Jody Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - More importantly it is already a de-facto standard by virtue of
> MS's dominant market position.
MS's next file formats might be widely used, but it's worth noting that MS
are not using the ECMA approved OOXML. They're using a slightly different
fo
> Also, looking backwards we also see that our time and issues could have
> been invested much better.
I think that's probably true, but I strongly disagree with your examples. I
also think that with such high expectations, we can beat ourselves up pretty
badly even when we do great things. What
Quim Gil wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Things I have learned during this time at the board:
>
> 1 - Voting busy candidates is risky if not counterproductive.
> 2 - Running for election when you are busy is risky if not counterproductive.
> 3 - Seven members is what you need to run efficiently a board.
> 4 -
> Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > Things change -- what was taken for granted while you were on the Board
> > may not be the case now.
>
> Way to make a guy feel like his opinion is worth something Jeff.
Huh? Of course your opinion is worth something, but the issue is not static.
> Would you mind educat
That is a stretch. It's undeniably that improvements made in MOOX
at my request will tangentially facilitate ISO acceptance.
> Thank you. If you make a public commitment to stay out of the
> activity of satisfying ISO, and to stay inactive in the committee
> while its focus
> OOXML will be a de facto standard entirely due to Microsoft's dominant
> position in the computing industry... the fight is about preventing it to
be
> a formal standard.
I remain open to being convinced (1) that that distinction matters and
(2) that anyone actually thinks G
Hi,
Jeff Waugh wrote:
> Things change -- what was taken for granted while you were on the Board may
> not be the case now.
Way to make a guy feel like his opinion is worth something Jeff.
Would you mind educating me on what's changed, please? Perhaps as a
foundation member who put a lot of time
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:19:23AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > Option 3 is useful only if we can veto (or organize a veto, or a stall) of
> > the OOXML progress toward being a standard. The current participation is
> > not of that manner.
>
> I have a significant problem with the ethics of th
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 08:31:20AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > Spreadsheets are probably much easier to support, since they have a much
> > more structured data (fixed table spaces, namely).
>
> Spoken like a non-spreadsheet user. My experience suggests exactly
> the opposite. Users are a lo
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 09:32:52AM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not.
> To pretend otherwise is to deny that the sun will rise in the East
> tomorrow.
I'm not so sure...
http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype%3Aodt => almost 100.000 hit
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 04:48:29PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > The membership can still push for a change from "not supporting" to
> > "actively opposing" given the debate now is more active.
>
> What does 'actively oppose' mean in concrete terms ?
> - Asking frivolous quest
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 11:58:34PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> However, the rest of the situations are not analogous. The ECMA
> committee has explicitly undertaken to make OOXML an ISO standard. If
> Gnumeric had explicitly undertaken to facilitate the sale of addictive
> drugs, that wou
Hi,
Things I have learned during this time at the board:
1 - Voting busy candidates is risky if not counterproductive.
2 - Running for election when you are busy is risky if not counterproductive.
3 - Seven members is what you need to run efficiently a board.
4 - Even a board of busy members can
> The membership can still push for a change from "not supporting" to
> "actively opposing" given the debate now is more active.
What does 'actively oppose' mean in concrete terms ?
- Asking frivolous questions ?
- Writing bad documentation ?
- Starting flame wars on the ma
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 04:54:22PM +0100, Keld J?rn Simonsen wrote:
>
> > OASIS = Organisation for the Advancement of Structured Information
> > Standards
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/home/index.php
> > Yet another umbrella organisation.
>
> I was not aware that it is an umbrella orga
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 10:01:04PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 11:53:15PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > |
>
> ECMA = European Computer Manufacturers Association
> http://www.ecma-international.org
> An umbrella organisation for creating standards.
The name is n
Le dimanche 04 novembre 2007 à 01:27 +1100, Jeff Waugh a écrit :
> I suggest you
> take a gander at the Code of Conduct, and figure a more constructive
> way to contribute to the community.
Wow .. implying Alan Cox isn't a "good" contributor to the community
sounds weird.
___
> I pointed out behaviour that I thought was inappropriate and unproductive.
So did I ...
> I suggest you take a gander at the Code of Conduct
So do I ...
