Re: Wrapping up Bugzilla migration

[Carlos Soriano]

Thanks Bartłomiej for this! And apologies to everyone I couldn't migrate
their BZs in the past.

On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 16:45, Bartłomiej Piotrowski 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have been looking at Bugzilla migration requests today and have some
> related announcements.
>
> First of all, if for some reason you are still using Bugzilla, you
> should stop and move to GitLab. I hope it's not a surprise to anyone.
>
> Infrastructure team will be accepting bugs migration requests till the
> end of May 2021. After this date, we intend to turn bugzilla.gnome.org
> to static HTML page and decommission its infrastructure. A specific date
> will be announced in June.
>
> I know some of these requests are not resolved for years, but I'm slowly
> going through the queue. Please let me know if we should prioritize
> specific migrations or if you have any questions.
>
> Thanks,
> Bart
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-l...@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting

[Carlos Soriano]

Hi Max,

Just an honest insight from working in the board for two years. The tasks
the board do rarely require immediate action, in fact the most immediate
important action we can do is a special meeting, which requires 48h notice
in advance.

In general, it's more valuable to allocate a chunk of time over the
weekend, and for big tasks that can happen once every month or two months.
If my memory serves me correctly, we had around 3-4 emergencies in the last
two years, and almost all directors found some time to deal with them.

Cheers

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 03:27, Max via foundation-list <
foundation-list@gnome.org> wrote:

> Hi Allan, Tristan, Carlos, Robert
>
> Thanks for the quick response.
> Thanks all of you give us more choice and tool.
> GNOME.Asia team also use gitlab issue board to co-work together.
>
> During the GNOME.Asia role, I learn about --- "Pass the information to the
> team members fast" is more better than "Think all method alone".
> We are all volunteer  live in different time zone, we have real job and
> life.  So we will do community task at rest time of real life.
> It's good to do community task in reasonable time.
> I think ask question to candidates during the election time -- we might be
> see how busy they are in real life.
> To guess how much time the candidates could spend on community  tasks.
> If someone is real great but he / she is 100% or 90% busy in real life,
> she / he might be have no time to help.
>
> The date is for UTC +08:00 in my  local time.
>
> * Philip Chimento: 2019/6/4
> * Christel Dahlskjaer: 2019/6/4
> * Benjamin Berg: 2019/6/4
> * Allan Day: 2019/6/4
> * Tristan Van Berkom: 2019/6/4
> * Carlos Soriano: 2019/6/4
> * Robert McQueen: 2019/6/5
>
> * Britt Yazel
> * Niels De Graef
> * Federico Mena Quintero
> * Christopher Davis
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:55 AM Robert McQueen  wrote:
>
>> Hi Max,
>>
>> For what it's worth - I agree very strongly with Carlos here. The
>> community seems very "latched on" to minutes as the only/best way to hear
>> from or understand the board. I believe that on the whole Philip and
>> Federico as Secretary and Vice-Secretary have been doing as good a job as
>> could reasonably be expected of them, in terms of keeping the process
>> running and making sure the minutes happen and are published within weeks
>> rather than months. It's certainly as good or as close to as good as I've
>> seen it during the past few years, and as a time-starved collection of
>> volunteers, I don't think it's feasible for an incoming director to promise
>> that the preparation of minutes will change significantly.
>>
>> That said; we hear the concerns about timeliness and transparency but
>> really - poring over summarised board minutes looking for decisions (or
>> conspiriacies) and second-guessing justifications/motivations is not a good
>> way to build trust and transparency. Communication should be more
>> intentional and directed, ideally the board should be more accessible. This
>> is why I blogged about the key topics and things we were aiming to do from
>> our hackfest last year.
>>
>> I think that Carlos' GitLab and Discourse suggestions are great, and
>> maybe there are some other things we could consider - some round table /
>> AMA things - so that the board is in discussion with the membership more
>> frequently than the big Q "meet the new board" at GUADEC. At this exact
>> time, the new board don't really know what they're doing (or about to do) -
>> at least I certainly didn't - so you might get intentions/aspirations but
>> very little insight into what is actually ongoing and why.
>>
>> (As a side point, I am also not used to the concept that a board or other
>> panel would /not/ periodically approve it's previous minutes - but I would
>> also not expect a board to ordinarily meet every two weeks. We've moved
>> from weekly to bi-weekly meetings during this board term, which is great,
>> but ideally as we build trust/process/oversight in the ED and staff, the
>> board should ideally have to meet less often.)
>>
>> As the staff team grows, more of the "stuff the foundation does" should
>> move away from the board making micro-decisions, and more towards "business
>> as usual" for the staff. Then the reporting and transparency requirement
>> moves from the board to the staff - especially as they are (by their very
>> existence) consuming donor funds. So I feel this transparency is also very
>> important. As the ED line manager, I think we've made some progress during
>> this term and have converted some of Nei

Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting

[Carlos Soriano]

Hi Max,

Thanks for your question. You raise a very good point, I agree with you
that we need to improve participation of the community on board topics, and
it's specially difficult if the information is delayed for too long.

This is indeed a difficult situation. Some topics that the board discusses
are quite sensible, and sometimes we are in doubt whether parts of it are
private or not, so that requires consensus and therefore delays happen. As
you can imagine, we rely on volunteer time to discuss and process them, and
the availability of each director and secretaries is limited. In all
honesty, while this can always be improved with our current processes, I
think Philip Chimento and Federico made an excellent job with minutes.

However, let me comment about the lack of participation. I think one of the
reasons is that minutes are simply not the best tool for this. Minutes feel
to me too much of a one way communication, and on top of that they are over
email, which is not the most encouraging tool to manage and track
discussions. They are good for keeping a record, but not so good for much
else. Improving this situation was one of the reasons we moved our key
conversations to GitLab issues, so community members could closely follow
them and chime in directly if wanted.

My vision to encourage more participation would be around using more
tooling such as GitLab and Discourse for board discussions, and on top of
that, keep pushing on our goal to put as early as possible key initiatives
there to allow members to actually participate. I believe we have a big
room to improve, specially with initiatives that are not time sensible.

Lastly, an interesting idea I think we could do is a round of questions to
the membership to know what topics they were interested in and that we
could have done better with their minutes. Although I believe the board is
always open to feedback, I personally look forward to know about those.

Thanks,
Carlos Soriano

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 02:43, Max via foundation-list <
foundation-list@gnome.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for running for the board.
>
> Thanks everyone who want take times to make GNOME better.
> Just a simple question about Minutes of the board meeting.
>
> Data and information might be different.
> For me - a GNOME foundation member
>
> Data - Get "Minutes of the board meeting" after 1 month or 2 weeks after.
>  Because maybe the event is already close or over.
>
> Information - Get "Minutes of the board meeting" in 1 week or 10 days.
>  Because something might be happening and everyone could discuss with
> board and reply.
>
>   Here is the question 
>
> Could you promise to think a way --- Everyone get "Minutes of the board
> meeting" in a very close time?
>
> Here is my suggestion.
> Maybe there will be a table to record the "Minutes of the board meeting"
> announcement time and does it announce in short time?
>
>
> 
> | board meeting  |  Minutes|   in 10 days ?
>   |
>
> 
> | 2019/4/29  |   2019/5/22|  No
> |
>
> 
> | 2019/4/8   |   2019/5/15|  No
>  |
>
> 
> | 2019/3/13   |   2019/5/15|  No
>  |
>
> 
>
> Maybe it could be a record in GNOME annual report？
>  There are  ? % for Minutes of the board meeting on time to announce.
>
> I want to say --- It not just secretary task, It's the information we want
> to get from all GNOME Board member.
>
> Thanks again for all who take time to running the board
>
>
> Max
>
>
>
> ___
> 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: Question to candidates: eco-friendliness

[Carlos Soriano]

Hi Philip,

Thanks for your question.

The other candidates responded with lot of good ideas, I just want to say
that they all look quite good to me and that If implementing some of those
is helpful for the environment and increases mindshare about environment
impact, that sounds like a win-win for all of us. So I won't add more on
that side, the others already answered excellently.

Let me try however to give another point of vision, as is not about what we
can do to reduce our environmental impact, but rather what can we do to
reduce it overall.

As an organization, I think GNOME is already on the lowest environmental
impact range already, we don't travel every day to an office in contrast
with other organizations/companies as Jeremy very well pointed out. While
we can lead by example, and we should, we have a greater power. That's our
political reach.

On the past I have been in doubt whether GNOME as an organization should
take sides on certain possible political matters. This one however could be
a good case. I believe we have the capacity to do a great social impact
here by doing public statements, coordinating those with other FOSS
organizations or contacting with companies that might be interested in this
topic. From my studies in environmental science (I did one year at
university, before switching to CS) what I learnt that we need most to
reduce environmental impact is mindshare, social pressure and political
impact, and that's what we excel at doing.

I'm not sure how much is in our scope to do, but if we believe this is
important for the community and helps with our mission I think it worth to
try.

Thanks,
Carlos Soriano

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 19:11, Philip Withnall  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for running for the board!
>
> What steps do you think the Foundation could take to reduce its
> environmental impact, and the environmental impact of the project as a
> whole?
>
> I’m asking in more of an organisational sense than a technical sense.
> It’s up to individual maintainers to ensure their software is not
> resource-hungry, etc.
>
> I imagine this is the kind of question where it’s easy to just say
> “yes, I care about environmental friendliness”, so I suggest you might
> want to reply with your ideas about things the board could do to reduce
> environmental impact — whether those things are big, small, incremental
> steps to reduce our physical resource usage, or fundamental changes to
> how we organise the project to reduce the impact of travel. It would be
> interesting to hear them all, and how feasible/practical you think any
> improvements are.
>
> Obviously, those who have already served on the board will have some
> insight to share about what the board already does, and concrete ways
> it could improve; hopefully this doesn’t disadvantage those who haven’t
> already served on the board.
>
> Ta,
> Philip
> ___
> 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: Minutes of the board meeting of April 29, 2019

[Carlos Soriano]

Hi Ben, Tobi,

You raise good points and ideas, they are pretty valid, let me try to go
through them.

First of all, I think one of the reasons for this understanding gap is that
we didn't explain well how the work of the board has changed. I wrote a blog
post
<https://csoriano.pages.gitlab.gnome.org/csoriano-blog/post/2019-05-27-why-you-can-and-should-apply-for-the-board/?utm_source=feedburner_medium=feed_campaign=Feed%3A+GNOMEOn%2Fhome%2Fcsoriano+%28GNOME+on+%2Fhome%2Fcsoriano%29>
to try to improve that, read the section "How does the work of the board
look nowadays?". Might not explain everything, but it will at least lay a
shared common ground for the discussion.

