way you want but not have
everything appear on Planet GNOME, just contact the Planet editors, and
we'll be glad to help you do this.

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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-14 Thread Vincent Untz
Hi,

(This is hopefully my last mail for catching up with this thread ;-))

Le mercredi 25 novembre 2009, à 12:48 +, Lucas Rocha a écrit :
 Hi all,
 
 The Board has recently received some complaints from members of the
 community about certain the inappropriate behaviors. In the context of
 GNOME Foundation, it's really hard to argue about how we expect our
 members to behave if there is no official guidelines that members are
 supposed to comply with. The GNOME Code of Conduct[1] has been serving
 very well as an informal guideline for the community but we'd like to
 make it an official document that new Foundation members are expected
 to explicitly agree[2] with before being accepted. This way we'll have a
 common ground for dealing with certain conflict situations and avoid
 trying to base our discussions on guidelines that certain members
 haven't explicitly agreed on.
 
 Before deciding on this, we thought it would be useful to get some
 feedback from the community.

This is the first mail of the thread. And I'm really sad of the way the
thread went. I'm certainly guilty myself of not taking time to read it
and participate earlier to try to moderate things, but we should all be
able to step back and moderate a thread when it apparently needs to be
moderated...

First, let me state it: the original proposal has nothing to do with
Planet GNOME. If you have an issue with Planet GNOME, you're free to
state it publicly, of course, but you can also directly contact the
editors. We even put some documentation to answer most questions:
  http://live.gnome.org/PlanetGnome

And if you read that page, you'll see that the editors expect people on
Planet GNOME to respect the Code of Conduct. I'm not aware of a case
where we removed a post or a blog because of this, but if this needs to
happen, then fine, we'll do it.

(and yes, the editors are not perfect, and are not always replying in
time, and are doing mistakes and all that, so keep this in mind please
;-))

Now, back to the original proposal. The idea is that we want the GNOME
project to be a cool place. With great people. Where newcomers feel
welcome. And all that. I'd love a rainbow, and illimited ice cream, btw.

That what is already behind the Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct is
only stating the obvious. There's nothing revolutionary there. There are
surely some cases where it doesn't help us. We can also all have a bad
day and not respect the Code of Conduct at some point -- if this
happens, as long as we can acknowledge that we could have had a more
appropriate behavior, it's fine.

If you think that having a Yes, I agree that I should try to be polite
requirement for GNOME Foundation membership is bad, then, well, okay;
that just means you might share one of the values of the GNOME
Foundation. Is it the end of the world? No. Does that make it impossible
to contribute to GNOME? No. (Hint: you don't have to be a GNOME
Foundation member to contribute.)

This is really all about explaining to the world what are values are,
and trying to lead by the example. This is not about adding rules.

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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-14 Thread Behdad Esfahbod

On 12/14/2009 04:34 PM, Vincent Untz wrote:


Also, the GNU project is not the FSF. When reading the thread, I have
the feeling that some people want the GNOME project to not be part of
the FSF, or to disagree with the FSF. The GNOME Foundation is part of
the FSF, and we sometimes disagree with the FSF, and we're all fine this
way.


Humm, *now* I'm confused.  What does it mean that The GNOME Foundation is 
part of the FSF?


As for GNOME being a GNU project, what that means is explained here:

  http://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html

behdad

 (Note that the FSF is an advisory board member of the GNOME

Foundation, though, and it's valuable one that we're happy to have). I
think Andy wrote more on this [1], but I didn't take the time to read
his post so I won't put words in his mouth :-)

Cheers,

Vincent

[1] http://wingolog.org/archives/2009/12/13/gnu-gnome-and-the-fsf


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


Addition to the Code of Conduct (was Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership)

2009-12-14 Thread Vincent Untz
Le mercredi 25 novembre 2009, à 17:35 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
 I also like to see two more ideas added to CoC:
 
   - Learn to agree to disagree.
 
   - Criticize ideas, not people presenting them.

I support this change.

I'm just unsure how we can update the Code of Conduct, since people
signed the old version and we obviously can't pretend they approved
those additions. Should we just version the Code of Conduct? Or is this
a non-issue?

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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-14 Thread Vincent Untz
Le lundi 14 décembre 2009, à 16:56 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
 On 12/14/2009 04:34 PM, Vincent Untz wrote:
 
 Also, the GNU project is not the FSF. When reading the thread, I have
 the feeling that some people want the GNOME project to not be part of
 the FSF, or to disagree with the FSF. The GNOME Foundation is part of
 the FSF, and we sometimes disagree with the FSF, and we're all fine this
 way.
 
 Humm, *now* I'm confused.  What does it mean that The GNOME
 Foundation is part of the FSF?

Gah. I obviously missed the not. It should read: The GNOME Foundation
is not part of the FSF. Apologies for the confusion :-)

 As for GNOME being a GNU project, what that means is explained here:
 
   http://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html

Thanks for the link, that's something I was looking for and I couldn't
find easily!

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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-14 Thread Luis Villa
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:
 On 12/14/2009 04:34 PM, Vincent Untz wrote:

 Also, the GNU project is not the FSF. When reading the thread, I have
 the feeling that some people want the GNOME project to not be part of
 the FSF, or to disagree with the FSF. The GNOME Foundation is part of
 the FSF, and we sometimes disagree with the FSF, and we're all fine this
 way.

 Humm, *now* I'm confused.  What does it mean that The GNOME Foundation is
 part of the FSF?

 As for GNOME being a GNU project, what that means is explained here:

  http://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html

Note that we've always ignored about 90% of this page with no ill
effects for either us or GNU.

Which is really my position on the whole thing: the adults in this
project have always treated requests from GNU the same way we treat
requests from any other community member- if it makes sense, we do it;
if it doesn't make sense, we ignore it. Usually we ignore it quietly.
I will try to refrain from speculating as to why this particular
suggestion was ignored so loudly, but I'd suggest that quietly is
better.

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


Re: Addition to the Code of Conduct (was Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership)

2009-12-14 Thread Pierre-Luc Beaudoin
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 22:56 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
 Should we just version the Code of Conduct? Or is this
 a non-issue? 

I believe we don't need to update the Code since those 2 additions are
expected behaviours from the existing Be respectful and considerate
element.

Maybe should these 2 additions be added to a list of example behaviours
that serve the code?

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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-14 Thread Behdad Esfahbod

On 12/14/2009 05:26 PM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:

But what if advocating free software means that the minimal support
GNOME should do for GNU, is to claim that proprietary is illegitimate?


Exactly.

I have been supporting Free Software for over ten years, and will probably do 
for the rest of my life.  But, as an Iranian witnessing what's going on in 
Iran right now, I can't agree to any kind of anti-something or 
against-something or death-to-something.  Tolerance is key.  When someone asks 
me so why should I use GNOME instead of KDE, or why should I use Linux 
instead of Windows, my only reply is use whatever works better for you. 
I'm sick of fanaticism, and my friends in Iran are being beaten and killed 
because of it.  I can't justify being a fanatic when it comes to software freedom.


