On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 07:33:07AM -0600, Stormy Peters wrote:
> Sometimes people say inappropriate things in inappropriate tones on GNOME
> forums, irc, mailing lists, blogs, etc. Right now, the community just lets
> them. We don't enforce our Standards of Conduct.
That is somewhat overstated:
1.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 06:34:47PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 00:18 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > I am not evading. Stop trying to make this personal. I don't care about
> > CoC, I don't like you're talking to me.
>
> Please. Sto
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 07:00:52AM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> I'd like to help with another path forward, namely native git
> repositories since I believe that is what most of the community wants.
> As you said, it isn't clear how it could work for non-sysadmins to
> come up with clear proposal
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 06:05:30PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:58 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:40:18PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > > Is it *really* so hard to understand that this whole git-serve is a
> > >
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 12:04:30AM +0100, Johannes Schmid wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is
> > not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of
> > gnome.
>
> I totally agree here! This is simply a problem of QA. If someo
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:40:18PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> Is it *really* so hard to understand that this whole git-serve is a
> terrible idea?
You expect me to reply to this??!?
--
Regards,
Olav
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 11:37:05PM +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> >> Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that
> >
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that
> the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's
> crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time
> *from* the sam
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 09:40:33AM -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > That isn't a contest. It is a survey.
>
> Please don't read more in to my email than I intended. There's no need
> to get defensive.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 08:10:21AM -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> > This is pretty decent analysis going on here :)
> >
> > I'd like to remind people of John Carr's recent blog post too, someone
> > mentioned in the survey results actually. JC has been working on bzr with
> > git protocol suppo
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 02:12:51PM -0500, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> With that said, Congratulations Diego!
me too
> I do have one question about the bylaws, though. I seem to recall a
> large discussion about changing the term of the directors to be 18
> months instead of 1 year. However, Sectio
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 09:21:51AM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> * Meeting w/ KDE about GUADEC/Akademy 2009 being scheduled for early
> September in Berlin.
So instead of trying to push for earlier in the year we're delaying it
even further? How will this relate to 'high season'?
Note that early Se
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 05:01:12PM +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> I remember Jeff Waugh, implementer of the policies, stating that the
> diversity of pgo is what he wants to maintain.
Small addition (quote from pgo):
"Planet GNOME is a window into the world, work and lives of GNOME
hackers and c
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 06:15:06PM +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
> Could someone with access please change pvanhoof's feed for pgo to
> http://pvanhoof.be/blog/index.php/category/prog/feed/ please?
Why? He should specifically ask for it.
I don't interpret his remark the same at all. IMO he's saying th
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 12:17:02AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> I somehow doubt that this works out. It didn't in Birmingham: some
> people went out all the time because they had no problems affording it
> in Birmingham -- Some people had to focus more on living from
> Tesco. Claiming that th
Seems that every once in a while there are people venting in a mailing
list. This is ok. However, sometimes the language used is not what I
consider appropriate for any gnome mailing list.
It doesn't occur often. Up to know I've moderated one person (IIRC) and
have banned one person from Bugzilla
[ If it is regarding some technical detail, please follow up to
gnome-infrastructure (reply-to set to that). ]
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 11:46:04PM -0700, Luis Villa wrote:
> * Accounts team
>ACTION: vincent to ask around who can extend/develop mango to
> automate accounts creation
I'd reall
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 10:49:40AM +0200, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
> Perhaps this is a issue with the GNOME website.
Long time thing to change it...
> Looking at http://www.gnome.org/contact/ it first and foremost lists IRC
> channels and later down on the page a bunch of e-mail addresses, without
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 04:33:38PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I heard that work was under way developing a free replacement for
> Talkback. I do not know where this work stands now. In any case, we
> need to be careful not to recommend the non-free Firefox binaries,
> unless both problems h
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:29:23AM -0500, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote:
> I think gnome-love and gnome-contest (or whatever) should be separate
> things. The nice thing about ghop was that it pulled in new people who
> would not otherwise have been interested, by motivating them with a
> conte
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:26:52PM +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> I think setting up a public mailing list like pgo-devel, just like most
> other GNOME projects have, could be part of the solution here. I don't
> think a public debate about pgo on our foundation mailing list is
> helping our commu
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 05:05:08PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Don't change the subject. The statement I quoted is trollish. There is
> > no need to say we are shooting at our own feet repeatedly. Especially
> > without any argument (I do not mean just text in an email). The
> > announcement was not
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 01:22:00AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 02:02:49AM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 12:44:52AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > > Don't cry about people who criticize the Foun
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 12:44:52AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> Don't cry about people who criticize the Foundation's "unconditional
> support" for OOXML, you're pointing guns at your own feet (and in fact
> just took another shot).