On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 19:42, Tobias Mueller  wrote:

> Hi Carlos, Rob,
>
> thanks for the fantastic answers :)
>
>
> You've written:
>
> On Wed, 2019-05-22 at 14:18 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > While my duty if I want to continue this work is to apply again and
> > convince the membership to vote for me, this have a non-negligible
> > overhead. In my case, the uncertainty is making me focusing more on
> > preparing for a possible full hand off in less than a month than on
> > keep working on it. This is not healthy, and this doesn't work well.
> First of all: I agree.
>
> But: I think we'd be better off if we can establish that your work will
> still be valuable even if you are not a director (any more).
> (And for completeness sake: the "you" is the general "you", not second
> person singular.)
>
> I think we'd rather want to enable members to do valuable work for the
> Foundation than to limit ourselves to letting Directors do it.  Then,
> your premise "if I want to continue this work" does not hold, because
> you could just do the work.  My memory is fading, but I think there was
> a time where Board wanted to be more like facilitators than executives.
>

Indeed, and I believe this should continue to be a goal, and we have worked
on that by creating new committees. Specially around execution based tasks.

However, we have already reached a point where the tasks that the board do
nowadays are pretty standard for a board, while the other tasks are done
either by staff, committees or community members.


>
> As an aside: The scenario that you described is that you are running
> again, present your work to the membership as part of your platform and
> tell them that they should vote for you in order for you to get that job
> done.  Then the membership does not give you their vote.
> Now considering the proposal at hand, it seems to enforce the director
> being in power against the will of the membership.  That seems like a
> change the members should not like.
>
>
I think this point of view is stretching it a bit. You can think the
current year term is "enforcing a director for a year" too. I believe a
better way to look at this is that terms are about finding the right
balance between making sure directors can perform their work effectively
and keeping the terms as minimum as possible to give members the ability to
choose. The key here is that this balance has changed over the last year,
and seems 1 year terms are not enough anymore, but 2 years terms might.


>
> > At the end of the day is a matter of balance, and between the minimum
> > term of 1 year and the other extreme of no elections, we can find a
> > middle ground that works better with the new responsibilities and kind
> > of work the board needs to do nowadays.
> yeah, absolutely. I guess we're in the process of finding out :)
>
> >
> > It worth to mention that it's easier for any any person to commit to
> > just one year
> Yes!
> So I don't understand the logic that prolonging the term makes it easier
> for candidates to step up.
>

Indeed, it's the downside of a 2 year term (or longer), and it's something
we have discussed and concerned us too. Even with that, I think the general
agreement is that the change to longer terms will make the work of
directors more palatable and effective, which should be a good point
towards members thinking about stepping up for directors.


Benjamin,

Your ideas are indeed solutions.

However the goal is also to reduce the overhead of directors and make their
work more effective, while your ideas would ensure the work can be done
they most probably won't help or even make worse this overhead that we are
already experiencing with the new kind of tasks that we have.

In any case, the board needs to discuss the topic more, so your points and
ideas are helpful to us.

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

Re: Minutes of the board meeting of April 29, 2019

[Carlos Soriano via foundation-list]

Hi Tobi,

Just as small addition to what Rob said. As an example, I have been working
on some critical work for the foundation, for over a year now. This work
required extensive reading of legal, tax forms, research, etc. and is yet
to be finished. It's quite complex, and at the same time it cannot wait if
we want the foundation and project to keep growing and being healthy. It's
unlikely this work can continue without someone with the expertise gained
over the last year, and it's unlikely any effective hand off can be done
with a clean cut.

As Rob mentioned, over the last year the board of directors has changed to
a more strategic oversight, and the things we do are quite more complex
compared to what we were doing a year ago. While this is exciting and it's
good for the foundation, it adds the necessity to start doing long term
planning in a quite more complex environment.

While my duty if I want to continue this work is to apply again and
convince the membership to vote for me, this have a non-negligible
overhead. In my case, the uncertainty is making me focusing more on
preparing for a possible full hand off in less than a month than on keep
working on it. This is not healthy, and this doesn't work well. At the end
of the day is a matter of balance, and between the minimum term of 1 year
and the other extreme of no elections, we can find a middle ground that
works better with the new responsibilities and kind of work the board needs
to do nowadays.

It worth to mention that it's easier for any any person to commit to just
one year, so this is definitely not a selfish decision that we are
discussing (and I'm aware you didn't imply that), we are volunteers after
all. But this is not what we have found good for the foundation and the
directors going forward, so we believe a longer commitment will most
probably be what's needed.

Hope that helps clarify the situation, it's definitely different than what
we were one year ago, and it's normal that these questions arise. So don't
hesitate to let us know if you or anyone else has any more questions, just
keep in mind we are figuring things out as we move forward.

Cheers

On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 12:43, Robert McQueen  wrote:

> On Wed, 2019-05-22 at 11:35 +0200, Tobias Mueller wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> Hi Tobi,
>
> > I guess these plans are news to most members.
>
> They were mentioned previously in the blog posts we wrote after the
> hackfest last year - see http://ramcq.net/2018/10/19/gnome-foundation-h
> ackfest-2018/
>  - although
> not moved much further since then as you see
> from these minutes,
>
> > I think that the proposed change is a strict subset of what is
> > possible
> > today and that the cost associated with that change do not outweigh
> > the
> > benefits.
>
> We've received several large grants over the past year or so, and a
> spokesperson for the anonymous donor spent a while with the board
> talking about a number of factors, including the requirements around
> setting the compensation of the Executive Director (hence our new
> compensation committee) and more generally, how to attract and retain
> good staff, and be able to demonstrate impact for donors.
>
> They support a number of philanthropic initiatives and they impressed
> on us the importance of a growing Foundation that the strategy is
> maintained over longer periods of time, so that the resources that are
> given (ie donations, large or small) can be put to work on longer-term
> / more impactful projects, and that the staff are able to make plans to
> deliver such projects and impact.
>
> They said a normal time period for a directors term in most non-profits
> would be 3 years, but after discussion amongst the board it was felt
> that anything longer than a 2 year term might be a disincentive for
> people to stand for election. (Although as part of growing the
> Foundation budget and staff, we are aiming that the directors can
> reduce their time commitment to the usual oversight role of a board,
> allowing them to separately decide the extent to which they are able
> and willing to volunteer for other initiatives.) Most governments or
> other public bodies tend to have 3-4 year terms as well; for the same
> reasons. It's really hard to get *anything* non-trivial done in a year.
>
> A significant change of the board all at once, particularly if the
> incoming directors have less experience and might be less confident or
> decisive, is a significant fear of the staff of any non-profit. It
> threatens the ability of the (now 6-7) staff of the foundation being
> able to make effective plans, start longer-running programs and see
> them through, etc. If our decision making cadence, visibility and
> horizon is a year (or less) it's very hard to see past that for longer
> periods of time.
>
> In a business context the typical HR advice is that it takes 12-18
> months for a change in team structure, strategy, etc to really bear

Board of Directors Elections 2019 - Candidacy - Carlos Soriano

[Carlos Soriano]

Name: Carlos Soriano
Email: csori...@gnome.org
Corporate affiliation: Red Hat

Hello all,

I would like to announce my candidacy for the GNOME Foundation board of
directors for the third term.

I've been contributing to GNOME since 2014 as GSoC student for two years in
GNOME Shell. Then joined Red Hat as upstream and downstream maintainer of
Nautilus, until recently that I moved to a planning & release manager
position in the kernel graphics team.

In the last board term I focused on supporting the foundation grow in a
healthy way, and with the transition from a more executive to a more
strategic board. As part of that, I have been working on the newly
created compensation
committee <https://wiki.gnome.org/CompensationCommittee>, doing the
research on legal, tax forms and general charity guidance in order to make
a proper process for setting the ED compensation.

Another initiative I've been working on since last year is the creation of
a better definition of GNOME software and its components, and together with
that the creation of an inclusive process for GNOME related apps and
libraries to empower a wider community of contributors.

Lastly, I kept being one of the points of contact with GitLab, Matrix and
KDE. I represented GNOME at the panel discussion at DrupalCon with GitLab
and Drupal, keeping in touch with their representatives for future
collaborations. Also, I discussed with KDE directors several initiatives
such as GitLab and Matrix.

If reelected, I will continue focusing on the growth of the foundation. In
particular, I would like to keep working on the other half of work left for
the compensation committee, the compensation policy. This work will ensure
we have a process for appraisals and evaluation of the execution of
foundation plans.

Together with the previous point, I'll like to work further in the
foundation goals, KPIs, etc. so we evaluate how well the foundation is
doing in its growth, with the experience I gained from the last year.

While my focus will be the foundation growth, if reelected I would like to
keep working on improving our infrastructure, specially around
communication tooling. In this regard, I would like to help with new
partnerships with companies and support the coordination of the initiatives.

Thanks,
Carlos Soriano
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Minutes of the board meeting of April 29, 2019

[Carlos Soriano]

Hi Tobi,

Just as an addition to what Rob said. As an example, I have been working on
some critical work for the foundation, for over a year now. This work
required extensive reading of legal, tax forms, research, etc. and is yet
to be finished. It's quite complex, and at the same time it cannot wait if
we want the foundation and project to keep growing and being healthy. It's
unlikely this work can continue without someone with the expertise gained
over the last year, and it's unlikely any effective hand off can be done
with a clean cut.

As Rob mentioned, over the last year the board of directors has changed to
a more strategic oversight role, and the things we do are quite more
complex compared to what we were doing a year ago. While this is exciting
for every member and it's good for the foundation, it adds the necessity to
start doing long term planning and work in a quite more complex environment.

While my duty if I want to continue this work is to apply again and
convince the membership to vote for me, this have a non-negligible
overhead. In my case, the uncertainty is making me focusing more on
preparing for a possible full hand off in less than a month than on keep
working on it. This is not healthy, and this doesn't work well. At the end
of the day is a matter of balance, and between the minimum term of 1 year
and the other extreme of no elections, we can find a middle ground that
works better with the new responsibilities and kind of work the board needs
to do nowadays.

It worth to mention that it's easier for any any person to commit to just
one year, so this is definitely not a selfish decision that we are
discussing (and I'm aware you didn't imply that), we are volunteers after
all. But this is not what we have found good for the foundation and the
directors going forward, so we believe a longer commitment will most
probably be what's needed.

