GNOME.io Gitlab

[John McHugh via foundation-list]

I would like to propose that the GNOME project should use the gnome.io as
the root domain for gitlab pages. Concerns have been raised about using .io
as a root domain due to social issues with that particular tld.

The domain was donated to the foundation by park.io back in  2016 and is
not currently being used for anything.

The social issues which were raised can be understood better here

 .

Thanks for taking the time to read this,

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

Re: Question to GNOME Foundation Board candidates

[John McHugh]

I was involved somewhat with the discussions Daniel keeps referring to. The
talk of lack of GNOME applications referred to applications targeting the
gnome HIG. Nothing to do with being open or not.

Part of wanting to create something like this week in GNOME is to help draw
attention to efforts made by third parties to create applications which
target GNOME platform(including HIG), rather than a component of GNOME.

This week in rust as an example has crate of the week along with
information on new and updated crates published online. Hopefully something
similar might be achievable with Flatpaks and this week in GNOME.

The "GTK being c and ugly" and other comments mentioned here I have no idea
about. I had mentioned that the bindings for other languages haven't really
been in healthy shape for the 3.x release but that could be in my head.

Like I said previously, I don't think its constructive to label those who
offer criticism as attackers. Or to attempt to try and silence them through
trademark law.


On Wed, 25 May 2016 at 22:18 Richard Stallman  wrote:

>   > * No apps for GNOME/GTK+
>
> If that means that we don't offer a place to download nonfree
> applications, that's not a flaw, that's a moral superiority!
> It's part of respecting users' freedom.
>
> Every GNU/Linux distro offers a system for installing packages.  And,
> of course, you can install programs from elsewhere or build them from
> source.  This way is the ethical way, because it gives users control
> over what versions they run.
>
> So let's turn those attacks around!  Let's remind people that the
> distros' package systems are right way to distribute applications and
> GNOME works with those package systems.
>
> --
> 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: This week in Gnome?

[John McHugh]

This week in rust is worth looking at as well. They have a section on new
crates and project updates which could be nice to have(flatpak's maybe). in
terms of project updates there is the question of scope. Should we keep
track of elementary apps and include updates as part of the summary? I
think it might be a good idea.

On Fri, 20 May 2016 at 16:18 Sriram Ramkrishna  wrote:

> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 2:47 AM Sébastien Wilmet 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:47:16PM +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
>> > Thanks for reminding me of the old days :-)
>> >
>> > Various people did that in the past:
>> >
>> >
>> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-announce-list/1999-July/msg00021.html
>> >
>> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-announce-list/2001-April/msg00034.html
>> > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-list/2002-April/msg00068.html
>> > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-list/2004-March/msg00017.html
>> >
>> > I think that last one is the last that was sent, but not really sure.
>>
>> More recently, Frédéric Péters wrote the commit digests:
>> https://blogs.gnome.org/commitdigest/
>>
>> With statistics. I think statistics are great and is a source of
>> motivation when we are listed, and it can be automated (like sending a
>> mail to desktop-devel-list each week).
>>
>
> I'm okay with sending out metrics, but they need to have a purpose.
> Basically, what do we do with these metrics and what goal do they drive?
>
> When we did GNOME summaries, we also tried to do some interpretation and
> some observations as part of the metrics.  Otherwise, they get sent out and
> they get wholly ignored as noise.  I don't want people people taking the
> trouble information.
>
> Some things to think about.  Again, I'm happy to mentor people who are
> interested in doing this as I've been thinking about this for awhile at
> least from an onboarding perspective.
>
> sri
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Sébastien
>> ___
>> 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
>
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

This week in Gnome?

[John McHugh]

Was thinking that maybe it would be a good idea to set up a this week in
gnome blog. Also maybe try and get more downstream developers who have
attempted to target gnome to have their blogs syndicated on the planet,
engaging with developers who are targeting elementary might also be a good
idea.

There have been efforts to port applications to gnome HIG in the past which
have gone somewhat under the radar. This is quiet unfortunate. ->
https://github.com/derekstavis/transmission
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME trademark authorization

[John McHugh]

I think ebassi has approached this 'problem?' appropriately with the
introduction of twig. Attempting to find legal avenues to create a gag
order seems a bit... well.. unproductive.

