On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 05:02:15PM +1000, brendan edmonds wrote:
> I used the term 'open source' to refer to the following criteria of
> the definition for a project to be open source
> (http://opensource.org/docs/osd).
I approved this non-member email.
However, from http://mail.gnome.org/mailman
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 13:16 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> In short: it changes the tone for the better.
I have the opposite experience of private mailing lists.
--
murr...@murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
___
foundation-list mailing li
Richard,
I used the term 'open source' to refer to the following criteria of
the definition for a project to be open source
(http://opensource.org/docs/osd).
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
I am being discriminated against because I can not make improvements
or discuss where the p
Doesn't this undermines the values of the open source community?
To cite the "values of open source" as an ethical standard is ironic,
because the motive for open source was to avoid presenting an ethical
standard.
The founders of open source split off from the free software movement
in 1998
Hello,
I believe that we should keep the foundation-list open for anyone to
read.
As Jeff said, trollumnists do not need to play by the same rules
that we do, they do not need to stick to the facts when they do not
serve their purpose. When facts get in the way, they will just invent
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lefty wrote:
>> Given the proposition that proprietary software is "illegitimate", and
>> the statement above, do you believe that the GNOME Foundation and
>> community should distance itself from companies which produce proprietar
GNOME Foundation members and supporters,
In order to fulfill our mission of a free and open source desktop accessible
to everyone, we need to spread the word about GNOME and its benefits. We
need to be present at technical events where people are making choices about
which technologies to use as w
Hi,
Lefty wrote:
> Given the proposition that proprietary software is "illegitimate", and
> the statement above, do you believe that the GNOME Foundation and
> community should distance itself from companies which produce proprietary
> software?
>
> Specifically, should the Advisory Board be diss
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Gregory Leblanc <
headmaster.albus.dumbled...@gmail.com> wrote:
> not that closing foundation list
> would make it into a small conversation.
>
The proposal is now to create a -private list; please do not add further
confusion.
Non-free software can't even be "favorably mentioned"?
My second suggestion was to post an official GNOME response when it is
favorably mentioned. My previous suggestion was for a rule
about a much narrower case.
It seems you've grafted part of one onto part of the other, and now
you're crit
As it says in the footer of Planet GNOME:
...
*Planet GNOME automatically reposts blog entries from the GNOME community.
Entries on this page are owned by their authors. We do not edit, endorse or
vouch for the contents of individual posts."
This might be adequate for legal pu
Richard, as a GNOME member, suggested that we forbid any mention of
proprietary software on planet GNOME.
Nobody suggested that as far as I know. I certainly did not.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Murray Cumming
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
>> > This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not
>> > about keeping secrets.
>>
>> So why not just moderate the list?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> > This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not
> > about keeping secrets.
>
> So why not just moderate the list?
>
Because part of increasing signal-to-noise is giving those in a dis
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
>> This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not
>> about keeping secrets.
>
> So why not just moderate the list? In fact, I thought that
> non-foundation-members were not even allowed to
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not
> about keeping secrets.
So why not just moderate the list? In fact, I thought that
non-foundation-members were not even allowed to post here?
For instance, I don't understand why RMS's emails e
Dear GNOME/planet peeps,
I did read most (as much as my attention span allowed me) of the GNU vs
GNOME rumour/idea, and found that the news sites can easily be misled from that
discussion as I was. I thank those people (Dave) for clearing things up and
apologize for my disruption.
Now back
Hi all,
2009/12/14 Stormy Peters :
> Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
> can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
> foundation-list and the value you see in it.
>
I am not a GNOME Foundation member, but was a WSOP'06 pa
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian-devel-private
> and a kde-private. Sometimes reaching concensus requires meeting
> behind closed doors away from the noise of those who are not as
> informed or involved as others.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> Given the excellent comments so far, I'm leaning towards retracting the
> proposal. However, there's quite a few others who support it now. So I let
> it move forward naturally.
>
No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian
On 12/15/2009 08:52 AM, Og Maciel wrote:
Since there isn't a place to do this that I'm aware, here is my vote
against this petition. For the same reasons that many here have
already expressed, I want to keep GNOME open for everyone. And even
though GNOME != GNOME Foundation when it comes down to
Since there isn't a place to do this that I'm aware, here is my vote
against this petition. For the same reasons that many here have
already expressed, I want to keep GNOME open for everyone. And even
though GNOME != GNOME Foundation when it comes down to our code, GNOME
== GNOME Foundation when it
As a specific example, to the question, "Do you agree that viewing
proprietary software as 'illegitimate', 'immoral', 'antisocial' and/or
'unethical' should be a pre-condition for syndication on Planet GNOME?", so
far 151 respondents have answered "No", only 19 have answered "Yes".