Hope that helps clarify the situation, it's definitely different than what
we were one year ago, and it's normal that these questions arise. So don't
hesitate to let us know if you or anyone else has any more questions, just
keep in mind we are figuring things out as we move forward.

Cheers

On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 12:43, Robert McQueen  wrote:

> On Wed, 2019-05-22 at 11:35 +0200, Tobias Mueller wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> Hi Tobi,
>
> > I guess these plans are news to most members.
>
> They were mentioned previously in the blog posts we wrote after the
> hackfest last year - see http://ramcq.net/2018/10/19/gnome-foundation-h
> ackfest-2018/
>  - although
> not moved much further since then as you see
> from these minutes,
>
> > I think that the proposed change is a strict subset of what is
> > possible
> > today and that the cost associated with that change do not outweigh
> > the
> > benefits.
>
> We've received several large grants over the past year or so, and a
> spokesperson for the anonymous donor spent a while with the board
> talking about a number of factors, including the requirements around
> setting the compensation of the Executive Director (hence our new
> compensation committee) and more generally, how to attract and retain
> good staff, and be able to demonstrate impact for donors.
>
> They support a number of philanthropic initiatives and they impressed
> on us the importance of a growing Foundation that the strategy is
> maintained over longer periods of time, so that the resources that are
> given (ie donations, large or small) can be put to work on longer-term
> / more impactful projects, and that the staff are able to make plans to
> deliver such projects and impact.
>
> They said a normal time period for a directors term in most non-profits
> would be 3 years, but after discussion amongst the board it was felt
> that anything longer than a 2 year term might be a disincentive for
> people to stand for election. (Although as part of growing the
> Foundation budget and staff, we are aiming that the directors can
> reduce their time commitment to the usual oversight role of a board,
> allowing them to separately decide the extent to which they are able
> and willing to volunteer for other initiatives.) Most governments or
> other public bodies tend to have 3-4 year terms as well; for the same
> reasons. It's really hard to get *anything* non-trivial done in a year.
>
> A significant change of the board all at once, particularly if the
> incoming directors have less experience and might be less confident or
> decisive, is a significant fear of the staff of any non-profit. It
> threatens the ability of the (now 6-7) staff of the foundation being
> able to make effective plans, start longer-running programs and see
> them through, etc. If our decision making cadence, visibility and
> horizon is a year (or less) it's very hard to see past that for longer
> periods of time.
>
> In a business context the typical HR advice is that it takes 12-18
> months for a change in team structure, 

Re: New member

[Carlos Soriano]

Nice to e-meet you Daniel! Hope to see you in GUADEC.

On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 22:05, Daniel Șerbănescu  wrote:

> Hello, I'm Daniel Șerbănescu and recently became a GNOME Foundation
> Member, and this email is meant as an introduction.
>
> About myself:
> - 27 year old
> - part-time web developer / drupal+php developer
> - masters student studying Computer Science and Informatics at Roskilde
> University
> - got a taste of tech conferences: FOSDEM, DrupalCon, Bornhack, FOSS-
> North, and I'm also aiming for GUADEC this year
> - debian unstable + GNOME user
>
> About my Gnome work:
> - I started back in 2010 contributing Romanian translations in Damned
> Lies and since then I gradually became a Committer and for about a year
> ago a Language Team Coordinator for Romanian language.
> - I also reported a few bugs now and then
>
> I would like to get to meet some other contributors from Europe and
> Scandinavia... maybe I'll see some of you at FOSS North next week.
>
> Kindly regards
>
> --
> Daniel Șerbănescu,
> Technical aficionado
> GPG Key: 06C7 620D
> ___
> 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: New Foundation and Emeritus members

[Carlos Soriano]

Congrats everyone! Glad to have all of you!

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 14:02, Andrea Veri  wrote:

> Membership,
>
> The GNOME Foundation Membership Committee is proud to announce our
> newly approved Foundation Members. Please welcome and thank them for
> their great and valuable contributions over the GNOME Foundation.
>
> They are: *
>
> 1. Daniel Șerbănescu (GNOME Romanian Translations team Coordinator)
>
> 2. Rania Amina (GNOME.Asia design, engagement, translations)
>
> 3. Nathan Follens (GNOME Dutch Translator)
>
> 4. Felix Häcker (GNOME Podcasts)
>
> 5. Robert Mader (Mutter)
>
> 6. Bilal Elmoussaoui (Multiple contributions to several GNOME modules
> (Contacts, ToDo, Games, Tweaks, Music))
>
>
> In addition to them, we also have one new Emeritus Members: [1]
>
> 1. Bradley M. Kuhn (Former GNOME Advisory Board Member, back in the
> days primary diplomat between FSF and GNOME)
>
>
> * Syntax is Name Surname (area of involvement)
>
> For any further question you may have, feel free to mail us at
> membership-commit...@gnome.org.
>
> cheers,
>
> The GNOME Foundation Membership Committee
>
> [1] https://wiki.gnome.org/MembershipCommittee/EmeritusMembers
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Andrea
>
> Red Hatter,
> Fedora / EPEL packager,
> GNOME Infrastructure Team Coordinator,
> Former GNOME Foundation Board of Directors Secretary,
> GNOME Foundation Membership & Elections Committee Chairman
>
> Homepage: http://www.gnome.org/~av
> ___
> 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: Minutes of the board meeting of December 10, 2018

[Carlos Soriano]

Amending to this: Although I voted -1 back then, I can see now how this was
a good PR and "networking" for us (apart of the nice social implications of
course), and this is something we usually lack... it would be a +1 now for
me.

Cheers

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 08:43, Philip Chimento via foundation-list <
foundation-list@gnome.org> wrote:

> = Foundation Board Minutes for Monday 10 December, 16:30 UTC =
>
> Wiki location: https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes/20181210
>
> == Attending ==
>
>  * RobMcQueen
>  * AllanDay
>  * KatGerasimova
>  * CarlosSoriano
>  * PhilipChimento
>  * NeilMcGovern
>  * RosannaYuen
>
> == Regrets ==
>
>  * NuritziSanchez
>
> == Missing ==
>
>  * FedericoMenaQuintero
>
> == Agenda ==
>
>  * FOSDEM travel approvals (Allan)
>  * Donation for FLOSS Desktops For Kids project (Neil)
>  * Review board initiatives (Allan)
>  * Holiday meeting dates (Allan)
>  * Michael Hall's resignation from the travel committee (Philip)
>
> == Minutes ==
>
>  * FOSDEM travel approvals
>* VOTE: Approval for Neil and any board members attending the advisory
> board meeting at FOSDEM to use the Foundation travel policy.
>  * +1 Unanimous
>
>  * Donation for FLOSS Desktops For Kids project
>* https://opensource.org/node/954
>* This request came in from Sri. The Open Source Initiative's
> fundraising drive this year is to support the FLOSS Desktops For Kids
> project. This supports children learning about computers, and installing
> free software on old hardware.
>* Kat: Is there anything GNOME-related in this project?
>  * Neil: No particular members are involved, but they do install
> Ubuntu on the computers so GNOME is going on the desktops.
>* Neil: The OSI is a 501(c)3 so we are allowed to give them money, and
> this aligns with our mission.
>* Philip: How large would the donation be?
>  * Neil: It's up to the board, but USD 1000 would be a meaningful
> donation.
>* Carlos: How needed is the donation? Are they relying on us?
>  * Neil: No, this was a nice suggestion from Sri for something that we
> might want to support.
>* Kat: What impact would a donation of USD 1000 make and how will it be
> used?
>* Philip: Leaning towards yes, it's a good cause and nice gesture, but
> I would like to read more about the program.
>* Carlos: Leaning towards no, not convinced about donating to other
> organizations without more clear direct benefit to GNOME.
>* Rob: In the middle, it seems like there are many more of these causes
> that we could support and I'm not convinced that GNOME donors would expect
> us to use GNOME funds in this way.
>  * Kat: Agree with Rob.
>* Rob: What would you do, Neil?
>  * Neil: I've always been wary of funding other things with GNOME
> funds, we are not a grant-making organization, but it is a relatively small
> amount of money, quite aligned with what we do, and enables children to get
> exposed to free software and technology.
>* VOTE: Donate USD 1000 to the FLOSS Desktops For Kids project.
>  * +1 Rob, Allan, Kat, Philip
>  * -1 Carlos
>  * Vote passed.
>
>  * Review board initiatives
>* It's been a while since the last meeting and it would be good to
> review what we're working on and identify things that have possibly stalled.
>* Rob: We should push forward with the "What is a GNOME module"
> question, as we will have to have a period of community consultation before
> making anything official in that topic.
>  * Allan: Let's have a call next week about this.
>* Carlos: We should finish discussing the Foundation's 1-year goals
> that we didn't finish during the hackfest.
>  * Allan: What's the status of that?
>  * Neil: The next step is for me to operationalize the 5- and 10-year
> goals into 1-year goals, and propose those to the board. I haven't had time
> for that over the past couple of weeks due to interviews, but I will be
> able to do it in the new year.
>  * Carlos: I will look at the existing document and polish it up a bit
> before sending it on to Neil.
>* Kat: I can pick up the devolved conference bidding process next week.
>  * Allan: We can have a call about it after you do that.
>* Philip: I will try to work on the revised travel policy over the
> holidays, and get it into a state where we can have some rounds of edits
> when Nuritzi returns.
>* Allan: How about FOSDEM and the advisory board meeting?
>  * Neil: Make sure to sign up so there is space for you at lunch, if
> you attend in person.
>  * Neil: There will be a GNOME Beers event, and a copyleft conference
> on Monday for people who are staying for it.
>  * Kat: Anything to do for GNOME Beers?
>* Neil: The venue might change, it was overloaded last year.
>* Kat: Let me know if the venue changes and I will update the
> poster.
>  * Kat: I will print merchandise for FOSDEM, reimbursements?
>* Neil: As long as we know the value 

Re: Minutes of the board meeting of December 10, 2018

[Carlos Soriano]

Amending to this: Although I voted -1 back then, I can see now how this was
a nice PR and "networking" for us (apart of the nice social implications of
course), and this is something we usually lack... it would be a +1 now for
me.