On Mon, 16 May 2016 at 17:01 Josh Triplett  wrote:

> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:28:04AM -0400, Dave Neary wrote:
> > On 05/16/2016 09:41 AM, Daniel Espinosa wrote:
> > > How to avoid any organization or individual, could use GNOME trademark
> > > to promote against GNOME?
> >
> > You cannot use trademark to stop someone from calling a thing by its
> > trademarked name.
> >
> > For example, Mars cannot stop me from calling a Snickers a Snickers.
> > They can stop me calling a different peanut, nougat, caramel and
> > chocolate bar a Snickers.
> >
> > > Is the case of World of GNOME (WOGUE on G+). It recently has pushed
> > > blaming, unsupported complaints (no data about his source is based on
> > > real data from projects maintainers).
> >
> > Is the Wogue account talking about GNOME when they call it GNOME? If so,
> > there is nothing you can do using trademark.
> >
> > In terms of things which are not GNOME, you can use the GNOME trademark
> > if your usage is consistent with the GNOME trademark guidelines. (say,
> > calling a website gnome-sucks.org might be a trademark infringement,
> > since the gnome-sucks website is not GNOME, or consistent with the GNOME
> > trademark guidelines).
>
> (Disclaimer: not a lawyer, not legal advice...)
>
> While a trademark wouldn't stop using the term "GNOME" to refer to
> GNOME, a trademark is intended to prevent using the name GNOME for
> something that isn't GNOME, including naming that makes something sound
> official/affiliated.  So while it wouldn't be at all appropriate to
> prevent "World of GNOME" from using the name GNOME in its discussions of
> GNOME (no matter what they're saying), I do agree that it *might*
> potentially be appropriate to require them not to use the *name* "World
> of GNOME", or to use a domain name that includes "gnome".  Not because
> of anything they're saying (again, trademarks do not and should not
> shield against criticism), but for the same reason we might not want to
> let an unaffiliated/unofficial news site use the name "GNOME News" or
> use "gnomenews" in their domain.
>
> That said, I would suggest taking this off-list and discussing it with
> the GNOME board.
> ___
> 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: gnome.io domain donation

[John McHugh]

Let me know how it goes, he brought up with me the fact he had donated to
ember and perl foundation and he seemed to want to donate the gnome.io
domain to gnome foundation when I told him that this was my intent after
auction anyway.
My idea initially was platform could live on .io domain and foundation
could live on .org domain.
Could also be a handy domain if rethinking how the web infrastructure is
approached. .io could be for experimental future web infrastructure and
design while .org could host legacy until .io is complete and then .org
could be used for foundation.

On Mon, 2 May 2016 at 18:16 Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> wrote:

> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 04:36:46AM +0000, John McHugh wrote:
> > Was thinking of experimenting with ideas for gnome web infrastructure on
> my
> > own digital ocean instance and was looking up availability of gnome.io
> > domain with the intention of using it to test said ideas before
> > transferring it over to the gnome foundation.
> >
> > Its due to be auctioned by park.io this month. Long story short, I was
> > talking to someone from park.io and they said that they have a history
> of
> > donating domains to angularjs and perl foundation (angular.io and
> perl.io).
> >
> > He said he would be happy to donate to open source foundations if they
> want
> > it (in relation to the gnome.io domain).
> >
> > The contact from park.io was Mike Carson. Don't want to paste his email
> on
> > a public mailing list but if any foundation members would like to follow
> up
> > on it I can send it privately.
>
> If they're willing to donate the domain, rather than auctioning it off,
> that would be quite helpful.  I don't think it'd be at all appropriate
> for anyone *other* then the GNOME Foundation to hold such a domain.  The
> GNOME Foundation could either make it a redirect or use it for other
> purposes (such as the same purpose as debian.net or github.io, namely a
> home for developer subdomains for projects).
>
> I think it'd be entirely appropriate for the GNOME Foundation to receive
> this.  Someone from the Board (BCCed) would be the most appropriate
> person to either broker that or designate someone to do so.
>
> - Josh Triplett
>
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

gnome.io domain donation

[John McHugh]

Was thinking of experimenting with ideas for gnome web infrastructure on my
own digital ocean instance and was looking up availability of gnome.io
domain with the intention of using it to test said ideas before
transferring it over to the gnome foundation.

Its due to be auctioned by park.io this month. Long story short, I was
talking to someone from park.io and they said that they have a history of
donating domains to angularjs and perl foundation (angular.io and perl.io).

He said he would be happy to donate to open source foundations if they want
it (in relation to the gnome.io domain).

The contact from park.io was Mike Carson. Don't want to paste his email on
a public mailing list but if any foundation members would like to follow up
on it I can send it privately.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list