These days, Free Software does many things better than the alternatives.  Many 
of my friends use it because they find it better.  And that simply makes me 
happy.  But when someone chooses to use OS X, I respect their freedom of choice.


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


Re: Addition to the Code of Conduct (was Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership)

2009-12-14 Thread Behdad Esfahbod

On 12/14/2009 05:26 PM, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote:

On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 22:56 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:

Should we just version the Code of Conduct? Or is this
a non-issue?


I believe we don't need to update the Code since those 2 additions are
expected behaviours from the existing Be respectful and considerate
element.

Maybe should these 2 additions be added to a list of example behaviours
that serve the code?


Makes more sense.

behdad


Pierre-Luc

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership (Summary)

2009-12-14 Thread Behdad Esfahbod

On 12/14/2009 07:41 PM, Lucas Rocha wrote:

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

Pierre suggested that both items are added to the list of example
behaviours under Be respectful and considerate. This is something
that should be officially proposed for general consideration. Behdad,
maybe you could do that? :-)


I will, except that I don't know what the process to do that is.  Just post to 
f-l?  How would we make a decision?  Or gather 10% to put it to vote?


behdad
noticing that we don't have much process in place, and that may or may not be 
a good thing

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership (Summary)

2009-12-14 Thread Andy Tai
It seems that a better idea is to consider the Planet not part of GNOME.
That way GNOME does not have to deal with whatever is in the planet, like
slashdot does not control and is not responsible for the messages by its
posters.

GNOME controls the official web page content.  This planet is not part of
that.

Easier for everyone.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Lucas Rocha luc...@gnome.org wrote:

 Hi all,

 It's quite obvious that the original thread ended up branching into
 several separate topics. I thought it would be useful to summarize
 some of the key points on each topic in an attempt to bring a more
 practical perspective to the whole discussion.

 This is not an official message from the Board. It's just me trying to
 make some sense out of the tons of messages in the thread and, maybe,
 bring a more useful (or at least more clear) closure to the
 discussed topics.

 -- The original topic: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership


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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-13 Thread Richard Stallman
That's where the cash for things like my FSF-E
Fellowship, EFF membership, Creative Commons membership, etc., come from,
see?

These are worthy causes, but I would not encourage anyone to use
non-free software even to get money to give to a worthy cause.

However, the issue here isn't about what you use or what I use, it's
about what GNOME should say to the world about proprietary software.

The Planet is not GNOME and it is not an advocacy organ; it doesn't
advocate anything,

Maybe it wasn't set up specificy for the purpose of advocacy, but it
is a major part of GNOME's face to the world.  What it says has have a
substantial effect on what people think GNOME is all about.  This
includes its implicit messages as well as explicit statements.

The communication of a statement is not limited to what it formally
states; the fact that it was made, and made in a certain place and
time, implies other meanings.  For instance, if you talk about
something and make no criticisms, people take that to mean you have no
strong disapproval of it.

I don't know how often proprietary software is mentioned favorably
there.  If the problem happens at intervals of years, maybe very
little response is needed.  Maybe the GNOME Board should respond by
posting a response when non-free software gets favorably mentioned.



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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-13 Thread Richard Stallman
We wanted Gnome to be a free software stack, and that was our 
requirement.  Gnome itself was assembled out of the available
components plus the requirements of the community that emerged early on.

GNOME was made out of available components and new components.  In
particular, we discussed plans for new libraries, and decided how to
license them.

We didn't include Red Hat in that discussion, since it was a GNU
Project matter.  However, from what you said, the decision we made
for free software reasons would also have satisifed what Red Hat wanted
for its GNU/Linux distribution.

   The individual pieces of Gnome are no longer just
used by Gnome, or designed merely to be part of Gnome, they are 
built to be reusable not only by KDE, but also by server applications, or
mobile applications;   And they are licensed to allow proprietary developers
to use them.  

I hope that you are making an overstatement when you claim that GNOME
has lost all influence over the licensing of components developed for
GNOME.  It would be a shame if GNOME can only drift with the current.

I also hope it is an overstatement to say that all GNOME components
have been licensed in ways that fail to give any advantage to free
software packages over proprietary software.  If true, that would mean
useful opportunities to boost other free software have been wasted.

But even if those things are true, they can be changed in the future.
GNOME can recover influence on licensing decisions.  New components
will surely be developed for GNOME, and GNOME can ask developers to
follow licensing practice designed to help the free software cause.

The motives for the policy we decided in 1997 or 1998 are still valid:
we want proprietary programs to be able to work with GNOME, and we
want to help free software developers compete technically with
proprietary software.

Thus, libraries needed for an app to work with GNOME should be
licensed so proprietary apps can use them.  Libraries that help people
develop apps, or help the apps work better, should be limited to use
within free software, so as to give our fellow free software
developers an advantage.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-13 Thread Richard Stallman
I made an accusation against Apple which was false, so I owed an
apology.  Being misunderstood, falsely accused, and vilified by some
does not in my view mean I owe an apology.  Instead I took steps to
avoid similar misunderstandings.

Your words impute spurious negative emotions to the events:

 have been unable to come up with one for those of us who
were too dumb to be able to adequately comprehend your humor at the Gran
Canaria Desktop Summit.

Unable to come up with and too dumb are your own additions,
which clearly were not present in the events themselves.

Imputing negative emotions creates an added obstacle to resolving any
issue.  Thus, the draft GNOME Code of Conduct is wise to ask people
not to do so.













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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-13 Thread Richard Stallman
 You're also stretching the term censorship and related terms to an
 area where it does not pertain.  For an organization to stand by its
 values, and not say things which conflict with those values, is not
 censorship.

Fine. We can simply call it prior restraint if you prefer, then.

Neither one fits.  Prior restraint is US legal terminology for a
particular kind of censorship.  For an organization to stand by its
values is not censorship at all.

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-13 Thread Lefty (石鏡 )
On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
 
 Unable to come up with and too dumb are your own additions,
 which clearly were not present in the events themselves.

Clearly, a lot of misunderstanding was present in the events themselves.
To what do you attribute this wide-spread misunderstanding, if not
stupidity, ignorance or a general lack of adequate erudition on the part of
the audience?


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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-13 Thread Jonathon Jongsma
On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 08:33 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
 On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
  
  Unable to come up with and too dumb are your own additions,
  which clearly were not present in the events themselves.
 
 Clearly, a lot of misunderstanding was present in the events themselves.
 To what do you attribute this wide-spread misunderstanding, if not
 stupidity, ignorance or a general lack of adequate erudition on the part of
 the audience?


This is fast becoming among the least productive email threads I've read
in a long time.  Can we please bring it to a close?

Thanks
Jonathon

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-13 Thread Paul Cutler
As it says in the footer of Planet GNOME:

*Planet GNOME is a window into the world, work and lives of GNOME hackers
and contributors http://planet.gnome.org/heads/.

*Planet GNOME automatically reposts blog entries from the GNOME community.
Entries on this page are owned by their authors. We do not edit, endorse or
vouch for the contents of individual posts.

