Re: Submit your proposals for GUADEC 2018

[Ekaterina Gerasimova]

On 22 April 2018 at 21:57, Ekaterina Gerasimova  wrote:
> This is a reminder that the CfP will close this Thursday, 29th March.

My apologies, I meant Sunday, April 29!

> On 6 April 2018 at 13:17, Ekaterina Gerasimova  wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> The GUADEC papers team is looking for interesting, high-quality talks
>> for this year’s conference which will be held in Almería, Spain from
>> 6-11th July. This is a great opportunity to share your ideas with the
>> GNOME project, as well as the wider open source community. You don’t
>> have to be an existing member of the GNOME project to submit a talk.
>> If you have something interesting to say about community, software or
>> technology we want to hear from you!
>>
>> Talks can be either 25 or 40 minutes in length, which includes time
>> for questions.
>>
>> You can find more information and submit a talk at
>> https://2018.guadec.org/pages/submit-a-proposal.html
>>
>> If you have any questions about talks, please get in touch with
>> guadec-pap...@gnome.org
>>
>> If you have any questions about GUADEC, please get in touch with
>> guadec-organizat...@gnome.org
>>
>>
>> Other available slots:
>> =
>>
>> There will be a very limited number of 25 minute slots available for
>> signup on each day. Talks with most votes from attendees will be
>> selected.
>>
>> Lightning talks will be available for signup on the day.
>>
>> Intern lightning talkslots will be available for all GSoC and
>> Outreachy interns. If you think that you should also be eligible to
>> take part, get in touch with soc-adm...@gnome.org.
>>
>> BoF/hacking sessions will be available at a later date through signup
>> on the wiki.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Submit your proposals for GUADEC 2018

[Ekaterina Gerasimova]

This is a reminder that the CfP will close this Thursday, 29th March.

On 6 April 2018 at 13:17, Ekaterina Gerasimova  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The GUADEC papers team is looking for interesting, high-quality talks
> for this year’s conference which will be held in Almería, Spain from
> 6-11th July. This is a great opportunity to share your ideas with the
> GNOME project, as well as the wider open source community. You don’t
> have to be an existing member of the GNOME project to submit a talk.
> If you have something interesting to say about community, software or
> technology we want to hear from you!
>
> Talks can be either 25 or 40 minutes in length, which includes time
> for questions.
>
> You can find more information and submit a talk at
> https://2018.guadec.org/pages/submit-a-proposal.html
>
> If you have any questions about talks, please get in touch with
> guadec-pap...@gnome.org
>
> If you have any questions about GUADEC, please get in touch with
> guadec-organizat...@gnome.org
>
>
> Other available slots:
> =
>
> There will be a very limited number of 25 minute slots available for
> signup on each day. Talks with most votes from attendees will be
> selected.
>
> Lightning talks will be available for signup on the day.
>
> Intern lightning talkslots will be available for all GSoC and
> Outreachy interns. If you think that you should also be eligible to
> take part, get in touch with soc-adm...@gnome.org.
>
> BoF/hacking sessions will be available at a later date through signup
> on the wiki.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

[Carlos Soriano]

Just a small clarification, the working group was/is not a committee,
rather a group of people that have done and helped on doing such document
instead of relying entirely on the board.

However, as you mention Phillip, is up to the board to decide to ammend,
edit and approve the proposal, always with the interest of the community as
a goal.

Another thing I want to mention is that I honestly cannot see this proposal
to have happen if it was not done with a specific set of people that has
invested so much into the big picture of what a CoC conveys. I don't think
is realistic to try to create a document as difficult as this one with 200
people commenting around (or any other proposal for that matter).

I sincerecily hope we can approve sooner rather than later the CoC with the
feedback from the community incorporated, and that the community empowers
this effort that has been done with so much investment, and so critical for
having a healthy and welcoming community.

And again, huge thanks to all members that have helped creating it.

Cheers

On Sun., 22 Apr. 2018, 08:01 ,  wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 4:36 AM Benjamin Berg 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 19:09 -0700, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
>> > We discussed the topic of Events Code of Conduct during today's board
>> > meeting.
>> >
>> > The board intends to consider your motion separately from the Code of
>> > Conduct that was proposed by the working group; we will soon proceed
>> > to seek membership consultation on the working group proposal.
>>
>> I think my stance is quite clear. As Allan stated quite literally, he
>> continued working on the Draft without including the rest of the WG in
>> this work. Regardless of whether Allan was acting as a board member or
>> chairman of the WG, he has overstepped his authority by doing so. As
>> such, I do not consider the current documents to be a legitimate
>> proposal from the WG that the board could even start to consider.
>>
>
> It seems to me that Allan and Neil are free to take the (public) draft and
> amend it any way they like without consulting the rest of the working
> group, as long as they don't misrepresent it as a product of the working
> group. As would you or I, for that matter, be free to do.
>
> And, although I'm not familiar enough with the bylaws to say for sure what
> applies in this case, it also seems to me that since the board can delegate
> responsibilities to committees, the board can also rescind them — for
> example, if they feel that a committee is no longer capable of fulfilling
> them, which seems to be the case here. I have no idea what the board
> intends to do, but as far as I can tell, they are not obligated to consider
> the working group's proposal.
>
> In the end, the board was elected by us, the working group was not, so
> it's up to the board to do what they feel best represents the foundation
> members' interests. I don't see any overstep of authority here. This
> particular foundation member's interest lies in adopting a code of conduct
> sooner rather than later, and not in voting in a referendum forced because
> of a never-explained personality conflict.
>
> Regards,
> Philip C
> ___
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
>
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

[philip . chimento]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 4:36 AM Benjamin Berg 
wrote:

> On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 19:09 -0700, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> > We discussed the topic of Events Code of Conduct during today's board
> > meeting.
> >
> > The board intends to consider your motion separately from the Code of
> > Conduct that was proposed by the working group; we will soon proceed
> > to seek membership consultation on the working group proposal.
>
> I think my stance is quite clear. As Allan stated quite literally, he
> continued working on the Draft without including the rest of the WG in
> this work. Regardless of whether Allan was acting as a board member or
> chairman of the WG, he has overstepped his authority by doing so. As
> such, I do not consider the current documents to be a legitimate
> proposal from the WG that the board could even start to consider.
>

It seems to me that Allan and Neil are free to take the (public) draft and
amend it any way they like without consulting the rest of the working
group, as long as they don't misrepresent it as a product of the working
group. As would you or I, for that matter, be free to do.

And, although I'm not familiar enough with the bylaws to say for sure what
applies in this case, it also seems to me that since the board can delegate
responsibilities to committees, the board can also rescind them — for
example, if they feel that a committee is no longer capable of fulfilling
them, which seems to be the case here. I have no idea what the board
intends to do, but as far as I can tell, they are not obligated to consider
the working group's proposal.

In the end, the board was elected by us, the working group was not, so it's
up to the board to do what they feel best represents the foundation
members' interests. I don't see any overstep of authority here. This
particular foundation member's interest lies in adopting a code of conduct
sooner rather than later, and not in voting in a referendum forced because
of a never-explained personality conflict.

Regards,
Philip C
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list