Cheers

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 08:43, Philip Chimento via foundation-list <
foundation-list@gnome.org> wrote:

> = Foundation Board Minutes for Monday 10 December, 16:30 UTC =
>
> Wiki location: https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes/20181210
>
> == Attending ==
>
>  * RobMcQueen
>  * AllanDay
>  * KatGerasimova
>  * CarlosSoriano
>  * PhilipChimento
>  * NeilMcGovern
>  * RosannaYuen
>
> == Regrets ==
>
>  * NuritziSanchez
>
> == Missing ==
>
>  * FedericoMenaQuintero
>
> == Agenda ==
>
>  * FOSDEM travel approvals (Allan)
>  * Donation for FLOSS Desktops For Kids project (Neil)
>  * Review board initiatives (Allan)
>  * Holiday meeting dates (Allan)
>  * Michael Hall's resignation from the travel committee (Philip)
>
> == Minutes ==
>
>  * FOSDEM travel approvals
>* VOTE: Approval for Neil and any board members attending the advisory
> board meeting at FOSDEM to use the Foundation travel policy.
>  * +1 Unanimous
>
>  * Donation for FLOSS Desktops For Kids project
>* https://opensource.org/node/954
>* This request came in from Sri. The Open Source Initiative's
> fundraising drive this year is to support the FLOSS Desktops For Kids
> project. This supports children learning about computers, and installing
> free software on old hardware.
>* Kat: Is there anything GNOME-related in this project?
>  * Neil: No particular members are involved, but they do install
> Ubuntu on the computers so GNOME is going on the desktops.
>* Neil: The OSI is a 501(c)3 so we are allowed to give them money, and
> this aligns with our mission.
>* Philip: How large would the donation be?
>  * Neil: It's up to the board, but USD 1000 would be a meaningful
> donation.
>* Carlos: How needed is the donation? Are they relying on us?
>  * Neil: No, this was a nice suggestion from Sri for something that we
> might want to support.
>* Kat: What impact would a donation of USD 1000 make and how will it be
> used?
>* Philip: Leaning towards yes, it's a good cause and nice gesture, but
> I would like to read more about the program.
>* Carlos: Leaning towards no, not convinced about donating to other
> organizations without more clear direct benefit to GNOME.
>* Rob: In the middle, it seems like there are many more of these causes
> that we could support and I'm not convinced that GNOME donors would expect
> us to use GNOME funds in this way.
>  * Kat: Agree with Rob.
>* Rob: What would you do, Neil?
>  * Neil: I've always been wary of funding other things with GNOME
> funds, we are not a grant-making organization, but it is a relatively small
> amount of money, quite aligned with what we do, and enables children to get
> exposed to free software and technology.
>* VOTE: Donate USD 1000 to the FLOSS Desktops For Kids project.
>  * +1 Rob, Allan, Kat, Philip
>  * -1 Carlos
>  * Vote passed.
>
>  * Review board initiatives
>* It's been a while since the last meeting and it would be good to
> review what we're working on and identify things that have possibly stalled.
>* Rob: We should push forward with the "What is a GNOME module"
> question, as we will have to have a period of community consultation before
> making anything official in that topic.
>  * Allan: Let's have a call next week about this.
>* Carlos: We should finish discussing the Foundation's 1-year goals
> that we didn't finish during the hackfest.
>  * Allan: What's the status of that?
>  * Neil: The next step is for me to operationalize the 5- and 10-year
> goals into 1-year goals, and propose those to the board. I haven't had time
> for that over the past couple of weeks due to interviews, but I will be
> able to do it in the new year.
>  * Carlos: I will look at the existing document and polish it up a bit
> before sending it on to Neil.
>* Kat: I can pick up the devolved conference bidding process next week.
>  * Allan: We can have a call about it after you do that.
>* Philip: I will try to work on the revised travel policy over the
> holidays, and get it into a state where we can have some rounds of edits
> when Nuritzi returns.
>* Allan: How about FOSDEM and the advisory board meeting?
>  * Neil: Make sure to sign up so there is space for you at lunch, if
> you attend in person.
>  * Neil: There will be a GNOME Beers event, and a copyleft conference
> on Monday for people who are staying for it.
>  * Kat: Anything to do for GNOME Beers?
>* Neil: The venue might change, it was overloaded last year.
>* Kat: Let me know if the venue changes and I will update the
> poster.
>  * Kat: I will print merchandise for FOSDEM, reimbursements?
>* Neil: As long as we know the value 

Re: Events Code of Conduct: Ratification by the community

[Carlos Soriano]

Hey Benjamin,

Not sure the previous board can talk anymore as a single entity since no
more meetings happen etc. However, I can express here my own take as a
member of the previous board.

I found that given that there was a period of two months for feedback and
the small amount of feedback got, the general consensus was that it's fine
and that going around and making this more convoluted wasn't very useful or
interesting for most of the people. Even more if the current set up was
intended also as a good starting point but that something to improve over
time.

This is something I experienced with the GitLab initiative itself, and that
got much more attention and feedback, and even though that feedback
happened, some topics weren't just getting much feedback, they were just
okay with it.

What I felt was that although CoC is a sensible and delicate topic and I
would have expected it would have got much more attention, at the end it
didn't got so much and most people were okay with the current set up and
processes and were okay by the board approving/readjusting as we do with
many other things. Personally, the amount of feedback got together with
what I could gather around in person with different members is I believe a
good sign of that.

Hope that clarifies a bit or that it gives a different perspective.

Cheers

On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 at 00:11, Benjamin Berg 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This is more of a question to the previous board.
>
> Note that it may well be that I have simply missed the information in
> the minutes. It could also be that the information is currently not
> available to me as the minutes containing the ratification vote are
> currently still private[1][2].
>
> This question relates to the original Board ticket[2] on the topic and
> an earlier meeting discussing the event Code of Conduct and
> ratification[3]. This ticket says that the "board needs to consider
> letting the community vote eventually". The referenced meeting suggests
> an "affirmation vote at GUADEC" was planned.
>
> However, no such vote by the community has happened. Instead, it
> appears that the Board ratified the event Code of Conduct and related
> documents without further community involvement.
>
> Could the Board please elaborate as to why these considerations were
> dismissed again at a later point?
>
> Benjamin
>
> [1] https://gitlab.gnome.org/Community/Board/issues/60
> [2] https://gitlab.gnome.org/Community/Board/issues/10
> [3] https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes/20180424
> ___
> 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: It's time again for pants nominations

[Carlos Soriano]

Thanks Nirbheek :)

I think the rule is because the board choose them, so me being on the board
would stop that.

In any case, I got enough credit for the GitLab effort (thanks all), it's
my hope that the pants goes to someone else that has done as much or more
for GNOME but goes more unnoticed.

Cheers

On Wed, 30 May 2018 at 11:53, Nirbheek Chauhan 
wrote:

> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:23 PM Didier Roche  wrote:
> > The only
> > requirements are that the person is attending GUADEC to receive the
> > pants, and that it's not a current or outgoing board member.
>
> I really wanted to nominate Carlos Soriano for all the work done with the
> migration to GitLab, but he's a board member! Why does this requirement
> exist? I don't remember :)
>
> I also want to nominate:
>
> * Christian Hergert for his work on end-user developer tooling, such as
> GNOME Builder and Sysprof
> * Sriram Ramkrishna for his community work, which is a list too long to
> summarize here
>
> Cheers,
> Nirbheek
> ___
> 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: Board of Directors Elections 2018 - Candidacy - Carlos Soriano

[Carlos Soriano]

Ccing foundation-announce.

On 29 May 2018 at 22:01, Carlos Soriano  wrote:

>
>
>
> *Name: Carlos SorianoEmail: csori...@gnome.org
> Corporate affiliation: Red HatHello all,I would like to
> announce my candidacy for the GNOME Foundation board of directors for the
> second term.*
> I've been contributing to GNOME since 2014 as GSoC student for two years
> in GNOME Shell and then joined Red Hat as maintainer of Nautilus until now.
>
> In the last board term I tried to look after GNOME as a whole while being
> close to every person in our community. I enjoyed reaching out to the
> different people that creates GNOME and tried to create initiatives and
> took the lead of those that I believe have a good impact on the project and
> organization.
>
> As part of the board, I worked on getting small events have an easy
> process to get sponsorship <https://wiki.gnome.org/Engagement/Events> in
> order to encourage participation locally.
>
> More notoriously, I have been working as partnership contact with GitLab
> <https://about.gitlab.com/>. Being part of the board gave me the ground
> and position to be able to agree on a deal after 6 months of work and
> discussions. That work included making part of their product free software,
> removing the CLA, supporting GNOME on our transition, influence their
> product decisions and finally, getting sponsorship.
>
> Lately, I also created the GNOME Internship program
> <https://wiki.gnome.org/Internships> by setting up the instructions,
> processes, requirements, contract, legal framework and contacting community
> members needed to make it successful. This effort allowed us to unblock the
> privacy campaign funds recollected in 2013 and allows the foundation to
> channel funds towards critical topics from now on.
>
> If I get reelected, I will continue trying to steer the GNOME project in
> the direction I believe it's most beneficial for the project and that
> aligns with what the members of GNOME would like for the GNOME project to
> be.
>
> I don't know how the path will look like, as we are expanding the
> foundation the challenges ahead are great. However, these challenges are
> just another motivation to be part of the board.
>
> Best,
> Carlos Soriano
>
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Board of Directors Elections 2018 - Candidacy - Carlos Soriano

[Carlos Soriano]

*Name: Carlos SorianoEmail: csori...@gnome.org Corporate
affiliation: Red HatHello all,I would like to announce my candidacy for the
GNOME Foundation board of directors for the second term.*
I've been contributing to GNOME since 2014 as GSoC student for two years in
GNOME Shell and then joined Red Hat as maintainer of Nautilus until now.

In the last board term I tried to look after GNOME as a whole while being
close to every person in our community. I enjoyed reaching out to the
different people that creates GNOME and tried to create initiatives and
took the lead of those that I believe have a good impact on the project and
organization.

As part of the board, I worked on getting small events have an easy process
to get sponsorship <https://wiki.gnome.org/Engagement/Events> in order to
encourage participation locally.

More notoriously, I have been working as partnership contact with GitLab
<https://about.gitlab.com/>. Being part of the board gave me the ground and
position to be able to agree on a deal after 6 months of work and
discussions. That work included making part of their product free software,
removing the CLA, supporting GNOME on our transition, influence their
product decisions and finally, getting sponsorship.

Lately, I also created the GNOME Internship program
<https://wiki.gnome.org/Internships> by setting up the instructions,
processes, requirements, contract, legal framework and contacting community
members needed to make it successful. This effort allowed us to unblock the
privacy campaign funds recollected in 2013 and allows the foundation to
channel funds towards critical topics from now on.