Nice trollish statement.
--
Regards,
Olav
__
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 04:50:32PM +0200, Lucas Rocha wrote:
> 7) New HDDs for buildbot machine
>
> The buildbot machine (build.gnome.org) had a very small HDD (32GB)
> and needed new ones. The board agreed on buying new HDDs for
> build.gnome.org as requested by Olav Vitte
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 12:07:27PM -0500, Thomas Thurman wrote:
> I did send this email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> foundation-list@gnome.org, but in a conversation a short while later I
> was convinced that I could best help the Foundation by not being on
> the BoD; I cancelled the foundation-list
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 09:36:20PM -0300, Fernando San Martín Woerner wrote:
> I have uploaded this iCal file with the 2007 Board of Directors Election
> schedule.
>
> http://traza.googlecode.com/files/elections2007.ics
Please put it on a GNOME site, see foundation-web module in
svn.gnome.org.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:17:05PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> The idea and board's decision was transcribed in board meeting minutes
> and sent to this least a few months ago. A mild discussion started and
> there was no strong opposition to the membership. I don't think just
> because a foo
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 04:42:03PM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Bringing it back to the present, there's stuff on svn.mugshot.org that
> really belongs on gnome.org, but it seems it didn't end up there. I
> don't think this was a conscious thing, but I think it probably was
> due to just enough
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 05:23:28PM -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 16:21 -0400, Claudio Saavedra wrote:
>
> > That's the way things are handled ATM. With the exception that only Jeff
> > is supposed to commit to the appropriate file (there's a README or
> > HACKING som
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 03:05:18PM -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 10:17 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
>
> Hi, Olav,
>
> > You are ignoring the central place. You need somewhere all GNOME devs
> > are able to commit. This is what is so wrong abou
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 04:42:03PM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 9/10/07, Federico Mena Quintero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Because it is no longer possible to create new SVN modules easily, as it
> > was when we used CVS. By "easily" I mean that it you want to create a
> > modu
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 08:29:35AM +0300, Kalle Vahlman wrote:
> 2007/9/8, Olav Vitters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 04:47:31PM +0300, Kalle Vahlman wrote:
> > > And this all is naturally from the developer/maintainer POV, as
> > > translato
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 04:47:31PM +0300, Kalle Vahlman wrote:
> 2007/9/8, Olav Vitters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 05:56:38AM -0400, Kevin Kubasik wrote:
> > Let's summarize it as: I don't know any D-SCM :-) (only investigate by
> > chec
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 03:23:31PM +0300, Zeeshan Ali wrote:
> Hi!
>Was hard to sleep last night after i sent my last message so i must
> clarify something before i attempt to answer anyone's reply:
>
> > You need to look at it a bit objectively. Linus says "you are stupid
> > and ugly" beca
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 12:57:26PM +0300, Kalle Vahlman wrote:
> 2007/9/8, Olav Vitters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 02:03:20AM +0300, Zeeshan Ali wrote:
> > >I searched the archive and topics of the mails i found, didn't seem
> > &g
y slower?
All the popular (in usage.. except CVS) (D-)SCM evolve. Before GNOME is
ready to switch a lot of development will have happened in the various
tools. So if Git had Windows as a priority, I'd expect Windows to be
solved soon enough.
Another point for SVN is that everything seems to inte
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 02:03:20AM +0300, Zeeshan Ali wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 9/7/07, Olav Vitters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 11:57:19AM +0300, Zeeshan Ali wrote:
> > >About the svn access, all centralized VCS's are meant fo
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 10:35:55PM -0400, Kevin Kubasik wrote:
> While I don't wish to sound trite, I do think almost everyone here
> knows what everyone else is going to say, and maybe trying to
> headstart the discussion is a bad move, and presumptuous, but allow me
> to throw out an idea.
>
> I
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 11:57:19AM +0300, Zeeshan Ali wrote:
>About the svn access, all centralized VCS's are meant for
> dictatorships. If the gnome foundation really wants to improve the
> situation, i recommend moving to git or some other non-distributed VCS
> instead of brain-dead centraliz
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:19:49PM +0200, Damien Sandras wrote:
> You probably know that I started contributing to GNOME in my spare time
> back in 2000. I have dedicated countless hours to my project,
> GnomeMeeting, now known as Ekiga. It means 7 years of development,
> exclusively done during ev
jdub isn't ok with it?
