Yes, exactly. +1
(this came in while I was drafting my "final" message on this thread)
> > o. Be pragmatic about this code:
> [snip]
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
CoC indirectly address this
'tolerance' principle.
Bill
[1] Was that a pun?
[2] Hope this discussion doesn't just reinforce all those impressions...
[3] I may have the "right" to be obnoxious, but surely those around me
have the right to tell me to go away until I can be
I think the second term in your Princeton Wordnet citation is the one we
are aiming for: e.g. "principles".
One can have principles without rules. In that respect principles are
like a practical exposition of "values". (The word "values" would lead
us into a separate quagmire, so I suggest avoid
On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 20:54, David Neary wrote:
> Hi Andrew,...
> No - the referendum last year was non-binding (as mentioned afterwards
> by Dom, I think). The board has the power to decide before the elections
> each year how many seats will be available.
Having only recently had a referendum on
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 19:25, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> Nobody will be driven away by that, people might be driven away by
> us stating that "you now are part of a community with a code of conduct".
I don't agree. Every community has a code of conduct, implied or
explicit, IMO. Anyhow, there's
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 13:48, Dave Neary wrote:
...
> I think it'd be a good idea to get a proper legal opinion on defending our
> marks, and setting up our trademark policy to be as liberal as possible
> without
> losing them.
I agree. I thought this had already happened, and the lawyers had
rep
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 13:26, Dominic Lachowicz wrote:
> On 2/27/06, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > We can't have it both ways. Either we keep the GNOME trademarks, which
> > requires us to enforce them, or we abandon them.
>
> That&
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 13:05, Luis Villa wrote:
...
> > > >
> > > we didn't sign anything, should we?
> >
> > It's a bit surprising since we have this in the trademark usage
> > guidelines: "Do not use GNOME logos unless you have explicit written
> > permission to do so."
> >
> > http://foundation.g
Claudio Saavedra wrote:
Hi,
I don't know if the Foundation is already aware of this, but please
check the logo of the following webpage:
http://www.randomimage.us/
I think that would be some kind of copyright infringment (IANAL).
I think this is a good case for why we should continue to ke
Hi Luis:
IMO there may be yet another option, i.e. the 'Debian' route, where we
have one logo package (the default?) that's not trademarked (though IMO
the 'GNOME' name should remain trademarked), and one, downloadable from
gnome.org, which is trademarked and therefore (perhaps ironically) not
James Henstridge wrote:
Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
For some reason these ballots gets marked as spam by spam-assassin on my
system. If this is the standard behaviour of spam-assassin on the ballot
mails then maybe many people miss the vote simply because they never see
the ba
Dominic Lachowicz wrote:
Well that's totally against the spirit of voting. Current counts may
change people's idea and might get them affected and they would vote
strategically instead of on their own free will.
I'm sure that a large percentage of foundation memebers voted
strategically;
Vincent Untz wrote:
[I removed all the cc]
On dim, 2005-11-27 at 13:48 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 10:48 +, Bill Haneman wrote:
Nearly - though any new acronym can obfuscate. For that reason, I'd
suggest going with "ISD", because of its si
Richard M. Stallman wrote:
Maybe we should just claim that we can't spell very well; ISV = "Third
Party Developer". A whole new kind of a10n[1]. ;-)
We can't solve the problem by denying it.
We use the term interchangably with 'third party developers', and have made
that explicit
Vincent Untz wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Le vendredi 28 octobre 2005 à 11:05 -0400, Daniel Veillard a écrit :
On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 03:38:15PM +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
On Fri, October 28, 2005 00:21, Olav Vitters wrote:
I suggest to keep the official candidates and the amount of ca
Leslie Proctor wrote:
Daniel Veillard wrote:
I remember disagreeing strongly !
As did I when this idea was brought up when I was a
board member.
As did I. This is what I meant by "inferring a consensus where none
exists" !