It seems to me we already have a disclaimer in place.  I, for one, would
like Planet GNOME to stay as is - no voting, no censoring, no tagging.  I
*am* interested in the work and lives of GNOME hackers and contributors
whether or not their work is proprietary or free software.

I know since I was added to pgo earlier this year I tend to self-censor
myself a little bit more, but I don't want pgo to be 100% GNOME (or free
software) specific.  I appreciate knowing the hobbies of my fellow hackers,
whether it's hunting, cooking or what not.

Planet GNOME may be a GNOME activity but it's an aggregation of the
*personal blogs of GNOME contributors and we have a disclaimer in place.
I'd like to see it stay just as it is.

Paul


On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:

 Bottom line: Planet GNOME does not exist for
the sake of supporting your, or the FSF's, agenda, and you're
 attempting
to solve a non-existent problem.

 We launched GNOME to serve the free software movement's aims.  (We
 launched the FSF and the GNU system for the same reason.)  And Planet
 GNOME is a GNOME activity.  So it seems to me that these aims can't
 be a-priori irrelevant to Planet GNOME.
 ___
 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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-13 Thread Tobias Mueller
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Heya,

On 13.12.2009 16:33, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
 To what do you attribute this wide-spread misunderstanding, if not
 stupidity, ignorance or a general lack of adequate erudition on the part of
 the audience?
 
Misunderstandings can be a result of many factors, including differences
in language, culture, political views, personal believes, etc.

Having that sorted out, I don't see any good reason why this sub-thread
exists. What's the main question we're discussing here? If there is
none, I'd happily make my MUA kill it.

Cheers,
  Tobi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkslG8UACgkQPuBX/6ogjZ4EOwCeJGeQqnSgSnb+YbiySXiO+PRu
oxgAoKMVvEjpoh0SDcROy+RRzzi4kAtj
=eNZD
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-13 Thread Lefty (石鏡 )
On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:

 That's where the cash for things like my FSF-E
 Fellowship, EFF membership, Creative Commons membership, etc., come from,
 see?
 
 These are worthy causes, but I would not encourage anyone to use
 non-free software even to get money to give to a worthy cause.

I knew you'd feel that way, which is why I send my money to FSF-Europe,
rather than the FSF.

 However, the issue here isn't about what you use or what I use, it's
 about what GNOME should say to the world about proprietary software.

One more time: Planet GNOME  The GNOME Foundation  GNOME

 I don't know how often proprietary software is mentioned favorably
 there.  If the problem happens at intervals of years, maybe very
 little response is needed.  Maybe the GNOME Board should respond by
 posting a response when non-free software gets favorably mentioned.

Non-free software can't even be favorably mentioned?

A discussion of the relative merits of GIMP and Photoshop is inadmissible if
it admits, however grudgingly, that Photoshop has some advantages or
features that GIMP does not...? We're disallowed from saying that Xcode on
OS X is, in fact, an excellent development environment...? No one can
comment in a positive way on a new cell phone or digital camera, without the
Board of Directors of the GNOME Foundation coming down on them?

Wow. You and I have extremely different ideas about freedom, Mr. Stallman.

 I don't know how often proprietary software is mentioned favorably
 there.

I see.

Do you actually ever _read_ Planet GNOME, Mr. Stallman...? Perhaps you
should call for a ban of the use of the term open source there, or of
Linux unless it's in specific reference to the kernel, as a minimal
requirement to support free software. Those happen a _lot_ more often.


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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-13 Thread Lefty (石鏡 )
In the interests of a broader collection of data, I've shelled out of my own
pocket to set up a professional-level SurveyMonkey account (the use of which
I will happily share with the Foundation, at least until the annual
subscription runs out, if it wishes to conduct surveys of its own).

I've set up a survey to collect some data on how people view the suggestions
that have been made regarding the governance of Planet GNOME, and I
encourage anyone who's interested to participate. The survey can be found at

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Z7WHPDF

So far, we've gotten over 170 responses, and public opinion doesn't seem to
be generally running in favor of Mr. Stallman's proposal, at a rate of
roughly four against to one in favor, in the best of circumstances. The
survey attempts to probe a little more deeply, but if the results are
indicative of anything, Mr. Stallman's views here represent a minority
opinion.

As a specific example, to the question, Do you agree that viewing
proprietary software as 'illegitimate', 'immoral', 'antisocial' and/or
'unethical' should be a pre-condition for syndication on Planet GNOME?, so
far 151 respondents have answered No, only 19 have answered Yes. That's
about an 8-to-1 ratio.

I'll publish more detailed results before the week is out.

On consideration, I now believe there's no need to call for a vote of the
Foundation membership.

Since the problem doesn't seem to exist, there's no need to do anything with
Planet. Similarly, I see no need to expend any further energy on the GNOME's
community's part on dealing with this. If the GNU Project finds the current
level of expression on Planet GNOME intolerably unsupportive of the free
software movement, for whatever reasons, they can certainly take whatever
steps they feel are necessary.


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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-13 Thread Behdad Esfahbod

On 12/13/2009 06:04 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:

In the interests of a broader collection of data, I've shelled out of my own
pocket to set up a professional-level SurveyMonkey account (the use of which
I will happily share with the Foundation, at least until the annual
subscription runs out, if it wishes to conduct surveys of its own).


Err.  Next time just let me know!

If people remember, I set up a survey system (LimeSurvey; Free Software) on my 
GNOME account to run the DVCS survey.  We later used that to do the Desktop 
Summit survey.  I'm offering it to all Foundation members now: if you need 
something surveyed Foundation-wide, just ask and I'll set you up with an account.


At some point I may hook it up to LDAP and let people freely use it.  But 
we're currently far from having a single gnome.org account...


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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-12 Thread Richard Stallman
Gnome supports both the free software movement as well as proprietary
developers, and that is why Gnome for years has encouraged the use of
the LGPL license for all of its libraries.

The decision you and I made, in the early days, was to use the LGPL
for the more basic and general libraries, so that proprietary programs
could work with GNOME, but to use the GPL for more advanced libraries
so that they would give an advantage to free applications.

We decided this, not as a way to support proprietary developers, but
rather to compete with KDE and Qt.  Proprietary software developers
could use Qt (by buying a license).  If they could not use GNOME's
basic libraries, that would put GNOME at a disadvantage, and the
result could be that KDE with proprietary Qt might triumph.

Now that Qt is free software, beating it in competition is less
crucial.  We might not have a reason to use the LGPL for some of
these libraries if we were deciding it now.

So I hope that the GNOME policy about library licensing has not moved
towards more use of the LGPL than in the past.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-12 Thread Richard Stallman
Is GNOME part of any anti-proprietary software movement?

that terminology didn't come from me.  I would rather describe what we
are doing in positive terms: GNOME is part of the free software
movement, which strives to give users freedom.

I don't think so and I've never seen it like that.

I guess you have not heard how GNOME came to be.  We launched GNOME to
defend the free software community against a particular proprietary
program, Qt; against the danger that people might come to regard that
proprietary program as essential for a usable GNU/Linux system.

So GNOME not merely part of a system that we developed for the sake of
freedom.  GNOME was developed specifically to protect freedom.  There
are no clearer examples of software which exists for the sake of
freedom than GNOME.