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 21:05 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> >> I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make
> >> foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual
> >> Foundation
> >> members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss matters freel
In order to slow down people subscribing without reading the archives as
a quick fix I've *temporarily* changed the subscription policy to
require approval from a moderator.
This is NOT a change in policy, everyone will be approved. It is just to
avoid lots of new threads about GNU and so on (slow
Hi!
Sorry, but even the subject of the osnews article is poor
sensantion-making!
There simply never was a plan about splitting up from GNU other than
Philip has raised this as last consequence in a (quite useless,
personal, etc.) discussion with RMS. Read the whole thread (it's less
than 1000 mes
Le mardi 15 décembre 2009, à 11:57 +0330, Behnam Esfahbod ZWNJ a écrit :
> Also, is a referendum really necessary to create a new members-only
> mailing list? Noting that becoming membership and participation is
> always optional.
It's not necessary to hold a vote to create a list, but I think Be
El lun, 14-12-2009 a las 19:04 -0700, Stormy Peters escribió:
> Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members?
> If so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you
> subscribe to foundation-list and the value you see in it.
I'm not a foundation member, I
If we summarize the whole thread without the emotional heat and the
sensationalism, we are currently discussing :
- Should planet GNOME speak about GNOME only or should it be about
GNOME contributors.
side question : should we change the rules to remove old contributors ?
Which can be translated
Hi,
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> I will, except that I don't know what the process to do that is. Just
> post to f-l? How would we make a decision? Or gather 10% to put it to
> vote?
Edit the Code, if a few people complain they can remove their signatures
(and remove their blogs from PGO, if the m
Hi,
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> I watch a lot of projects. In my opinion, the projects which conduct
> their discussions in the open tend to be the most robust and the most
> successful. Those which hold their discussions behind closed doors,
> perhaps occasionally issuing a press release to tell t
El dom, 13-12-2009 a las 13:08 +0100, Peter Hjalmarsson escribió:
> For gentoo, they have two feeds: the "planet", and the "universe", where
> the planet only aggregates those blog posts that are tagged with gentoo,
> and the universe aggregates the rest.
> I cannot understand why GNOME cannot hav
Handy Gandy wrote:
> I know that I have no credibility to make such suggestions
Good of you to realise that.
That's 2 new misinformed members mailing the members list this morning.
In case people wonder where these people are coming from, we have been
slashdotted, and Varghesed, since this thr
On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote:
>
> ...I would not encourage anyone to use
> non-free software even to get money to give to a worthy cause.
I apologize to all, but given this, there's a question that _really_ has to
be asked:
Given the proposition that proprietary software is "il
Doesn't this undermines the values of the open source community? While
where at making a private list for discussions, why not make the whole
gnome project, closed source. The news we generate from such
discussions, gives the gnome project public visibility that is needed
for gnome to grow.
The re
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:04:50 -0700
Stormy Peters wrote:
> Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
> can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
> foundation-list and the value you see in it.
Technically I'm not on the list - I
It seems that a better idea is to consider the Planet not part of GNOME.
That way GNOME does not have to deal with whatever is in the planet, like
slashdot does not control and is not responsible for the messages by its
posters.
GNOME controls the official web page content. This planet is not par
Hello. Excuse me for introducing myself in such a shocking manner. Given the
circumstances though I felt it was appropriate. The recent discussions about a
vote to have Gnome pull out of Gnu are misguided in form.
In the end if Gnome were to pull out of Gnu, I feel that would be a group of
peo
Le lundi 14 décembre 2009, à 19:04 -0700, Stormy Peters a écrit :
> Also, maybe someone with list admin privileges could tell us roughly the
> number of subscribers and how many of them appear to be GNOME Foundation
> members.
We have 574 subscribers on the mailing list. However, there are quite a
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:30 +0100, Koen Martens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 07:04:50PM -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
> > Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
> > can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
> > found
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 07:04:50PM -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
> Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
> can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
> foundation-list and the value you see in it.
Speaking up.
I'm currentl
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On 12/14/2009 09:04 PM, Stormy Peters wrote:
>>
>> Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If
>> so, can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you
>> subscribe to foundation-list and the value
42 matches
Mail list logo