If I get reelected, I will continue trying to steer the GNOME project in
the direction I believe it's most beneficial for the project and that
aligns with what the members of GNOME would like for the GNOME project to
be.

I don't know how the path will look like, as we are expanding the
foundation the challenges ahead are great. However, these challenges are
just another motivation to be part of the board.

Best,
Carlos Soriano
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Carlos Soriano]

What is your goal exactly with this interrogatory?

In this case, the request was explicitly delete the account. The user sent
a screenshot of the admin interface with the button selected of "delete
account and activity" and didn't want anything else.

On 25 May 2018 at 21:30, Benjamin Berg <benja...@sipsolutions.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:29 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > Depends on the case I guess? If I have to go over 1000 comments
> > probably not. There could be other reasons, but I don't know yet
> > because I didn't manage many cases yet.
>
> And in this particular case?
>
> Benjamin
>
> > On 25 May 2018 at 21:24, Benjamin Berg <benja...@sipsolutions.net>
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:20 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > > > Have you done so, if not, is there any reason to not make this
> > > offer?
> > > >
> > > > No, apart of the policy mentioned in the minutes.
> > >
> > > Will you make such an offer? If not, is there any reason to not
> > > make
> > > this offer in the future and in this case?
> > >
> > > Benjamin
> > >
> > > > On 25 May 2018 at 21:18, Benjamin Berg <benja...@sipsolutions.net
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:05 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > > > > > Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because
> > > > > that
> > > > > > was not the request. The request was as described "account
> > > > > deletion
> > > > > > in GitLab for a blocked user". The request was for complete
> > > > > deletion,
> > > > > > including any activity.
> > > > >
> > > > > This doesn't make any sense to me. The user has explicitly
> > > > > requested a
> > > > > full deletion including all comments. You have solely decided
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > comments would not be removed, but there was no decision on
> > > whether
> > > > > the
> > > > > comment text needs to stay as is.
> > > > >
> > > > > As such, I would expect that you explicitly offer the user to
> > > > > replace
> > > > > all text in relevant posts. Have you done so, if not, is there
> > > any
> > > > > reason to not make this offer?
> > > > >
> > > > > Benjamin
> > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri., 25 May 2018, 20:30 Benjamin Berg, <benjamin@sipsolut
> > > ions
> > > > > .net
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> > > > > > > >  * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked
> > > user
> > > > > > > (Carlos)
> > > > > > > >   * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of
> > > this
> > > > > > > >   * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked
> > > a
> > > > > user
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no
> > > > > longer
> > > > > > > log in
> > > > > > > > to edit/delete their comments.
> > > > > > > >   * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > posts
> > > > > > > > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their
> > > > > legal
> > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action.
> > > > > > > >   * Comments can only be deleted by an admin.
> > > > > > > >   * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that
> > > are
> > > > > > > stored on
> > > > > > > > GNOME servers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to
> > > other
> > > > > > > services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be
> > > > > > > retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third
> > > > > parties in
> > &g

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Carlos Soriano]

Depends on the case I guess? If I have to go over 1000 comments probably
not. There could be other reasons, but I don't know yet because I didn't
manage many cases yet.

On 25 May 2018 at 21:24, Benjamin Berg <benja...@sipsolutions.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:20 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > Have you done so, if not, is there any reason to not make this offer?
> >
> > No, apart of the policy mentioned in the minutes.
>
> Will you make such an offer? If not, is there any reason to not make
> this offer in the future and in this case?
>
> Benjamin
>
> > On 25 May 2018 at 21:18, Benjamin Berg <benja...@sipsolutions.net>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:05 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > > > Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because
> > > that
> > > > was not the request. The request was as described "account
> > > deletion
> > > > in GitLab for a blocked user". The request was for complete
> > > deletion,
> > > > including any activity.
> > >
> > > This doesn't make any sense to me. The user has explicitly
> > > requested a
> > > full deletion including all comments. You have solely decided that
> > > the
> > > comments would not be removed, but there was no decision on whether
> > > the
> > > comment text needs to stay as is.
> > >
> > > As such, I would expect that you explicitly offer the user to
> > > replace
> > > all text in relevant posts. Have you done so, if not, is there any
> > > reason to not make this offer?
> > >
> > > Benjamin
> > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > On Fri., 25 May 2018, 20:30 Benjamin Berg, <benjamin@sipsolutions
> > > .net
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> > > > > >  * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user
> > > > > (Carlos)
> > > > > >   * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this
> > > > > >   * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a
> > > user
> > > > > for
> > > > > > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no
> > > longer
> > > > > log in
> > > > > > to edit/delete their comments.
> > > > > >   * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that
> > > their
> > > > > posts
> > > > > > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their
> > > legal
> > > > > right
> > > > > > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action.
> > > > > >   * Comments can only be deleted by an admin.
> > > > > >   * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are
> > > > > stored on
> > > > > > GNOME servers.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to other
> > > > > services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be
> > > > > retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third
> > > parties in
> > > > > the
> > > > > case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the relevant
> > > > > text
> > > > > even if they cannot delete the comment itself.
> > > > >
> > > > > It sounds like the request for deletion was completely refused
> > > > > rather
> > > > > than complying with it as much as possible by changing all text
> > > to
> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > "comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not complying
> > > > > with
> > > > > the request in this way?
> > > > >
> > > > > >   * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data
> > > retention
> > > > > > policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required for
> > > > > > insurance purposes.
> > > > > >   * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise
> > > posts
> > > > > rather
> > > > > > than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo -
> > > isn't
> > > > > that
> > > > > > what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes.
> > > > > >   * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account
> > > rather
> > > > > than
> > > > > > deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is personally
> > > in
> > > > > favour
> > > > > > but doesn't know what the legal requirements are.
> > > > > >   * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and
> > > anonymise
> > > > > the
> > > > > > posts in the process.
> > > > >
> > > > > Benjamin___
> > > > > 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: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Carlos Soriano]

Have you done so, if not, is there any reason to not make this offer?
No, apart of the policy mentioned in the minutes.

On 25 May 2018 at 21:18, Benjamin Berg <benja...@sipsolutions.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:05 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because that
> > was not the request. The request was as described "account deletion
> > in GitLab for a blocked user". The request was for complete deletion,
> > including any activity.
>
> This doesn't make any sense to me. The user has explicitly requested a
> full deletion including all comments. You have solely decided that the
> comments would not be removed, but there was no decision on whether the
> comment text needs to stay as is.
>
> As such, I would expect that you explicitly offer the user to replace
> all text in relevant posts. Have you done so, if not, is there any
> reason to not make this offer?
>
> Benjamin
>
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Fri., 25 May 2018, 20:30 Benjamin Berg, <benja...@sipsolutions.net
> > > wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> > > >  * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user
> > > (Carlos)
> > > >   * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this
> > > >   * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a user
> > > for
> > > > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no longer
> > > log in
> > > > to edit/delete their comments.
> > > >   * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that their
> > > posts
> > > > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their legal
> > > right
> > > > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action.
> > > >   * Comments can only be deleted by an admin.
> > > >   * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are
> > > stored on
> > > > GNOME servers.
> > >
> > > There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to other
> > > services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be
> > > retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third parties in
> > > the
> > > case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the relevant
> > > text
> > > even if they cannot delete the comment itself.
> > >
> > > It sounds like the request for deletion was completely refused
> > > rather
> > > than complying with it as much as possible by changing all text to
> > > e.g.
> > > "comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not complying
> > > with
> > > the request in this way?
> > >
> > > >   * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data retention
> > > > policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required for
> > > > insurance purposes.
> > > >   * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise posts
> > > rather
> > > > than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo - isn't
> > > that
> > > > what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes.
> > > >   * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account rather
> > > than
> > > > deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is personally in
> > > favour
> > > > but doesn't know what the legal requirements are.
> > > >   * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and anonymise
> > > the
> > > > posts in the process.
> > >
> > > Benjamin___
> > > 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: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Carlos Soriano]

Hi all,

Tobias, I'm not sure I would like to publicly post it here, as I don't
think it's a good idea to target a specific user, even if it was blocked.
In any case, unfortunately the GitLab UI tricked me in this one, and didn't
move it to the "ghost user" as the board suggested, but rather deleted
everything.

Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because that was not
the request. The request was as described "account deletion in GitLab for a
blocked user". The request was for complete deletion, including any
activity.

Cheers

On Fri., 25 May 2018, 20:30 Benjamin Berg, 
wrote:

> On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> >  * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user (Carlos)
> >   * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this
> >   * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a user for
> > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no longer log in
> > to edit/delete their comments.
> >   * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that their posts
> > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their legal right
> > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action.
> >   * Comments can only be deleted by an admin.
> >   * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are stored on
> > GNOME servers.
>
> There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to other
> services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be
> retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third parties in the
> case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the relevant text
> even if they cannot delete the comment itself.
>
> It sounds like the request for deletion was completely refused rather
> than complying with it as much as possible by changing all text to e.g.
> "comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not complying with
> the request in this way?
>
> >   * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data retention
> > policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required for
> > insurance purposes.
> >   * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise posts rather
> > than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo - isn't that
> > what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes.
> >   * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account rather than
> > deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is personally in favour
> > but doesn't know what the legal requirements are.
> >   * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and anonymise the
> > posts in the process.
>
> Benjamin___
> 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

[Carlos Soriano]

Hello all,

The board discussed in the last meeting the validity of the document and
has approved that the current proposal, including its last changes, is
legitimate, so its evaluation will be continued.


Best,
Carlos Soriano

On 24 April 2018 at 10:45, Allan Day <a...@gnome.org> wrote:

> Benjamin Berg <benja...@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> ...
> > 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.
>
> Or, to put it another way - Neil and I made a small number of edits to
> a document which had previously been worked on for 14 months, which we
> then put to the board to review and vote on.
>
> It should be noted that the board group includes every active member
> of the code of conduct working group, with the exception of Ben. So
> "without including the rest of the WG" translates to "without
> including Ben". As already stated, this was a direct response to
> repeated unacceptable behaviour on Ben's part.
>
> There is no formal process for the code of conduct working group, so
> talk of "authority" and "legitimacy" is moot. However, I do believe
> that the proposal that has been sent to the board is a fair reflection
> of the group's work as a whole, and that's the important thing.
>
> > 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.
>
> The proposal that has been sent to the board is the result of the
> entire group's work for 14 months. It is also the outcome of the
> community consultation that we ran. The vast majority of the working
> group will have the opportunity to review the proposal before it goes
> to a vote.
>
> Allan
> --
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/board-list
>
> From time to time confidential and sensitive information will be discussed
> on this mailing list. Please take care to mark confidential information as
> confidential, and do not redistribute this information without permission.
>
___
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: Preliminary Results - GNOME Foundation Board of Directors Elections 2017

[Carlos Soriano via foundation-list]

I think we have to analyze why there are so few before trying to get more 
without knowing the problem. I have few ideas why this happens based on 
discussions with some other members that doesn't feel like proposing to be on 
the board, although they are more than capable time and skill wise.
It's a discussion perfect for GUADEC. Are you coming Richard?