I think the GNOME Foundation should do more to inform the community
about this.  Currently, it seems, the message is not getting across.
If people can look at Planet GNOME, and the rest of what the
Foundation says, and get the impression that neutrality on this issue
is one of GNOME's founding principles, it behooves us to do more to
inform people what the founding principles really are.

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-12 Thread Richard Stallman
I believe Stormy was quite clear and on point: It sounded to me as though
she were arguing against the sort of prior restraint that you seem to be
attempting to impose here.

I think GNOME activities should not grant legitimacy to non-free
software.  This is a minimal form of support for the cause of software
users' freedom -- minimal in the sense that anything less would hardly
be support.

However, the implementational ideas you are attacking did not come
from me.

You're also stretching the term censorship and related terms to an
area where it does not pertain.  For an organization to stand by its
values, and not say things which conflict with those values, is not
censorship.

My use of Final Cut is completely legitimate.

I would not trade my freedom for convenience like that.  However the
issue here is not what you use, or what would I use; it is what GNOME
should advocate.

We're working for a world in which software users aren't asked to
choose between freedom and convenience, and GNOME should support that
goal, as well as being a collection of programs which help make it so.
Thus, GNOME should not present a program as legitimate if it requires
users to choose in that way.




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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-12 Thread Richard Stallman
We _were_ attempting to finalize a Code of Conduct which could be provided
to speakers, in the hope of avoiding future instances of the sort of
harmless fun we experienced during Mr. Stallman's keynote at the Gran
Canaria Desktop Summit, as I recall.

What happened there is that some people misunderstood a joke in my
speech, and others mistakenly accused me of intentionally disparaging
people.

Rules of conduct can't prevent misunderstandings, but they can help us
deal with them better.  If those who accused me had followed the draft
Code of Conduct (http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct), particularly
this rule

Disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour or personal
attacks. Remember that a community where people feel uncomfortable
is not a productive one.

and this one

If something seems outrageous, check that you did not misinterpret
it. Ask for clarification, but do not assume the worst.

they might have responded differently to the misunderstanding,
and things would have been over very quickly.

All the points in the draft Code of Conduct seem good to me.
 
___
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 Richard Stallman
Stormy, we seem to be miscommunicating.  I said that people should not
promote non-free software on Planet GNOME.  You seem to be arguing
against something different.  For instance,

My post on hunting comes to mind. I self censor now because I didn't like
the negative comments directed at my kids. But would you block my whole blog
because a vocal portion of the community is anti-hunting and people in my
family hunt?

GNOME is not connected with the anti-hunting movement; there's no
reason it should have any position on the question.  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 think Planet GNOME should have a rule to this effect.  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.


___
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 Lionel Dricot

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:12:16 -0500, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:

 GNOME is not connected with the anti-hunting movement; there's no
 reason it should have any position on the question.  But GNOME is part

Is GNOME part of any anti-proprietary software movement?

I don't think so and I've never seen it like that. If it's the case, then
GNOME should reject contribution from any contributor that work with or for
proprietary software. We should also be sure that any GNOME technology is
definitely not possible to use within a proprietary software.

 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.

Supporting something was never meant as fighting something else. *Never*

That's maybe your may of supporting free software but it's not mine,
meaning neither yours or mine is the official vision of GNOME. And it's
definitely not *THE* way of supporting free software.


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

As I said earlier, I think that the less rules, the better. But it seems
that we have different goals. I don't believe that planet.gnome should be
planet.anti-proprietary-software. I think it should be the planet of the
people involved in the GNOME project, punt on de lijn.
___
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 Lefty (石鏡 )
On 12/11/09 7:12 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:

 Stormy, we seem to be miscommunicating.  I said that people should not
 promote non-free software on Planet GNOME.  You seem to be arguing
 against something different.

I believe Stormy was quite clear and on point: It sounded to me as though
she were arguing against the sort of prior restraint that you seem to be
attempting to impose here.

 GNOME is not connected with the anti-hunting movement; there's no
 reason it should have any position on the question.

GNOME is not connected with the anti-VMWare movement, nor (that I'm aware
of) any anti-proprietary software movement.

 But GNOME is part
 of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free software
 movement.

It does support free software, and does an effective job of it.

 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.

This is simple nonsense. Software is software, and people write about what
they do. 

I use free software, and I also use things like Final Cut Pro, for which
there's no equivalent. You seem to feel I should be barred from writing
anything about film-editing, since it involves proprietary software.

My use of Final Cut is completely legitimate. There's no equivalent piece of
free software, and even if there were, surely my tools are my choice, are
they not? Your attempts to control what gets posted are completely out of
line.

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

This suggestion, which verges on a demand for censorship in the name of
freedom, is completely appalling. I have no interest in seeing Planet GNOME
turned into a outpost of Bad Vista, thanks.

If muzzling people is a condition of being part of the GNU project, then
maybe we should rethink _that_ aspect of things. Maybe the FSF should start
its own planet and set its own rules there rather than attempting to impose
its various litmus tests on the contributors to Planet GNOME.

I haven't got even the slightest interest in seeing this job get done,
and I'd be opposed to anyone's trying it.


___
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 Dave Neary
Hi,

Lionel Dricot wrote:
 On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:12:16 -0500, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
 GNOME is not connected with the anti-hunting movement; there's no
 reason it should have any position on the question.  But GNOME is part
 
 Is GNOME part of any anti-proprietary software movement?

I don't think this discussion is particularly helpful.

It does not look likely that anyone's mind will be changed, or that
Planet GNOME's policy will evolve.


All that we can hope for and advocate is that people whose blogs are
aggregated to Planet GNOME are people who adhere to the principles of
the free software movement. And if that's the case, there is no reason
that they would use their (Planet GNOME aggregated) blog to promote
software which does not measure up against those principles.

If people feel that they cannot separate their professional lives from
their personal lives on their blog, then perhaps it is appropriate that
they tag posts to do with their professional work on non-free software
with a different tag to that which is aggregated on Planet GNOME.


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: 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 Lefty (石鏡 )
Philip van Hoof writes
 
 I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.

I'd second this.



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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-11 Thread Dave Neary
Hi,

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.

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

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.

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?

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: 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 Lefty (石鏡 )
On 12/11/09 8:40 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
 
 Don't we have more concrete issues to address?

We _were_ attempting to finalize a Code of Conduct which could be provided
to speakers, in the hope of avoiding future instances of the sort of
harmless fun we experienced during Mr. Stallman's keynote at the Gran
Canaria Desktop Summit, as I recall.

It seems that Mr. Stallman would prefer to discuss ways and means to
throttle contributors to Planet GNOME of whose postings he happens not to
approve, however.

I understand your interest in pouring oil on troubled waters here, Dave,
but neither Philip nor I are the ones who raised this issue.



___
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 Behdad Esfahbod

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.


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


behdad
___
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

2009-12-11 Thread Les Harris
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org wrote:
 On 12/11/09 9:32 AM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:

 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.