Then I won't add the component. Bugzilla is there to assist. It makes no
sense to have components/products that the maintainer doesn't look at.
This even if I think it would add transparency.
> >>--- Comment #1 from Olav Vitters 2007-08-20 21
On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 06:10:01PM -0400, Valek Filippov wrote:
> For about 8 months I'm asking to add my blog to p.g.o. with no response.
> I would like to know in which part my blog, me and/or
> http://gnome.org.ru do not satisfy with any published policy.
I suggest to use Bugzilla to keep track
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 08:13:41PM +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 15:43 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:05:59PM +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > Meanwhile, our sysadmins seem overworked, causing understandable delays
> > &g
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 05:45:56AM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > Mailing list setup is broken. Hiring someone to figure it all out might be
> > a good idea; because currently I do not setup mailing lists just because I
> > do not want to figure out how.
>
> I studied the broken setup a couple
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:05:59PM +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> Meanwhile, our sysadmins seem overworked, causing understandable delays
> for simple requests. Now seems like a good time to pay someone so that
> requests for new accounts, mailing lists, bugzilla products, etc, get
> done almost im
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:27:27PM +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 18:53 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
>
> > > I signed the code of conduct under the strict condition that there is no
> > > official enforcement of these principles, and that it should
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 05:50:53PM +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 20:04 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 19:43 +0100, Danilo Šegan wrote:
> > > Today at 18:44, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > >
> > > > But yes, I'll try the endorsement strategy if I have to.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 11:57:09PM +, Joachim Noreiko wrote:
> radically changed since. Mailing lists are strange,
> alien places to people who don't come from hacker
> culture. The same goes for IRC. When you finally
Small question: I saw one or two suggestions to force GNOME developers
to no
(made CC-list a bit smaller)
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 08:52:53PM +0200, Juha Siltala wrote:
> > - Access to the Bugzilla database
> Bugzilla is public, and I've been able to get all the data I want.
Just a warning to everyone reading this: Having public access does not
mean it is ok to write softw
(Wanted to leave this to others, but oh well)
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 05:37:29PM +, Alan Horkan wrote:
[..]
> I cannot really speak to your other requests but I'd say the only problem
> there will be finding administrators with the time and energy available to
> help you out.
>
> > - Mirrorin
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 01:41:44AM +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> Olav Vitters wrote:
> > FWIW, I did see 2 requests to rename 'Linux' on bugzilla.gnome.org
> > to GNU/Linux. My official position is 'people use that field?!?'
> > (except crazy GIMP dev
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:07:14PM -0400, Dominic Lachowicz wrote:
> You have said that the CoC "isn't and wasn't 'rules'" and claimed to
> have added this point to the Wiki page on June 2nd.[1] I don't think
> that your June 2nd change [2] actually says that "this isn't and
> wasn't rules", and wh
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 11:19:04PM +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> This is a request to the the GNOME Foundation Board for
> action/decision regarding this matter.
>
> There are some strings in some GNOME programs and very few in the
> GNOME documentaion that refer to the operating system as "Linux"
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 12:53:56AM +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> Shaun McCance wrote:
> >
> > For those curious, many of this was discussed in the thread on
> > gnome-doc-list, starting here:
> >
> > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-doc-list/2006-July/msg00200.html
>
> That's right; I gave a
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 08:54:53AM +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Every member has the right to nominate herself/himself for the elections.
> I don't think we want to change this :-)
>
> What I would love to see, though, is candidates announcing their candidacy
> sooner. It's really not good to see
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 04:09:49PM -0300, Fernando San Martín Woerner wrote:
> > Also, why do you think a board should be bigger because the community
> > becomes bigger. The board should defer most things to other groups.
>
> i guess that the point is: how we can represent more ideas or opinions
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 05:11:20PM -0300, Fernando San Martín Woerner wrote:
> El lun, 24-10-2005 a las 22:01 +0200, Olav Vitters escribió:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 09:22:17PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > On Llu, 2005-10-24 at 20:05 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > >
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 09:22:17PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Llu, 2005-10-24 at 20:05 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > I totally disagree. The referendum was created because we have board
> > members that do nothing at all. Why would you want members of the board
> > that d
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 09:50:08AM -0200, Luciana Bastos de Freitas Menezes
wrote:
> I live in the south of Brazil, and it seams contraditory while we're
> raising the number of users, contributors, to decrease the number of our
> representats in the board.
I totally disagree. The referendum was
101 - 160 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
