[CREATE] LGM 2010 travel reimbursements

[Femke Snelting]

We have hopefully gathered enough sponsoring and funding to reimburse 
travel costs for LGM 2010 participants that were not sponsored through 
other means. We do appreciate if you want to sponsor LGM through paying 
 your own flight :-)


You qualify for reimbursement if:

* You delivered a talk, organised a workshop or BoF that was part of the 
public LGM program

* You are are commited to one of the Libre Graphics teams
* You are an active contributor to Libre Graphics

Deadline: *25 June 2010*

Submission form: http://libregraphicsmeeting.org/2010/reimbursement.php
More info:
http://create.freedesktop.org/wiki/Conference_travelfund

After gathering all submissions, we will distribute the available funds 
proportionally in relation to the money we have. If there is any money
left after reimbursing 100%, the remainder will be transferred to the 
travelfund for next year.


Please use the form before the deadline; we can only process the payment 
once everyone has entered their data. We are aiming to process payments 
 before the end of July 2010



Femke






___
CREATE mailing list
CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create

Re: [CREATE] [LGF] Get a status : association, foundation ...

[a.l.e]

hi

> On 2 June 2010 20:43, Camille Bissuel  wrote:
> > we now have to discuss a status : is the "LGF" project should be an
> > association, a foundation, a network, an informal group ?
> 
> IMHO the Libre Graphics Association should have the legal status of a
> "member project" of SPI or SFC.
> 
> LGA should delay registering its own legal entity until that is
> useful, since it involves some work and the major wins can be had via
> SPI/SFC.

in countries like germany, france and switzerland it is very easy to set up an 
association.

probably easier than becoming a member project of SPI or SFC.


however. as i wrote in my previous mail, i think we should first get straight 
what the goals of our association are.


depending on the goals of LGF, becoming a member of SPI or SFC may give us some 
advantages over a simple association (using an external organization for 
finance matters) or will just be a useless affiliation.



ciao
a.l.e
___
CREATE mailing list
CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create

Re: [CREATE] [LGF] Get a status : association, foundation ...

[Dave Crossland]

On 2 June 2010 20:43, Camille Bissuel  wrote:
> we now have to discuss a status : is the "LGF" project should be an
> association, a foundation, a network, an informal group ?

IMHO the Libre Graphics Association should have the legal status of a
"member project" of SPI or SFC.

LGA should delay registering its own legal entity until that is
useful, since it involves some work and the major wins can be had via
SPI/SFC.

GNOME Foundation started as a SPI member project, and as it grew it
became independent. If that time comes around for us,
http://www.oneclickor.gs may be a good way to go.
___
CREATE mailing list
CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create

Re: [CREATE] [LGF] Get a status : association, foundation ...

[Camille Bissuel]

Thanks a lot, that's quite more explicit !

--yagraph

2010/6/3 Dave Crossland 

> On 3 June 2010 19:12, Camille Bissuel  wrote:
> >
> > You seem to know the subject... Can you be a little more explicit, in
> which
> > organization is doing what ?
> > I don't really get the difference between SFLC, SFI, SFC... it's seems
> all
> > the same... Can you say us which one can we use for what ?
>
> www.softwarefreedom.org
>
> The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) is a non-profit lawyer shop in
> New York City. It was started 5 years ago by Eben Moglen, the FSF's
> longtime lawyer. They represent _big_ free software projects directly,
> like BusyBox and the GNU project, which have their own legal entities.
> This gives independence but costs time and money.
>
> SFLC isn't relevant to the LGA because LGA is too small.
>
> conservancy.softwarefreedom.org
>
> SFLC set up another organisation, The Software Freedom Conservancy
> (SFC) in 2006. The SFLC and SFC are legally separate organisations,
> but the same people run them both.
>
> SFC is a non-profit "holdings group" for _small_ free software
> projects that are too small for setting up their own legal entities.
> Inkscape, for example. It means a group can take donations and spend
> them with no administrative overhead costs, and small projects don't
> need the independence possible with their own legal entity. Its based
> in the USA.
>
> www.spi-inc.org
>
> Software in the Public Interest (SPI) was set up in 1997 to fund
> Debian and other free software projects. It works very similarly to
> the SFC. Its based in the USA but has partner organisations across the
> world, making donations from outside the USA possible without PayPal
> or Google CheckOut - www.spi-inc.org/donations#money
>
> HTH
>
___
CREATE mailing list
CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create

Re: [CREATE] [LGF] Get a status : association, foundation ...