 Is there anything in the bylaws as to how this support might be collected
 and demonstrated? If not, I doubt _anything_ will ever get put to a vote...

Presumably it is assumed you use the resources provided by the gnome
project including but not limited to mailing lists and irc.  Also the
Foundation publishes a full membership list with contact information.
According to that list there are 357 members of the GNOME foundation.

If you can't get 17 or 18 people to agree that your idea is worthy
enough to put up to a vote given the community orientated nature of
the GNOME project, then maybe the idea isn't worth considering or at
least not a priority for the project.

 I don't think anyone--with the possible exception of Mr.
 Stallman--subscribes to the notion that the GNOME Foundation approves of,
 endorses, or supports every posting syndicated to Planet GNOME. Nor have I
 noticed conspicuous calls on Planet for this sort of rule to address a
 looming threat posed by the inappropriately unfree.

I do not believe RMS thinks this is so.  His position as I understand
it is that it is bad publicity for the FOSS movement if such a public
facing venue like Planet GNOME is used to promote proprietary
software.  Obviously we all have our own positions which is what this
discussion has been addressing.

Les
___
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 Stormy Peters
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:


 There is precedent for a membership petition for an election. I ran one
 to have the board size reduced some years ago:
 http://live.gnome.org/BoardSizePetition

 At the time I was told I needed 10% of the membership:


http://foundation.gnome.org/about/charter/ says 10%. I couldn't find a
reference to either number in the bylaws.

Stormy
___
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 Dave Neary
Hi,

Richard Stallman wrote:
 Stormy, we seem to be miscommunicating.  I said that people should not
 promote non-free software on Planet GNOME.
[snip]
 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 think Planet GNOME should have a rule to this effect.  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.

To put this discussion in perspective, the question does not come up
very often (if at all).

The last case I can think of where a proprietary piece of software got
substantial attention on pgo was the release of the free ($0) VMWare
client 3 years ago I think?

Aside from that, proprietary software is mentioned all the time, but I
would not consider mentioning (say) that Adobe Acrobat Reader is using
GTK+ on Linux is promoting Adobe - if anything, it's promoting GNOME.

The problem is restricted to sporadic mentions of new releases of
proprietary software using substantial components of the GNOME platform,
developed by people who are members of the GNOME community. As you say
in the last paragraph above, a mild case by case approach is more than
sufficient to handle the problem.

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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-11 Thread Andy Wingo
Hello Lefty,

On Fri 11 Dec 2009 16:37, Lefty (石鏡 ) le...@shugendo.org writes:

 On 12/11/09 7:12 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:
 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.

 This is simple nonsense. Software is software, and people write about what
 they do. 

 I use free software, and I also use things like Final Cut Pro, for which
 there's no equivalent. You seem to feel I should be barred from writing
 anything about film-editing, since it involves proprietary software.

 My use of Final Cut is completely legitimate. There's no equivalent piece of
 free software, and even if there were, surely my tools are my choice, are
 they not? Your attempts to control what gets posted are completely out of
 line.

The four points in the code of conduct are:

# Be respectful and considerate
# Be patient and generous
# Assume people mean well
# Try to be concise

Lefty I think you are doing well regarding the fourth :) I would submit
that Richard has behaved in accordance with these rules[*], but always
after I read your mails or blogs on the subject, it ends up sounding
very combative.

I know you probably don't mean it that way, and I don't want to put you
on edge. I'm just sayin'.

And in the interest of *topic*, well, I think we have strayed from the
initial proposal.

Best regards,

Andy

[*] I consider the GCDS incident as adequately atoned for by Richard's
apology. YMMV.
-- 
http://wingolog.org/
___
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 Behdad Esfahbod

On 12/11/2009 01:14 PM, Stormy Peters wrote:



On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org
mailto:dne...@gnome.org wrote:


There is precedent for a membership petition for an election. I ran one
to have the board size reduced some years ago:
http://live.gnome.org/BoardSizePetition

At the time I was told I needed 10% of the membership:

http://foundation.gnome.org/about/charter/ says 10%. I couldn't find a
reference to either number in the bylaws.


You're right.  My bad.  I was misremembering.  The bylaws say 5% is needed to 
call for a meeting, something like that.


behdad



Stormy

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-10 Thread Frederic Crozat

Le 09/12/2009 20:35, Brian Cameron a écrit :



I think we are mashing together a bunch of issues. So, in effect, are
we looking for:

[0] a way to measure what could be appropriate content for Planet GNOME
[1] a way to prevent non-free or equivalent software being marketed
via the Planet
[2] a way to handle the consequences if there is either inappropriate
content
[3] a way to handle the consequences if there is a pitch for software
that is orthogonal to GNOME values


Is it possible to provide filters so that people who are interested in
different types of blog entries can focus on what is interesting to
them? Some people may only be interested in seeing technical
information, and others may not want to see distro-specific things,
etc.


If it is done on the browser side (which cookies and some JS magic), it 
would exclude RSS readers. And to have it at the Atom/RSS level, it 
would mean having two different planets configuration.


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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-10 Thread Stormy Peters
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.

My post on hunting comes to mind. I self censor now because I didn't like
the negative comments directed at my kids. But would you block my whole blog
because a vocal portion of the community is anti-hunting and people in my
family hunt?

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

Stormy

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote:

The people who work at VmWare also very often posted (and still post)
about their work and appear on Planet GNOME.

 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.

 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.
 ___
 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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-10 Thread Julien Puydt

Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :

On 12/07/2009 01:32 PM, Frederic Crozat wrote:

Le 27/11/2009 10:53, Murray Cumming a écrit :

On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 16:50 -0200, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:

Alternative proposal: lets deal with the problem at hand and get our
story straight about what is planet.gnome.org, what can be posted
there (i.e. no porn and vulgar language etc.) and how we can help
to enforce a reasonably exact policy on an exact resource which
is planet.gnome.org.


planet.gnome.org is hard to moderate. Editors can only remove an entire
blog. It would be easier if the software allowed the existing editors to
remove a single blog post.


Let's be honest too : there are a bunch of people which used to be
active GNOME members, who changed their focus to other projects and are
still in Planet GNOME for no reason. Maybe PGO editors should start
cleaning the old cruft (no offense intended)..


But I find it interesting to know, say, what Miguel is up to these days.
I don't think it's just me...


What about a Planet Old Gnome Farts ? People would get there from PGO 
one year after their last active contribution.


JP

PS: this idea is a little rough and may need some patching... at least 
the name, please!


___
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 Richard Stallman
 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.
___
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 sankarshan
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org 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.

I think we are mashing together a bunch of issues. So, in effect, are
we looking for:

[0] a way to measure what could be appropriate content for Planet GNOME
[1] a way to prevent non-free or equivalent software being marketed
via the Planet
[2] a way to handle the consequences if there is either inappropriate content
[3] a way to handle the consequences if there is a pitch for software
that is orthogonal to GNOME values

I can certainly agree to the need to have a Code of Conduct,
communities have one, either implicit or, explicit. But, unless there
is a clearly delineated process to handle the exceptions, a Code of
Conduct is just a document.