Best,
Carlos Soriano

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Preliminary Results - GNOME Foundation Board of Directors 
Elections 2017
Local Time: June 15, 2017 3:51 AM
UTC Time: June 15, 2017 1:51 AM
From: r...@gnu.org
To: foundation-list@gnome.org

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden"s example. ]]]

> This year we had 225 registered voters, 110 of which sent in valid
> ballots.

I am not surprised that so few voted. Can anyone think of a way
to encourage more candidates?

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

___
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: Question to GNOME Foundation Board candidates

[Carlos Soriano via foundation-list]

Hello Max,

1) How many hours per week do you expect you will be able to dedicate
to working on the board on a regular basis?

I expect the board to take between 3-5h per week in a normal situation. Of 
course if some task requires it, dedicating more time is expected. I don't have 
an specific upper limit for that, as long as it's not something necessary to be 
done every week.
Fortunately I have support from my employer for the board work.

2) What's your plan and view with GNOME in Asia? How do you think
about grow GNOME in Asia?

I didn't think about some specific plan for Asia, I think the same initiatives 
that could serve for any other continent would help. For example support local 
people for doing hackfest, conferences, etc. as it has been done on the past. 
Or do you have a specific idea?

3) How do you make GNOME great again? ( Sorry for my poor English again )
 Any idea about let everyone say " Wow!! it's GNOME " " I know GNOME :) "

Is not GNOME great already? :)
I'm not sure what you mean by "wow it's GNOME", you mean how to make people 
excited about the technologies GNOME delivers; or more about brand identity?
In the former, I think it's more like a technical discussion, and in my opinion 
our initiatives with gtk4, Flatpak, etc. are going in a more than good 
direction.
Of course we need more work on some places, but that would be more in the 
technical and community level. What the board can do is to support initiatives 
that comes from the community to improve those modules.

Best,
Carlos Soriano

 Original Message 
Subject: Question to GNOME Foundation Board candidates
Local Time: May 26, 2017 6:13 PM
UTC Time: May 26, 2017 4:13 PM
From: sakana...@gmail.com
To: foundation-list <foundation-list@gnome.org>

Hello all,

First, thanks to all candidates for volunteering to the Foundation Board.
Max come from GNOME.Asia team and thanks GNOME and board support Asia.

I know there will be more people ask questions about all domain with
GNOME, so I ask 1 question with Asia first.
I have 3 questions to all candidates ( sorry for my poor English )

1) How many hours per week do you expect you will be able to dedicate
to working on the board on a regular basis?

 for 2nd or 3rd ( or more ) term candidacy:
 last year, every one plan 5-10 or 5-15 hours per week,
what's average hours per week when you become board? do you think it's
good hours for life and work balance with you?( I think it might be
good reference for fist term candidacy and let us know your loading )(
Thanks again work and make GNOME forward )

 for 1st term candidacy:
 Please let us know your plan :)

2) What's your plan and view with GNOME in Asia? How do you think
about grow GNOME in Asia?

3) How do you make GNOME great again? ( Sorry for my poor English again )
 Any idea about let everyone say " Wow!! it's GNOME " " I know GNOME :) "

* We start to have sponsors from Asia with GUADEC.
* There are some open source events related and co-work with GNOME
Users Group or Members in Asia.
** Hong Kong Open Source Conference ( https://opensource.hk/events/ )
** openSUSE.Asia Summit ( https://events.opensuse.org/conference/summitasia16 )
** FUDCon ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FUDCon?rd=Fudcon )  We
held GNOME.AsiaSummit 2014 together with FUDCon.
** FOSSASIA ( http://fossasia.org/ )

Thanks again for all candidates volunteering to the Foundation Board.

Max Huang
___
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

GNOME accepted for GSoC

[Carlos Soriano via foundation-list]

Hello all,

GNOME was again accepted for GSoC! \\o//

Thanks to the mentors who've already listed GSoC project ideas! We currently 
have only around 16 GSoC ideas, it would be excellent to have at least four 
more mentors with new ideas for this round, as we are used to be one of the 
biggest organisations and would be awesome to keep it this way :)
If you are interested please add your idea in the wiki [0]. If you are 
interested but don't have any ideas, please contact us at soc-adm...@gnome.org 
or one of the admins [1] on IRC and we will help you find some.

For mentors whose ideas are triaged, it's time to register with us!
Please fill the form [2] and we will invite you to the GSoC program in Google's 
website.
Also, please subscribe to the mentors list [3] if you haven't done so yet. We 
will send required information for mentors in that list.

If you have any question, please don't hesitate to contact us at 
soc-adm...@gnome.org or any of us on IRC [1].

[0] https://wiki.gnome.org/Outreach/SummerOfCode/2017/Ideas
[1] https://wiki.gnome.org/Outreach/SummerOfCode/admins
[2] 
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeCuIH2mY7D6aMvQs0jFymTc_7AwEC5lX54NYa24a6bI1pvOw/viewform?usp=sf_link
[3] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/soc-mentors-list

Have a nice day,
GSOC admins___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Proposal: creation of IRC Operators Team

[Carlos Soriano via foundation-list]

Hello again,

Thanks for the responses and volunteers!
Sadly, I don't know many people in Asia timezones, so I asked Sri to help me 
figure out some, again thanks for the volunteering!
For America timezones we though about Patrick Griffis (TingPing), and later we 
can figure out someone more too.
For European timezones it seems you are fine with Alexander, Andre and me, so 
I'm going with those.
I will try to make the new ops effective today.



Best regards,
Carlos Soriano


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Proposal: creation of IRC Operators Team
Local Time: December 13, 2016 9:59 AM
UTC Time: December 13, 2016 8:59 AM
From: a...@accosted.net
To: Alexandre Franke <afra...@gnome.org>
foundation-list@gnome.org <foundation-list@gnome.org>

On 13 December 2016 at 14:07, Alexandre Franke <afra...@gnome.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 4:54 AM, Sriram Ramkrishna <s...@ramkrishna.me> wrote:
>> Also I apologize for not being around on at least #gnome-hackers as I know I
>> am ops there.
>
> There is currently 0 op in that channel.

I can also volunteer for Asia timezone.

-- Arun
___
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: creation of IRC Operators Team

[Carlos Soriano via foundation-list]

Hello,

Sri, that's actually my main worry about this initiative. Can you, and people 
on non European zone, give some names of people usually active on irc on those 
timezones in the main channels?

That would be awesome to have the initiative complete.



Best regards,
Carlos Soriano

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Proposal: creation of IRC Operators Team
Local Time: December 13, 2016 4:54 AM
UTC Time: December 13, 2016 3:54 AM
From: s...@ramkrishna.me
To: Carlos Soriano <csori...@protonmail.com>, foundation-list@gnome.org 
<foundation-list@gnome.org>





On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:33 AM Carlos Soriano via foundation-list 
<foundation-list@gnome.org> wrote:


And the people I though to be part of this team of OP's in those channels are 
Andre Klapper (andre), Alexandre Franke (afranke) and me, Carlos Soriano 
(csoriano).

I plan to put this information in the wiki, so users of IRC can know who to 
contact in case of any issue (for example in case some of us prefer to be on 
non-OP status for regular talking in the channel).

If you are current op or creator of those channels, what do you think of this 
idea? What do you think of the people and channel selection?

Sounds good to me. My only reservation is that your list of opers are all on 
european time frame and you don't have a proper spread across all time zones. 
You should add two more in the U.S. and Asian time zone so there is so overlap.

Also I apologize for not being around on at least #gnome-hackers as I know I am 
ops there.

sri___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Proposal: creation of IRC Operators Team

[Carlos Soriano via foundation-list]

Thanks Allan for answering.

An update of a discussion we had yesterday, one thing we would like to have is 
maintainers of the projects being the chanserv op of that corresponding 
channel. For that you need to register the channel to chanserv and you will 
have full access to the irc channel features, and become op too.
For that you will need chanop first, and we can provide that on a personal 
basis.
I found these channels that would be good to have registered to someone since 
they have a clear maintainer:
clutter documents evolution geary gegl gitg gnome-builder gnome-calendar 
gnome-games gnome-os gnome-shell gnome-software grilo gtk+ libpeas libsoup 
photos polari totem tracker

If you are maintainer of one of those and is not registered channel yet or you 
are not op, please ping me on IRC to give you op status to be able to register 
the channel.

Thanks!



Best regards,
Carlos Soriano

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Proposal: creation of IRC Operators Team
Local Time: December 12, 2016 1:21 PM
UTC Time: December 12, 2016 12:21 PM
From: a...@gnome.org
To: Carlos Soriano <csori...@protonmail.com>
foundation-list@gnome.org <foundation-list@gnome.org>


Carlos Soriano via foundation-list <foundation-list@gnome.org> wrote:


...


For that reason I proposed to Andrea Veri to give OP status on several main 
channels to some of us that are more time present in most of main IRC channels. 
I gathered some information of what channels need some established OP's and 
what people could be those OP's, effectively creating a kinda "GNOME IRC 
Operators Team".
...


Sounds good to me. Thanks for this initiative, Carlos!
Allan___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Proposal: creation of IRC Operators Team

[Carlos Soriano via foundation-list]

Hello everyone,

Recently we had to deal with spam in several main IRC channels on 
irc.gnome.org, and we realized some of those channels didn't have any OP able 
to deal with it in a timely manner.
These channels included gnome-design, gnome-hackers and evolution among others.
In this case we needed a server wide ban, and Andrea Veri responded very quick 
and in less than 5 minutes the ban was applied. However, this situation kinda 
broke the current workflow of the people on those channels, and is kinda a bad 
image users on those channels are asking for help and nobody is able to chime 
in applying a quick /kick.
Having an OP in every main channel also ensures any social problem or issue 
could be handled in a quick way and users know who to contact in case of any 
need.