[Dave Crossland]

On 3 June 2010 19:12, Camille Bissuel  wrote:
>
> You seem to know the subject... Can you be a little more explicit, in which
> organization is doing what ?
> I don't really get the difference between SFLC, SFI, SFC... it's seems all
> the same... Can you say us which one can we use for what ?

www.softwarefreedom.org

The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) is a non-profit lawyer shop in
New York City. It was started 5 years ago by Eben Moglen, the FSF's
longtime lawyer. They represent _big_ free software projects directly,
like BusyBox and the GNU project, which have their own legal entities.
This gives independence but costs time and money.

SFLC isn't relevant to the LGA because LGA is too small.

conservancy.softwarefreedom.org

SFLC set up another organisation, The Software Freedom Conservancy
(SFC) in 2006. The SFLC and SFC are legally separate organisations,
but the same people run them both.

SFC is a non-profit "holdings group" for _small_ free software
projects that are too small for setting up their own legal entities.
Inkscape, for example. It means a group can take donations and spend
them with no administrative overhead costs, and small projects don't
need the independence possible with their own legal entity. Its based
in the USA.

www.spi-inc.org

Software in the Public Interest (SPI) was set up in 1997 to fund
Debian and other free software projects. It works very similarly to
the SFC. Its based in the USA but has partner organisations across the
world, making donations from outside the USA possible without PayPal
or Google CheckOut - www.spi-inc.org/donations#money

HTH
___
CREATE mailing list
CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create

Re: [CREATE] [LGF] Get a status : association, foundation ...

[Camille Bissuel]

Sorry Dave, I missed some important details ;)

You seem to know the subject... Can you be a little more explicit, in which
organization is doing what ?
I don't really get the difference between SFLC, SFI, SFC... it's seems all
the same... Can you say us which one can we use for what ?

Thanks a lot !
-- yagraph


2010/6/3 Dave Neary 

> Hi,
>
> Camille Bissuel wrote:
> > On another hand, hera are already existing organizations witch from we
> > may ask help (advices, founding management, paper work help...) :
> >
> > - Gnome foundation (already hosting LGM plegdie and accounting)
> > - KDE foundation (had helped Krita project for example)
> > - http://www.oneclickor.gs  (suggestion from
> > Dave Crossland, they help him for the Open Font Library)
> > - Software Freedom Law Center (suggestion from Dave Neary)
> > - we can inspire in some way from the Mozilla organization (see
> > http://www.mozilla.org/about/organizations.html)
> > - we can surely expect some help from FSF or Blender Foundation.
> >
> > Sorry if I missed something or someone, please correct any mistake.
> >
> > Please submit your suggestions, feelings, ideas, and so on !
>
> Thanks Camille! Great email.
>
> I also suggested (although rather obtusely) Software in the Public
> Interest (SPI), the guys behind Debian donations & cash management.
>
> And it is the Software Freedome Conservancy, which is not the same thing
> as the SFLC, who I think is an appropriate umbrella organisation.
>
> Thanks!
> Dave.
>
> --
> maemo.org docsmaster
> Email: dne...@maemo.org
> Jabber: bo...@jabber.org
>
>
___
CREATE mailing list
CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create

Re: [CREATE] pictures of the lgm

[Stani]

https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/390572/8e232774d2ee4c9e/
___
CREATE mailing list
CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create

Re: [CREATE] spy report

[Gregory Pittman]

On 06/03/2010 03:16 AM, Jan Claeys wrote:

Op woensdag 02-06-2010 om 17:03 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Aileen
Derieg:

Although I have no wish to interrupt current discussions, I just
wanted to let you all know that I have now posted my "spy report":
http://blog.furtherfield.org/?q=node/334


First of all: I'm male and I still feel young at 36, but:

 With a more mixed audience, would it have felt slightly less
 jarring, for example, to hear a young man talking about "old
 women", as though "old women" were an alien, barely intelligible
 species? He meant well, of course, his talk was delightfully
 enthusiastic, and I imagine he didn't mean me (I don't know
 anything about knitting or quilting, after all), but I know from
 experience what it feels like to be identified and treated as a
 member of this alien species in other contexts, and I wonder how
 it might feel if there were more of us, a visible, palpable
 presence, listening to a talk like this.