-- 
sankarshan mukhopadhyay
http://sankarshan.randomink.org/blog
___
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 Frederic Crozat

Le 08/12/2009 16:08, sankarshan a écrit :

2009/12/8 Pierre-Luc Beaudoinpierre-...@pierlux.com:

On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 03:23 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:

But I find it interesting to know, say, what Miguel is up to these
days. I don't think it's just me...


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.


[0] Unless specific names are pointed out to the Board or, on this
list, the shadow boxing will be more harmful


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



[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.


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


--
Frederic Crozat
Mandriva
___
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 Lionel Dricot

I don't agree at all with the current direction of the discussion. For me,
pgo is about people.

Yes, I'm interested to learn that Nat will soon get married. Yes, I'm
interested to hear about Mandriva on Frédéric's posts because I don't use
it at all but at least I keep an eye on it thanks to his blog. Even the
mono-bashism of Miguel is sometimes interesting : it allows me to know what
is happening when I want to know. I like to practise my Dutch by reading
Reinout's post and to see if UTF-8 works correctly when seeing Indian's
poems.

I'm happy to meet a fellow GNOME developer at FOSDEM and saying : So, you
like Karaté/Running/Vegan Cooking ?.

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.


My solution is the following : 

- Each GNOME member should be able to add his feed to pgo. He might want
to change his feed whenever he wants to take a more specialized one or not.

- 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.

But don't clean whiter than white. There's always off-topic stuffs or
stuff you don't want to read. Just don't read them. Richard don't want to
read stuffs about Mono? I understand, it's his choice and I respect it.
He's not forced to read them. GNOME is about people. Sometimes, people are
doing other stuffs than free software coding (aren't you?). When I'm at
work, I often talk with co-worker about sports, about what I will eat
tonight. When I go to #gnome-hackers, often the discussion is completely
off-topic. Last night, on #gtg, I discussed about chocolates with someone
arguing that there's good chocolate in Italy (can you believe that?). It
was fun. I'm in GNOME because it's fun. GNOME is fun. PGO is fun.

Please, please, please, keep the fun. World is collapsing? It's doing that
for 2.000.000 years already! So, keep the fun…

Lionel


On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:27:43 +0100, Frederic Crozat fcro...@mandriva.com
wrote:
 Le 08/12/2009 16:08, sankarshan a écrit :
 2009/12/8 Pierre-Luc Beaudoinpierre-...@pierlux.com:
 On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 03:23 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
 But I find it interesting to know, say, what Miguel is up to these
 days. I don't think it's just me...

 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.

 [0] Unless specific names are pointed out to the Board or, on this
 list, the shadow boxing will be more harmful
 
 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
 
 
 [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.
 
 Regarding what bedhad said, nothing prevent people to read those people 
 blog outside Planet GNOME (like Planet Mono or anything else).
___
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 Behdad Esfahbod

On 12/09/2009 09:07 AM, 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).


But mono *is* Free Software according to the FSF definition!

behdad
___
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 Behdad Esfahbod

On 12/09/2009 08:48 AM, Lionel Dricot wrote:


I don't agree at all with the current direction of the discussion. For me,
pgo is about people.

Yes, I'm interested to learn that Nat will soon get married. Yes, I'm
interested to hear about Mandriva on Frédéric's posts because I don't use
it at all but at least I keep an eye on it thanks to his blog. Even the
mono-bashism of Miguel is sometimes interesting : it allows me to know what
is happening when I want to know. I like to practise my Dutch by reading
Reinout's post and to see if UTF-8 works correctly when seeing Indian's
poems.

I'm happy to meet a fellow GNOME developer at FOSDEM and saying : So, you
like Karaté/Running/Vegan Cooking ?.

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.



My solution is the following :

- Each GNOME member should be able to add his feed to pgo. He might want
to change his feed whenever he wants to take a more specialized one or not.

- 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.


behdad


But don't clean whiter than white. There's always off-topic stuffs or
stuff you don't want to read. Just don't read them. Richard don't want to
read stuffs about Mono? I understand, it's his choice and I respect it.
He's not forced to read them. GNOME is about people. Sometimes, people are
doing other stuffs than free software coding (aren't you?). When I'm at
work, I often talk with co-worker about sports, about what I will eat
tonight. When I go to #gnome-hackers, often the discussion is completely
off-topic. Last night, on #gtg, I discussed about chocolates with someone
arguing that there's good chocolate in Italy (can you believe that?). It
was fun. I'm in GNOME because it's fun. GNOME is fun. PGO is fun.

Please, please, please, keep the fun. World is collapsing? It's doing that
for 2.000.000 years already! So, keep the fun…

Lionel


On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:27:43 +0100, Frederic Crozatfcro...@mandriva.com
wrote:

Le 08/12/2009 16:08, sankarshan a écrit :

2009/12/8 Pierre-Luc Beaudoinpierre-...@pierlux.com:

On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 03:23 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:

But I find it interesting to know, say, what Miguel is up to these
days. I don't think it's just me...


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.


[0] Unless specific names are pointed out to the Board or, on this
list, the shadow boxing will be more harmful


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



[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.

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

___
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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-09 Thread Dodji Seketeli
Le mer. 09 déc. 2009 à 14:45:55 (+0100), Philip Van Hoof a écrit:
 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 ^).

The way I understand what Frédéric said is, there is an (yet another
one?) interesting question not answered by the p.g.o slogan. What does the
planet maintainers do with people who stop being involved in the project.

Sometimes people who are not anymore active in a project declare
clearly that they are no longer willing to be involved because of x,y,z
reason. That's the easy situation. But what happens when nothing is said?
Maybe this question is worth examining. I think it's a tough question
because it hard to not make it become an emotionnal topic.
In any case, if the answer is People who were once involved keep their
related attributes ad vitam eternam, we must say it clearly to avoid this
confusion.

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

To me, saying this is just like saying go die elsewhere, I don't want to
listen to you. I don't think trying to fix what mostly works already is
necessarily fundamentally a bad thing. Nobody is asking you to agree, but
it can be interesting nonetheless to let people expose their opinion
without asking them to shut up, basically.

Dodji
___
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 Dan Winship
On 12/09/2009 01:47 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
 The way I understand what Frédéric said is, there is an (yet another
 one?) interesting question not answered by the p.g.o slogan. What does the
 planet maintainers do with people who stop being involved in the project.
 
 Sometimes people who are not anymore active in a project declare
 clearly that they are no longer willing to be involved because of x,y,z
 reason. That's the easy situation. But what happens when nothing is said?

So, I'm still syndicated on Monologue even though I haven't blogged
anything about Mono since July 2006. I wouldn't care if they kicked me
off, but I've never felt compelled to actually figure out how to make
that happen on my own.

Assuming there are other people who behave like that, it's entirely
possible that if we just sent mail to everyone on PGO once a year saying
Hi, you're on PGO, we just want to make sure you still want to be. If
you don't want to be there any more, just let us know that this would
get rid of some of the extra-crufty people.

-- Dan
___
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

2009-12-09 Thread Richard Stallman
Is it possible to provide filters so that people who are interested in
different types of blog entries can focus on what is interesting to
them?