For that reason I proposed to Andrea Veri to give OP status on several main 
channels to some of us that are more time present in most of main IRC channels. 
I gathered some information of what channels need some established OP's and 
what people could be those OP's, effectively creating a kinda "GNOME IRC 
Operators Team".
Here is the info I gathered (main strategic channels or channels with most 
connected users at irc.gnome.org):

Channels that already have established OP's (more or equal than 2 op's during 
weekends) and therefore don't need us to add OP's:
a11y docs gimp gnomefr gnucash mono monodev monodevelop vala

Channels that are in need of established ops (no current OP's or just 1 during 
weekends):
banshee board bugs clutter documents empathy engagement evolution foundation 
geary gegl gitg gnome gnome-builder gnome-calendar gnome-design gnome-games 
gnome-os gnome-shell gnome-software grilo gtk+ guadec i18n introspection 
libpeas libsoup nautilus opw-admin outreachy outreachy-admin photos polari 
release-team rust soc-admin totem tracker gnome-hackers fedora-desktop

And the people I though to be part of this team of OP's in those channels are 
Andre Klapper (andre), Alexandre Franke (afranke) and me, Carlos Soriano 
(csoriano).

I plan to put this information in the wiki, so users of IRC can know who to 
contact in case of any issue (for example in case some of us prefer to be on 
non-OP status for regular talking in the channel).

If you are current op or creator of those channels, what do you think of this 
idea? What do you think of the people and channel selection?



Best regards,
Carlos Soriano___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Questions for candidates

[Carlos Soriano Sanchez]

Hi Richard,

I echo what Allan said.

I remark:
I would like GNOME to positively influence other projects both
propriety and Free Software ones.
In my opinion the best way is make GNOME a good example to be,
make it reach more people, and promote GNOME as a good solution
for the users, being one of its strongest points being a free
software platform, but without restricting the users on their
software election.

Cheers,
Carlos Soriano

- Original Message -
| I'd like to ask the candidates, how do you think GNOME should
| contribute more to the advance of free software and users' freedom in
| general (in addition to being useful free software).
| 
| --
| Dr Richard Stallman
| President, Free Software Foundation
| 51 Franklin St
| Boston MA 02110
| USA
| www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
| Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
| 
| ___
| 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: Question on community to the candidates.

[Carlos Soriano Sanchez]

Hi Sri,

I think you already know my opinion on this, I completely agree with you,
and I think is a serious issue not being able to reach those hobbyist and
beginners people that can make the difference in GNOME to stay competitive or
vanish. Because now, in my vision, most of new people that wants to participate
in a community requires and wants a different set of things than 10 years ago, 
and if we don't reach those people, GNOME will remain relying on only paid 
people,
who were the brave enough at some point to not give up contributing to GNOME,
but the usage of GNOME also depends on how hobbyist are attracted to participate
and how good our community is, and we need to evolution GNOME contribution 
platform
and community to reach them.

The ideas I have in mind to improve the situation are stated in my candidacy 
email,
since as you could observe it is, and has been, a top goal for me.

Cheers,
Carlos Soriano

- Original Message -
| It is my impression (and I state impression because I am providing no
| data) that GNOME has more reliance on people paid to work on GNOME
| than community.  I do not question the passion and dedication to those
| who are paid on GNOME, I know that they would do it as a community
| even if they were not paid.
| 
| If you agree with my impression, what actions do you think would help
| increase participation in GNOME?  Participation in the core parts of
| GNOME is not trivial, and requires an enormous amount of time and
| dedication to get to become familiar with the huge codebase that we
| have, as well as gain the trust of the maintainer of the module you
| are interested in.
| 
| If you disagree with my impression, what makes you believe that it is
| not the case? How would you change my mind?  I did not bring any data
| points, so you don't have to either.  I'm more interested in giving
| you a biased opinion and I want to know how you would react to it.
| 
| sri
| ___
| 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: Question to the candidates.

[Carlos Soriano Sanchez]

Hi Erick,

This is a little difficult to answer, since is a very wide question that
resembles how can we make GNOME better? which is what all of we try
to do, and I'm not sure most part of it is directly fixable by the
board, but instead indirectly.

Said that, as we know by the nature of GNOME being open source works like
that, people works on what they want to work, on something that is fun
to work, that's why i.e. Nautilus doesn't have lot of contributors,
because it's not a fun app (for me it is fun though =D) to work with,
because is old code and it's not new.

Then on the other hand, companies pay to work on some GNOME modules, and
people work on that even if they are not fun to work with, and that
fixes part of the problem.

So now I guess the question is, what to do with those specific issues
that makes GNOME not complete and that free time contributors doesn't
work on them because it's not fun, and companies doesn't pay people to
work on them?

In my candidacy email I stated some of those ideas, the more prominent
and known is BountySource, which seems sometimes works, sometimes not
(there is a 1000$ bounty for GtkSourceView for a few years now), so that
makes me think that BountySource doesn't work for big issues.

But then I had the idea of the GNOME excellency program, inspired on
GSOC, which makes a person work on something big and that we consider
top priority, paying a little more than GSOC and selecting candidates
only if they provide a strong background to complete the task (since as
we know GSOC rate of fully completion of tasks are rather small...).

In this way we can fix specific long standing issues that could help a
lot to reach the complete desktop solution we all want.

Cheers,
Carlos Soriano

- Original Message -
| Hi:
| 
| First, thanks to all of you for running as directors.
| 
| Currently, GNOME is a strong platform for development, but it's lacking
| integration and features to be a complete, fully integrated desktop
| environment like Mac OS X, for instance. My question is:
| 
| What plans do you have to make GNOME a more complete, fully working solution
| as desktop environment.
| 
| Cheers, and good luck!
| 
| ___
| 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: code of conduct question for Board candidates

[Carlos Soriano Sanchez]

Hi Marina,

I think we all agree we want a welcome community, and that means searching for 
the commune divisor and not allowing anything outside that.
As far as I saw, all the previous answer from the candidates share the same 
opinion.

I would actually like to have a code of conduct for every part of GNOME, like 
IRC, Bugzilla, events, etc.
And I always though this one https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct is 
not enough.

But it's true that even if I take seriously any inappropriate language or 
discrimination,
I felt uncomfortable reading the code of conduct of GUADEC 2014, and I think we 
don't have to substitute law forces, because we are not.

I'm thinking something more concise and shorter than the one at GUADEC 2014, 
with a more friendly language, but expressing a strong position
and applicable to all parts of GNOME.

I have in mind something like:

---
In GNOME we want a friendly community and we require these points from every 
person involved:
- Friendly and polite language.
- No discrimination, and respect towards believes, race or gender.
- Not inappropriate jokes, images or comments.
- In doubt, be always cautious, don't assume the other person thinks like you. 
Always ask firsts.

If you think someone misbehave on the points above described or you feel 
uncomfortable for any reason, even
in something different than those points, don't hesitate to contact the GNOME 
code of conduct support team or people
in charge, we will glad to talk and help you =)

Any misbehavior could cause to take any actions from the GNOME code of conduct 
support team or the people in charge.
---

Which also includes taking actions on IRC and Bugzilla towards the people that 
insult or shows an unfriendly behavior.

I think anything else relies in the law authorities (we can't do more than just 
expel and ban the person, but some actions could require more),
and we have to delegate to them everything that surpasses those points...

A detailed code of conduct could for one part, suffer the TLDR as Alexander 
said, and on the other part, limit the actions
GNOME can take towards misbehavior that was not thought when the code of 
conduct was written.
i.e. The misbehaving person can say: It's written like this, so you can't take 
a different action than what is written.

Cheers,
Carlos Soriano

- Original Message -
| Hi,
| 
| Thanks to all the candidates for stepping up to run for the board and for all
| the work you already do for the Foundation!
| 
| Many free software organizations have adopted codes of conduct for their
| events [1] and some for their communities [2]. Detailed codes of conduct
| with specific enforcement guidelines signal to newcomers that the community
| has high standards of behavior. They give participants who observe or are
| subject to inappropriate behavior something to point to that shows that such
| behavior is outside of what is expected and guidelines on how to proceed in
| getting it addressed.
| 
| What do you think about adopting a detailed code of conduct, similar to the
| one used for GUADEC 2014 [3], for all GNOME events and creating a similarly
| detailed code of conduct for the GNOME community?
| 
| Thanks,
| Marina
| 
| [1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Adoption
| [2] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Community_anti-harassment/Adoption
| [3] https://2014.guadec.org/conduct/
| ___
| 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: Question to candidates: Best use of Trademark Fundraiser money?

[Carlos Soriano Sanchez]

Hi Andreas,

One of the things is an ED, I think everyone agrees here...

On the other hand, I have specific items in mind, but I really don't know the 
drawbacks of them, since I don't know
why we didn't do it before. So it needs discussion.

I think we have to fix the where is the money I gave to the foundation went? 
Did it achieve the goals? How does it affect me directly?

One thing that I had in mind is, show the community that their money is spend 
in something that directly affects them
(and not only long-time developers, like spending the money on GUADEC or so). I 
really think we have to show that to those people.
For example allocating some money for bountysource or so, in this way we can 
choose some bugs that we think are priority to fix,
and we can say part of your money was spend in this specific thing that will 
affect directly to you.

Another thing I had in mind is a GNOME excellency program. Read as, a GSOC 
for one person and directly paid by GNOME.
The problem with GSOC is that is only for students. And the issue with 
Outreachy is that is only for women.
So the way I imagine it is, one important specific project that people has to 
compete to be elected to do it, and we offer a little bigger amount
than GSOC to promote it. In this way we can achieve a specific goal, 
independent of the person, so here the goal is not to gain new people, but
to achieve the goal of the project.
In this way we can also say to the community part of your money was spend in a 
very great developer, to fix this long-standing
issue that directly affects you.

I think spending 10% of the money in those initiatives are not that much, and 
send a message to the community and improves the image of
GNOME towards them. But I also believe we need to have a little war chest and I 
understand big part of the money goes to hackfests, etc.