I'm sure you are speaking in entirely good faith Gl
Jeff Waugh wrote:
I'm saying no because in the general case, it's not basic agreement that is
the problem, it's the finality and commitment of execution that is. Even on
this particular issue, there was broad agreement among board members (in the
past) that a smaller board would be more capable
Alan Horkan wrote:...
I would think a smaller board would require *more* delegation and given
the nature of the beast the idea of breaking down tasks into smaller parts
and trying to get other to help out more seems to makes a lot of sense.
It may 'require' it[1], but it does not ensure it.
I agree with Liam. His observations
match my interpretation of my experiences on the Board.
regards
Bill
Liam R E Quin wrote:
On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 09:45 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
[...] many of us notice that the large
size of the group causes irrelevant distraction, even when urgent
The way this is currently worded makes it sound as though signing
indicates a desire to reduce the Board size. I don't think that was
what you intended, but it's kept me from signing.
Bill
David Neary wrote:
Hi,
I said:
If you would like this issue to be debated, and decided, by the
fou
Robert Love wrote:
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 16:17 +0100, Bill Haneman wrote:
The Board, of course.
To themselves? That isn't really delegation.
No, assign to themselves, and delegate to others. That includes the
formation of various action groups/committees etc. This ide
Robert Love wrote:
Who is supposed to be doing the task assignment and delegation?
The Board, of course.
Robert Love
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
IMO the main Board problems are task assignment and delegation.
Reducing the size of the Board won't directly help delegation, and
reducing the available resources by having fewer Directors will only
worsen task assignment/completion problems. I think many respondants
realize that delegation
Dave Neary wrote:
By the way, I'm having trouble taking this mail as anything other than
a personal attack... ...
Dave, for what it's worth I thought Anne raised very valid points here,
and I took the message outside of any personal context. I agree with a
lot of what Anne said (not knowi
Murray Cumming wrote:...
The fact that we are considering a referendum for this, even though it's
not strictly necessary, proves that we have difficulty reaching
consensus on stuff that can move us forward.
I disagree; this is the sort of important decision that IMO should
require a refere
Leslie Proctor wrote:
My experience is rather that all board members are
busy members of the
community, so getting people do do things is hard.
If you get 7 persons
instead of 11 you reduce also the amount of
available time from board
members. People running for the board will need more
time up
I don't think we should eliminate the enterprise or government outreach
aspects of GUADEC - think how important deployments like Extremadura
have been (or should have been). However I think we should focus that
outreach to take advantage of our strengths.
In that way, enterprises and/or gover
Žygimantas Beručka wrote:
An, 2005 09 06 14:06 +0100, Bill Haneman rašė:
The only conflict I see is the "E" of "European".
Tilt it on its side and it's fine, "W" for world.
Oh, this is a real gem. Could anyone comment on this? This touches
Quim Gil wrote:
The only conflict I see is the "E" of "European".
Tilt it on its side and it's fine, "W" for world.
I like GUADEC too, I think we risk losing some recognition/mindshare by
changing. And once you hear the name, you never forget it.
Bill
I would solve the
conflict by for
7th is GU7DEC of course (with a euro-style 'bar' in the 7)
and 8th is 8uadec
then 9uadec
10th GU0xaDEC
(as I suggested around 2001... ;-) )
or
gU+ADEC for the Asian conference since U+adec is Hangul syllable gyum
Bill
Danilo Šegan wrote:
Yesterday at 22:13, David Neary wrote:
I wou
I do agree that IMO it makes sense to license such a 'business card'
GNOME foot logo to Foundation members only, as a modest requirement and
some protection against the most egregious kinds of abuse.
- Bill
James Bowes wrote:
On Wed, 2005-16-03 at 10:33 -0500, Owen Taylor wrote:
Something we
Anne Østergaard wrote:
On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 22:40 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
ACTION: Dave to start looking for vendors to host the GNOME online shop
How did e-flow go? (Or MozSource if that's what they are now.) I asked Tim
to follow this up when I was on last year's board. They se
32 matches
Mail list logo