This could be a useful feature for many reasons, but it doesn't
address the issue of articles that grant legitimacy to non-free
software.  The presence of articles discussing vmware, for instance,
conveys the message that GNOME sees nothing wrong with it.
Unless we can count on all readers to filter those articles out,
the filters don't deal with the issue.

___
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 Richard Stallman
The people who work at VmWare also very often posted (and still post)
about their work and appear on Planet GNOME.

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.

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.
___
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 Richard Stallman
 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).

But mono *is* Free Software according to the FSF definition!

Yes, it is.  There's nothing wrong with Mono itself.
What we need to be careful of is depending on C#.
(See http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono.)
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-08 Thread Behdad Esfahbod

On 12/07/2009 01:32 PM, Frederic Crozat wrote:

Le 27/11/2009 10:53, Murray Cumming a écrit :

On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 16:50 -0200, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:

Alternative proposal: lets deal with the problem at hand and get our
story straight about what is planet.gnome.org, what can be posted
there (i.e. no porn and vulgar language etc.) and how we can help
to enforce a reasonably exact policy on an exact resource which
is planet.gnome.org.


planet.gnome.org is hard to moderate. Editors can only remove an entire
blog. It would be easier if the software allowed the existing editors to
remove a single blog post.


Let's be honest too : there are a bunch of people which used to be
active GNOME members, who changed their focus to other projects and are
still in Planet GNOME for no reason. Maybe PGO editors should start
cleaning the old cruft (no offense intended)..


But I find it interesting to know, say, what Miguel is up to these days.
I don't think it's just me...

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-08 Thread Pierre-Luc Beaudoin
On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 03:23 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
 But I find it interesting to know, say, what Miguel is up to these
 days. I don't think it's just me... 

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.

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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-08 Thread sankarshan
2009/12/8 Pierre-Luc Beaudoin pierre-...@pierlux.com:
 On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 03:23 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
 But I find it interesting to know, say, what Miguel is up to these
 days. I don't think it's just me...

 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.

[0] Unless specific names are pointed out to the Board or, on this
list, the shadow boxing will be more harmful

[1] How does one define that they have left the GNOME community ?

-- 
sankarshan mukhopadhyay
http://sankarshan.randomink.org/blog
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-08 Thread Stormy Peters
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:08 AM, sankarshan foss.mailingli...@gmail.comwrote:



 [1] How does one define that they have left the GNOME community ?

 If this is a concern that many have, maybe it would be simple enough to
send an annual reminder to people that are aggregated on Planet GNOME to let
them know that they are on Planet GNOME, why they are there (they are part
of the GNOME community), what the code of conduct is and let them know how
they can remove their blog.

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-08 Thread Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak

Behdad Esfahbod wrote:

Say, any viewer of p.g.o can vote a post +1 or -1.  Then we can gather 
two metrics per poster: 1) how impactful his/her posts are (avg / median 
/ max number of votes).  2) how interested are readers in his/her posts 
(avg / median / min/max score.


We can then have threshold to hide / collapse unpopular posts.


Yes, please! Let the system fix itself through trendy crowd-sourcing, 
rather than having a board spank people who speak foolishly!


- Mike

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-08 Thread Sankar P
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:
 On 12/08/2009 10:08 AM, sankarshan wrote:

 2009/12/8 Pierre-Luc Beaudoinpierre-...@pierlux.com:

 On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 03:23 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:

 But I find it interesting to know, say, what Miguel is up to these
 days. I don't think it's just me...

 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.

 [0] Unless specific names are pointed out to the Board or, on this
 list, the shadow boxing will be more harmful

 [1] How does one define that they have left the GNOME community ?

 Exactly.  The more I think about the issues raised in this thread, the more
 I believe a voting system (similar to what maemo is doing perhaps) may be
 all we need.

 Say, any viewer of p.g.o can vote a post +1 or -1.  Then we can gather two
 metrics per poster: 1) how impactful his/her posts are (avg / median / max
 number of votes).  2) how interested are readers in his/her posts (avg /
 median / min/max score.

 We can then have threshold to hide / collapse unpopular posts.  That part
 can even be done using JavaScript and you can the threshold on the page and
 more posts will collapse/uncollapse...


Really ? Most people read posts in Google reader (offline) and may not
even be interested to vote for every author.

-- 
Sankar P
http://psankar.blogspot.com
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-08 Thread Behdad Esfahbod

On 12/09/2009 01:37 AM, Sankar P wrote:


Say, any viewer of p.g.o can vote a post +1 or -1.  Then we can gather two
metrics per poster: 1) how impactful his/her posts are (avg / median / max
number of votes).  2) how interested are readers in his/her posts (avg /
median / min/max score.

We can then have threshold to hide / collapse unpopular posts.  That part
can even be done using JavaScript and you can the threshold on the page and
more posts will collapse/uncollapse...



Really ? Most people read posts in Google reader (offline) and may not
even be interested to vote for every author.


No one *has* to vote.  And we can have different feeds for different thresholds.

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-08 Thread sankarshan
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:
 On 12/09/2009 01:37 AM, Sankar P wrote:

 Say, any viewer of p.g.o can vote a post +1 or -1.  Then we can gather
 two
 metrics per poster: 1) how impactful his/her posts are (avg / median /
 max
 number of votes).  2) how interested are readers in his/her posts (avg /
 median / min/max score.

 We can then have threshold to hide / collapse unpopular posts.  That part
 can even be done using JavaScript and you can the threshold on the page
 and
 more posts will collapse/uncollapse...


 Really ? Most people read posts in Google reader (offline) and may not
 even be interested to vote for every author.

 No one *has* to vote.  And we can have different feeds for different
 thresholds.

Coming back to the starting point - what is the problem to which the
solution is being discussed ?


-- 
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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-08 Thread Behdad Esfahbod

On 12/09/2009 01:56 AM, sankarshan wrote:

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Behdad Esfahbodbeh...@behdad.org  wrote:

On 12/09/2009 01:37 AM, Sankar P wrote:


Say, any viewer of p.g.o can vote a post +1 or -1.  Then we can gather
two
metrics per poster: 1) how impactful his/her posts are (avg / median /
max
number of votes).  2) how interested are readers in his/her posts (avg /
median / min/max score.

We can then have threshold to hide / collapse unpopular posts.  That part
can even be done using JavaScript and you can the threshold on the page
and
more posts will collapse/uncollapse...



Really ? Most people read posts in Google reader (offline) and may not
even be interested to vote for every author.


No one *has* to vote.  And we can have different feeds for different
thresholds.


Coming back to the starting point - what is the problem to which the
solution is being discussed ?


Read the thread?

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-08 Thread sankarshan
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:

 Coming back to the starting point - what is the problem to which the
 solution is being discussed ?

 Read the thread?

I have been following the thread since the inception. The intent of
the (rhetorical ?) question was to bring forth the fact that we are
discussing solutions of myriad variety without looking at whether it
can be solved non-programmatically. Hence, the question.