Cheers,
Carlos Soriano
- Original Message -
| Dear candidates. Thank you all for running!
| 
| As part of the GNOME Trademark Fundraiser [1], the Foundation raised
| $102 608 USD.
| Since the trademark claims from the other part in the issue was
| withdrawn, it was never taken to court and the money was never spent on
| that.
| What, in your mind, is the best use of these funds now? Kept as a War
| Chest [2] or spent on something specific?
| 
| 1. https://www.gnome.org/groupon/
| 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_chest
| - Andreas
| ___
| 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: Question for candidates: transparency and accountability

[Carlos Soriano Sanchez]

Hi Fabiana,

- Original Message -
| 
| 
| Hi everyone,
| 
| I'd like to hear your thoughts on implementing transparency and
| accountability on the Board.
| 
| How transparent the work of the Board should be to Foundation members? What

I think the transparency should be complete. Since GNOME relies on money from 
the community.

| should be communicated and when? Do you think we have been transparent
| enough in the last term? If not, how can we improve things and how high in

I think it should be communicated when something big happens (ED contracted, 
Hackfests,
programs like outreachy, etc.) and then after a fiscal year or so.

| your priorities would be to do so?

I think the last year in GUADEC GNOME showed a very detailed graphic on 
expenses, actually
it was too complex to understanding it at first in my humble opinion =)

I think a good way is a simple graphic with the income/outcome/balance and the 
important items where the outcome went and
if it accomplished the expected result.
I could understand that the income can need some privacy (companies that 
doesn't want to show its name or so?)

| 
| In terms of accountability, it's been unclear to me since joining the
| Foundation how much different Board members contribute to the Board's goals
| and tasks. Do you think the meeting notes provide enough visibility and
| context to the work being done? By the end of a term, how can the Foundation
| have a fair understanding of one's contributions to the Board?

I think this needs improvement, and I don't have a clear solution without 
putting more work on the board right now.

| 
| Thanks,
| Fabiana
| 
| ___
| foundation-list mailing list
| foundation-list@gnome.org
| https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
| 

Cheers,
Carlos Soriano
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Board of Directors Elections 2015 - Candidacy - Carlos Soriano

[Carlos Soriano Sanchez]

- Original Message -
| Hello Carlos,

Hello Sebastien

| 
| On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:13:10AM +0200, Carlos Soriano Sánchez wrote:
|  - New developers (aka newcomers): How many people do you think are
|  searching for nice projects to be involved with, live new experiences and
|  learn at the same time?
|  We need to reach those people (I was one of them), and the first step is
|  lowing the barrier to contribution and understanding of the platform. Some
|  of the most important projects I want to push here are GnomeLove initiative
|  and gnome-builder as a developer tool for Gnome.
| 
| Good initiative.

Thanks :)

| 
| But why do you need to be on the Foundation board to achieve that goal?

Not necessarily need, I'm already doing it. But being in the board you have a 
stronger voice an you can make the board take some decisions to
improve this as well.
But of course, I could just send an email to the board saying hey, can you 
take into account this?. But I think
that could apply for everything.

| 
|  - Platform reaproachment: I think the current platform around Gnome is a
|  little hidden and difficult to contributors. Initiatives like a Github
|  mirror have been taken, but they are only partly good or not enough. We
|  need to think about how to be more approachable by the people who are
|  already used to other workflows from other open source projects that are
|  using famous tools like Github for code, issues, and contribution or
|  Wikimedia for the wiki, toolkits like Node.js, etc. without giving up on
|  Gnome vision and goals.
| 
| Ditto.

Same answer as before.

| 
|  - Focus: We need to focus more and more on the important issues that can
|  make Gnome have a bigger impact. Luckily, what I saw on the last years, is
|  that Gnome is focused and we are doing well here. But I think there is room
|  for improvement, taking some decisions to encourage people to do certain
|  things or for example using more projects from outside Gnome with well
|  established maintenance and community around it.
| 
| Seems like a good job for the Engagement team.

Not all of what I have in mind, but yeah, most part could be delegated to 
teams, and hope we can help from the board as well
taking some decisions on those points.

| 
|  - Community: They want to be listen. They want communication. They want to
|  know how we take decisions. We need to improve that communication while
|  being focused and loyal to Gnome goals and vision. Example of specific
|  solutions I have in mind are:
| *Encouraging maintainers to create short blog posts communicating
|  important changes.
| 
| You can write a blog post or start a thread on the desktop-devel list to
| try to convince other maintainers.

Yep, in my previous blog post on planet Gnome I tried to do that, but hope we 
can have an agreement
on the board for a maintainer guideline recommendations for a wider approach, 
that could help us to improve this issue.

It will be more to answer maintainers questions like How should I communicate 
this? If I do this change, should I do something
to not make the community or users unhappy on the next release? It's okay 
answer an user like this?, questions that I had
myself and I failed to do them the first time, and I already received the 
backslash... so I hope that
developers take them into account to have a better experience with the 
community and avoid the bad after-feel.

| 
| *Reach an agreement and explain the way we take decisions both in the
|  projects and in the foundation.
| 
| For the Foundation, I think everything is well explained in the bylaws:
| https://www.gnome.org/foundation/governance/attachment/bylaws-2/

I was thinking on something more approachable that could answer some specific 
questions like:
- How do you decide to spend the money?
- Why you don't spend money on developers?

How the board take those kind of decisions and why.

| 
| *Reach an agreement and explain how to have a voice on Gnome decisions
|  in the projects and foundation as well.
| 
| To have a voice for the Foundation, discussions can happen on the
| foundation-list, every member can run for the elections to have a much
| stronger voice during one year. Or discuss things at conferences and
| other places (blog, IRC, …). Does it need more explanation? Or does it
| need to be changed? for example the Foundation members currently only
| vote for candidates, why not also vote for some of the decisions? Is it
| that kind of things that you would like to improve?

I discussed this in #engamement, and probably I didn't explain well here.

My intention is reach an agreement on how decisions are taken for our projects 
and what to expect
from them. A few examples: explain if the designers has a strong voice and 
maintainers are expected to take them into account, or
how we decide when there is a decision that clash between distros or with other 
DE's, explain to users how they can be part of those decisions, etc

Re: More questions for Board candidates

[Carlos Soriano Sanchez]

Hi Karen,

- Original Message -
| I have a few questions for the candidates too. I agree with what has
| been said by Jeff and Josh that it's important that people on the board
| have a diverse skillset, so I wouldn't expect all board members to
| answer yes on these, but I think it's good to know if at least a few
| people on the board have some background in these areas...
| 
| Have you ever done any fundraising?

No

| 
| Are you comfortable asking sponsors for money?

I think it would be challenging for me, given that I never did it.

| 
| Have you ever been in a manager role?

No

| 
| Do you have any experience talking to reporters?

No

| 
| Have you ever talked to a group of people about why software freedom is
| important?

Only socially, like I guess most of us sometime did :)

| 
| karen
| 
| 
| ___
| foundation-list mailing list
| foundation-list@gnome.org
| https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
| 

As you can see, I wouldn't be the best in this role on the board, although I 
like
to learn and improve my skills and I would like to try this as well.

Cheers,
Carlos Soriano
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Question to GNOME Foundation Board candidates

[Carlos Soriano Sanchez]

Hi Max,

- Original Message -
| Hello all,
| 
| First, thanks to all candidates for volunteering to the Foundation Board.
| Max come from GNOME.Asia team and thanks GNOME and board support Asia.
| 
| I have 2 questions to all candidates
| 
| 1)  How many hours per week do you expect you will be able to dedicate to
| working on the board on a regular basis?
| 

In my case I don't know how much time the board will require, and it's a little 
difficult to
say specific hours, since part of what I want to do is part of what I was 
already doing in
my free time.
On the other hand I'm flexible on time requirements, and I'm more the kind of 
person that spend
the necessary time to get the job done.

| 
| 2)  What's your plan and view with GNOME in Asia? How do you think
| about grow GNOME in Asia?( ecosystem / contribute / sponsor /
| volunteer ...  )

I think the market in Asia is the one that Linux fits more, and there Gnome can 
be the big
player to achieve the adoption by people in Asia.
Said that, it is a different culture than mine and what we need is people from 
there
to work with us to achieve more adoption. On the board side what we can do is
making sure those people are listen and we fulfill the needs of them (hackfest,
sponsorship, etc.)


Cheers,
Carlos Soriano
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Board of Directors Elections 2015 - Candidacy - Carlos Soriano

[Carlos Soriano Sánchez]

Name: Carlos Soriano Sanchez
Email: csori...@gnome.org
Affiliation: Red Hat

Hello everyone,

I would like to announce my candidacy for the Foundation Board of Directors.

I have been working on Gnome since 3 years ago, starting as a volunteer on
October of 2012 for gnome-shell and accomplishing successfully Gsoc on
gnome-shell the years 2013 and 2014, joining Red Hat as maintainer of
Nautilus after the end of the 2014 Gsoc.
I have been interested in lower the barrier for newcomers to contribute to
Gnome. In that matter I have reworked part of the GnomeLove wiki. Also I
have been always trying to help newcomers on IRC and make the Gnome
community feel a welcomed place for those people.

As myself, I'm a enthusiastic person, I do what I do because I love it. I
like teaching and helping people, and learn from them at the same time. I
try to be patient, listen and understand what every person has to say.

What can I add to Gnome from the Board?
I want Gnome to be reached by more people. And I will try from different
ways, as I tried until now:

- Community: They want to be listen. They want communication. They want to
know how we take decisions. We need to improve that communication while
being focused and loyal to Gnome goals and vision. Example of specific
solutions I have in mind are:
   *Encouraging maintainers to create short blog posts communicating
important changes.
   *Reach an agreement and explain the way we take decisions both in the
projects and in the foundation.
   *Reach an agreement and explain how to have a voice on Gnome decisions
in the projects and foundation as well.
   *Ensure we have a guideline for good behavior about taking decisions and
how to communicate them to users.

- New developers (aka newcomers): How many people do you think are
searching for nice projects to be involved with, live new experiences and
learn at the same time?
We need to reach those people (I was one of them), and the first step is
lowing the barrier to contribution and understanding of the platform. Some
of the most important projects I want to push here are GnomeLove initiative
and gnome-builder as a developer tool for Gnome.

- Platform reaproachment: I think the current platform around Gnome is a
little hidden and difficult to contributors. Initiatives like a Github
mirror have been taken, but they are only partly good or not enough. We
need to think about how to be more approachable by the people who are
already used to other workflows from other open source projects that are
using famous tools like Github for code, issues, and contribution or
Wikimedia for the wiki, toolkits like Node.js, etc. without giving up on
Gnome vision and goals.

- Focus: We need to focus more and more on the important issues that can
make Gnome have a bigger impact. Luckily, what I saw on the last years, is
that Gnome is focused and we are doing well here. But I think there is room
for improvement, taking some decisions to encourage people to do certain
things or for example using more projects from outside Gnome with well
established maintenance and community around it.

Hope you like my ideas.

Cheers,
Carlos Soriano
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list