My take on this is that it's an example of being jarred to the point of 
not paying such close attention from the point of being jarred, since as 
one followed the track of the talk, it ended with what we might call a 
denouement of admitting that he has himself become a quilter along with 
these women.


I think there is also a misperception that the speakers, the content, 
the entire attitude of LGM is somehow engineered by the organizers. My 
experience since my first LGM in 2007 is that there is more to Libre 
than graphics, and there has been an effort, quite successful really, to 
be more inclusive, encouraging of various points of view, making 
non-developers welcome, and as Femke said, no proposed talks were refused.


But this is a permission, not a pulling in of viewpoints to create some 
kind of "balance". In addition, there has always been by most I think an 
appreciation that we have mostly non-native English speakers trying 
their best to splice words and ideas together, with varying discomfort, 
accuracy, and success at being clear, not only trying to translate words 
but also cultural points of view.


In the end, I don't think it's so far off the beam to suggest that Libre 
Graphics Meetings have the subtext of Libre Minds, both applying to the 
organizers, but also speakers, and hopefully the audience.


Greg
___
CREATE mailing list
CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create

Re: [CREATE] Libre Graphics Whatever - charter prototype

[Andreas Vox]

> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:14:38 +0200
> From: Gregory Pittman 
> Subject: Re: [CREATE] Libre Graphics Whatever - charter prototype
> To: create@lists.freedesktop.org
> Message-ID: <4c06593e.4030...@iglou.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> On 06/01/2010 12:36 PM, Jos? Cruz wrote:
> > Hi! I'm agree with Jon about the differents classes of membership. We
> are a
> > small company (just two persons) in the graphic design world, using
> only libre
> > software, and I think it is interesting to bring more professionals
> (wich are
> > intensive users) to FLOSS.
> 
> In the vein of discussions about either insufficient or excessive
> "power" that might come about from various schemes of membership, we
> can
> consider that there can be some kind of whole-cloth membership for all
> those interested as individuals, then we can have the association also
> consist inside as a number of Sections, each of which could pertain to
> a
> subgroup, eg, artists/designers, as opposed to another section of
> developers, and others.
> 
> The reason for suggesting this is to find a way around simply
> recreating
> within the organization the same thing we have in the outside world,
> where non-programmer users complain that the developers won't listen to
> their needs/requests, and developers complain that users don't
> understand the constraints of the development process.
> 
> This isn't to suggest that a User Section could not have within it some
> developers or that a Developer Section could not have users -- if
> nothing else, there are those who could legitimately claim both kinds
> of
> activities, as we saw at this year's LGM. Furthermore, one might be a
> member of more than one section.
> 
> A section of users might discuss among themselves various feature
> requests or user operability issues so that the best, most coherent
> final requests might be presented to the Developer Section and
> projects.
> Developers might discuss the feedback from users and the direction
> individual projects are taking to propose improved interoperability,
> then solicit feedback from the User Section to see if these seem worth
> pursuing.
> 

So you propose, in order to avoid misunderstandings between users and 
developers, to keep them in their separate subgroups / sections? I think that 
goes against the purpose of what we want to achieve with LGM.

As a developer I enjoy direct contact with users when they have feature 
requests. It's also good to have a developer on board when discussing new 
features: non-programmers might ask for things which just aren't possible or - 
more often - ask for things that could be much simpler done if they dared to 
ask for it (eg. ask for a better hyphenation dialog when a direct canvas-based 
hyphenation tool might work even better).

> This might also enhance future LGMs by naturally leading to some
> planned
> BOF-like meetings for individual sections, so that fewer things take
> place in such an ad hoc way.

Don't over-organize BoF's; they have to fall the way the wind blows them.

Just my €.02

/Andreas

___
CREATE mailing list
CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create