-- 
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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-08 Thread Behdad Esfahbod

On 12/09/2009 02:25 AM, sankarshan wrote:

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Behdad Esfahbodbeh...@behdad.org  wrote:


Coming back to the starting point - what is the problem to which the
solution is being discussed ?


Read the thread?


I have been following the thread since the inception. The intent of
the (rhetorical ?) question was to bring forth the fact that we are
discussing solutions of myriad variety without looking at whether it
can be solved non-programmatically. Hence, the question.


The immediate question I was responding to was whethere/how blog posts of 
people not involved with GNOME anymore / not part of the GNOME community 
should be removed from PGO.  I think what I proposed is an adequate solution 
to that.


Sure it doesn't fix many other problems raised in the thread.

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-12-07 Thread Frederic Crozat

Le 27/11/2009 10:53, Murray Cumming a écrit :

On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 16:50 -0200, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:

Alternative proposal: lets deal with the problem at hand and get our
story straight about what is planet.gnome.org, what can be posted
there (i.e. no porn and vulgar language etc.) and how we can help
to enforce a reasonably exact policy on an exact resource which
is planet.gnome.org.


planet.gnome.org is hard to moderate. Editors can only remove an entire
blog. It would be easier if the software allowed the existing editors to
remove a single blog post.


Let's be honest too : there are a bunch of people which used to be 
active GNOME members, who changed their focus to other projects and are 
still in Planet GNOME for no reason. Maybe PGO editors should start 
cleaning the old cruft (no offense intended)..


--
Frederic Crozat
Mandriva
___
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 Dave Neary
Hi,

Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
 Other than Telsa and partially Ross, have any other ones expressed to
 you or publicly that they left GNOME at least partly because of the
 tone of discourse?

Yes. Or rather, because of the culture which has become GNOME's over the
past 5 years or so.

 And when did Jorge drifted away from GNOME?  Last I
 checked he was around just fine.  And Google blackhole had no part?

Jorge left, disgusted, around 2005, and came back via Ubuntu in 2007.
Jorge, is that a fair summary?

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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-26 Thread Dave Neary
Hi,

Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
 Dave, you left the GIMP project because of issues with a contributor. 
 Do you really think that person would have been deterred from behaving
 so, if he/she had signed such a document?

He would not have signed any such document - he would have found the
idea ridiculous (and said so) that having access to gimp.org resources
meant having any responsibility at all to the good name  culture of the
GIMP development community.


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: 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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Dave Neary
Hi,

Lucas Rocha wrote:
 The GNOME Code of Conduct[1] has been serving
 very well as an informal guideline for the community but we'd like to
 make it an official document that new Foundation members are expected
 to explicitly agree[2] with before being accepted. This way we'll have a
 common ground for dealing with certain conflict situations and avoid
 trying to base our discussions on guidelines that certain members
 haven't explicitly agreed on.

My views on this are already well known:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-May/msg00066.html

It seems like the issue isn't making people promise to be nice, it's
what happens when they aren't. And once again the board has taken the
easy way out, by not being judgemental about reported behaviour.

In this case, I'd like to see the board clearly come out  say we don't
have a problem with this, or we have a problem with this (while
saying what this is), instead of having a wishy-washy solution. Mostly
I agree with Emmanuele  Jason on this.

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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Lucas Rocha luc...@gnome.org wrote:
 it's really hard to argue about how we expect our
 members to behave if there is no official guidelines that members are
 supposed to comply with.

That seems like a cop-out to me, at least as phrased. Does this mean
if there's a codified set of guidelines in the future but it doesn't
address something explicitly, then your hands are tied in addressing
it? Inappropriate is inappropriate, whether it's pointed out ahead of
time or not.

Yes, a set of guidelines is a good idea, but this shouldn't hold up
the board addressing behaviors that are clearly inappropriate,
guidelines or no.

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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Mukund Sivaraman
Hi Lucas

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:48:45PM +, Lucas Rocha wrote:
 The GNOME Code of Conduct[1] has been serving very well as an
 informal guideline for the community but we'd like to make it an
 official document that new Foundation members are expected to
 explicitly agree[2] with before being accepted.

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.

The current code of document[1] has some incredible guidelines such as
the advice against using RTFM, which arguably has nothing to do with
bad behavior.  Also, instructions such as Be patient and generous are
vague by themselves. Your measure of patience may be quite different
from mine. These are OK as guidelines, but not as policy.

1. http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct

Mukund
___
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 Stormy Peters
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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Lionel Dricot

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


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Jason D. Clinton
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:

 It seems like the issue isn't making people promise to be nice, it's
 what happens when they aren't. And once again the board has taken the
 easy way out, by not being judgemental about reported behaviour.

 In this case, I'd like to see the board clearly come out  say we don't
 have a problem with this, or we have a problem with this (while
 saying what this is), instead of having a wishy-washy solution. Mostly
 I agree with Emmanuele  Jason on this.


Well let's put a proposal on the table and get this behind us, finally. I
propose this amendment to the GNOME Code of Conduct:

Enforcement

Violations of the Code of Conduct on or in GNOME Foundation sites, mailing
lists or other forums of official GNOME business (such as conferences) are
referred to the GNOME Foundation Membership Committee which is empowered by
The Foundation to act quickly and judiciously. The Membership Committee,
upon review of a complaint, is empowered to ask that action be taken by the
maintainer of the forum(s) in which the violation occurred in the following
order, escalating only upon repeated violations within a short period of
time:

1. A warning from the Membership Committee or its representative
2. 1-day suspension of communication privileges in that forum of GNOME
communication
3. 1-week suspension of all communication privileges in all GNOME
communication forums
4. Permanent suspension of all communication privileges in all GNOME
communication forums.

The maintainers of any GNOME forum are strongly encouraged to adhere to the
Membership Committee's recommendations but not required to do so. It is
ultimately up to the forum maintainer to implement the suspensions; this
process is intended to bring a objectivity and transparency to any GCoC
punitive recommendation.
___
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 Stormy Peters
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Lionel Dricot pl...@ploum.net wrote:


 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.


I think the problem isn't the offending material but rather that people
expect the board to take action when there is offending material.

The board wants to represent the community and so would like to make sure
there are clear guidelines on the behaviour the community expects and what
we'd like to have happen when people don't follow those guidelines.

Hopefully the guidelines will also make sure there is less offending
material.

Stormy
___
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 Dave Neary
Hi,

Lionel Dricot wrote:
 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.

You forget how much energy is lost forever to the community because
good people walk away after an unpleasant experience?

It is telling that the main reason departing editors give when signing
off Wikipedia is: Wikipedia is becoming a more hostile environment,
contends Mr. Ortega, a project manager at Libresoft, a research group at
the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Madrid. Many people are getting
burnt out when they have to debate about the contents of certain
articles again and again.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html

They have concrete measurements of participation, we don't. So we don't
know how many developers are inactive now, and were formerly active, or
why they left. But we certainly have anecdotal evidence of people who
have publicly left because they could no longer work in the GNOME
environment. I can give you 10 names off the top of my head.

You don't think that's a problem?

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: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread john palmieri
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.

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


  1   2   >