Voting reccommendations
Hi, Following on from Reinout's example, I'd like to reccommend votes for the following candidates, some of whom are perhaps not as well known as others: * Vincent Untz - he's great. A nice guy, a great worker, and a born leader. The kind of person you'd like to have on the board. * Quim Gil - a new member of the GNOME community, through the Barcelona GUADEC proposal (of which he was the architect, along with Jordi). Everything I've seen of Quim so far is great - he understands our community, and is a creative problem solver. * Germàn Poo Caamano - I don't know Germàn very well, except by reputation. He is one of the main organisers of GNOME in South America, including the GNOME developer meetings, and that kind of drive and diversity will be good for the board. I hope you'll consider giving them a vote, the board will be less well off without these 3 next year. Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: 2005 Fall Board of Directors Election Voting Started
On Mon, 2005-28-11 at 10:32 +0200, Baris Cicek wrote: 2005 Fall Board of Directors Election voting period is started on November 27th. Ballots have been sent to foundation members. Voting instructions are written in the mails you will be get. For this elections you will have 13 candidates[1] and you should vote 7 of them which more than two of them could not have same affiliation. Why? I cannot find any rule against _voting_ for more than two candidates with the same affiliation. THis is independent fromt he fact that nor more than two candidates with the same affiliation may be _elected_. Moreover, shouldn't the above sentence say You should vote for up to 7 candidates? Andreas -- Prof. Dr. Andreas J. Guelzow Dept. of Mathematical Computing Sciences Concordia University College of Alberta 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: 2005 Fall Board of Directors Election Voting Started
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 06:49 -0700, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote: On Mon, 2005-28-11 at 10:32 +0200, Baris Cicek wrote: 2005 Fall Board of Directors Election voting period is started on November 27th. Ballots have been sent to foundation members. Voting instructions are written in the mails you will be get. For this elections you will have 13 candidates[1] and you should vote 7 of them which more than two of them could not have same affiliation. Why? I cannot find any rule against _voting_ for more than two candidates with the same affiliation. THis is independent fromt he fact that nor more than two candidates with the same affiliation may be _elected_. You're correct. Even though you have no chance to vote for two or more candidates that has same affiliation (because we don't have such a case for 2005 elections), it's not same. Affiliation rule is exactly told as in election rules. That is, if more than than two persons from one company get elected, only the top two vote getters will get on the board. Moreover, shouldn't the above sentence say You should vote for up to 7 candidates? Yes, you don't need to vote for 7 different people. Thanks for correcting my mail. It's hard to say anyone would get hurt because voting script is working as you said. For full list of rules and updated timeline anyone can check foundation web page about rules[1]. [1] http://foundation.gnome.org/elections/2005/rules.html Andreas ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list 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: The changing of the board
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 09:19 +0100, Dave Neary wrote: Hi, Anne Østergaard wrote: The changing of the board: I have been thinking that it might be an advantage to the Foundation if the next board in fact took their seats immediately after the final announcement of the list of candidates elected this year. An overlapping period I think is not really necessary as I have a feeling that there will be sufficient continuation/ ways to ask concrete advice if needed. While I agree with the idea of board members elect getting on the various lists, and getting up to speed with the state of things, as soon as possible, I disagree that no transition period is needed. The old board has a couple of big things to do over the next few weeks - hiring an administrator part time is one such thing. It would be irresponsible of us to hand the baby to the new board. The current board was elected for a term of a year, which runs until the end of December. I think it's reasonable to allow the old board to avail of that time to bring things either to completion, or to a state where we can transition more easily to a new board. Normally the old board can only do day to day business if needed. Once a new board has been elected I think that it is the new board that should rightly take all major decisions such as hiring new staff. At least this is customary in all the boards that I have served on. Governments also follow this rule. I have not been on the GNOME Board and do only know what has been in the minutes from all board meetings so far (warm thanks to the secretary) but I think that we should have been discussing the role and job description of the new hired staff on the mailing list. It will be public any how. So far I have only read that some one said it should be an American or at least a person working from the States. Boston? It has also been mentioned that it might be a good idea if the new elected board constituted itself directly after the election and pointed out it's chairman, vice chairman, secretary and treasurer and may be press spokesperson etc. The suggestion was actually to have those positions be elected. But having named positions nominated by the board is the next best thing, and that seems reasonable. I am glad you agree on this. Anne -- Anne Østergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: The changing of the board
On 11/28/05, Anne Østergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Normally the old board can only do day to day business if needed. Once a new board has been elected I think that it is the new board that should rightly take all major decisions such as hiring new staff. At least this is customary in all the boards that I have served on. Governments also follow this rule. Certain legislators will refuse to vote in lame duck sessions, but it is by no means customary, let alone a rule. You're elected for your term, you serve out your term. Please don't jump the gun and start governing before you're a board member-elect, much less a board member. Best, Dom ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Endorsing Anne Østergaard
I will be voting for Anne Østergaard also, because she too is a supporter of the ethical ideals of free software. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
[Off Topic] We need Vendors? [was Words to Avoid Vendor]
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 09:42 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote: In all of this discussion about whether they are third-party developers or independant software developers, I think people have missed the important point. That point is that we need to encourage traditional independant software VENDORS to our platform. Our platform is placed in such a way that vendors writing closed-source applications can use our platform without licensing costs (unlike QT). I think _you_ missed the important point: It's the other way around. They _need_ a decent platform. We don't need them. We don't need Adobe Acrobat. We don't need Adobe Photoshop. We don't need Microsoft Office and other parafernalia. We don't need DB2, Informix, etc... Rather it's the other way around... But that's a discussion for another day. Rui 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: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid Vendor [was Re: Questions to answer]
[I removed all the cc] On dim, 2005-11-27 at 13:48 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 10:48 +, Bill Haneman wrote: Nearly - though any new acronym can obfuscate. For that reason, I'd suggest going with ISD, because of its similarity to the familiar ISV, at least the reader may clue in by association and context. [Sort of like URL vs URI...] Erm, what's wrong with developer or software developer? If I wanted your attention I wouldn't start addressing you by some new unrecognizable name. I think Murray is right. Do we really need a new abbreviation? If we don't want to use ISV anymore, why not use developer or a similar expression? 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: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid Vendor [was Re: Questions to answer]
Vincent Untz wrote: [I removed all the cc] On dim, 2005-11-27 at 13:48 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 10:48 +, Bill Haneman wrote: Nearly - though any new acronym can obfuscate. For that reason, I'd suggest going with ISD, because of its similarity to the familiar ISV, at least the reader may clue in by association and context. [Sort of like URL vs URI...] Erm, what's wrong with developer or software developer? If I wanted your attention I wouldn't start addressing you by some new unrecognizable name. I think Murray is right. Do we really need a new abbreviation? If we don't want to use ISV anymore, why not use developer or a similar expression? A previous email in this thread explained why, I believe. 'Developer' fails to make the point that the developers referred to are not (necessarily) the developers creating Gnome, i.e. not Gnome developers in that sense. I DO think there are contexts in which this distinction is important, i.e. the contexts where we now use ISV. Bill Vincent ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