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinf
> As for "trashing you", it seems any comment about the boards actions or
> activities that is the slighest bit negative or in disagreement with
> yourself you take as a personal insult and follow up in flowery language
> attempting to supress the dissent by acting hurt.
I pointed out behaviour
> will believe it. Not a great way to encourage respectful discussion on this
> list,
Nor is putting in strange references to ultimatums off private lists.
That makes it very hard to follow, so thanks for explaining where it came
from.
As for "trashing you", it seems any comment about the boards
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 11:58:23PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> You said:
>
> > OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not.
>
> "The" defacto standard implies there is only one, and the sentence
> says it is not ODF.
That is a very good point Richard. I agre
> If that is the case, anyone who is represented on the ECMA committee
> is helping to promote the ISO acceptance of OOXML
The latter does not necessarily follow from the former. Intentions
do matter.
Intentions do matter, especially in influencing others. But if you
don't state
You said:
> OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not.
"The" defacto standard implies there is only one, and the sentence
says it is not ODF.
It is only by forcing that dichotomy that we set
ourselves up for problems when MS eventually gets OOX through
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 11:53:15PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> |
> | ACTION: Behdad to contact Jody about the ECMA membership application and
> | find a good candidate from Abiword to attend. Behdad to work on getting
> | a press release for our membership.
>
> >From above, I don't see how the c
> > So, yes, I totally understand your position, but I think that falling
> > back on unsympathetic, dramatic criticism of the Board and ultimatums is
> > not a productive way of fixing the problem.
>
> "unsympathetic, dramatic criticism" would be "telling it as it is" "of the
> Board" would be
> So, yes, I totally understand your position, but I think that falling back
> on unsympathetic, dramatic criticism of the Board and ultimatums is not a
> productive way of fixing the problem.
"unsympathetic, dramatic criticism" would be "telling it as it is"
"of the Board" would be "blaming Jeff"
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:52:51PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> > > It is not the membership that is really detrimental, although you can
> > > bet Microsoft is spinning around that "open source likes OOXML" thanks
> > > to that.
> > People can spin things however they'd like. I'll i
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 02:04:14PM -0700, Andy Tai wrote:
> On 10/31/07, Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 11:41 -0700, Andy Tai wrote:
> > > What was done is done. For the future...
> >
> > The idea and board's decision was transcribed in board meeting minute
> I volunteered to take leadership on this position months ago.
We chose to have a Board member as liaison to the Legal team, which was very
clearly delegated the responsibility to provide legal support and advice to
the Foundation. This is the same model as other teams, but as the legal team
is
On 10/31/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > I'm hesitant to declare it a failure until I see more evidence that
> > delegation has been tried and failed. For example, I could do this sort of
> > thing without being on the board at all- no need to appoint me to the
> > board. But fra
On 11/1/07, Andy Tai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OOXML will be a de facto standard entirely due to Microsoft's dominant
> position in the computing industry... the fight is about preventing it to be
> a formal standard.
I remain open to being convinced (1) that that distinction matters and
(2) th
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:08:30PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Here's something IBM's Rob Weir said about what ECMA is doing now:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The practical difficulty here is that of timing. While I have no doubt
> that Jody was instrumental in getting additional technic
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:32:23AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I think that The GNOME participating in OOXML lends it a credibility
> > it does not deserve. Joining ECMA TC45 would be like joining of the
> > political party you dislike the most to improve their politics.
>
>
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 07:58:22PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> Microsoft's goal is, by one means or another, to defeat free software
> which it now considers a serious threat. Whatever they do, it will not
> be a sincere standardization effort that offers no obstacle to free
> software imp
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:08:00PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not.
> To pretend otherwise is to deny that the sun will rise in the East
> tomorrow.
>
> Please don't be defeatist!
>
> We can and should try to make fr
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 11:11:07AM -0700, Andy Tai wrote:
> OOXML will be a de facto standard entirely due to Microsoft's dominant
> position in the computing industry... the fight is about preventing it to be
> a formal standard.
>
> We cannot prevent the former. We can prevent the later. A mor
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 09:32:52AM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
>
> 3) acknowledge it and at least attempt to make it suck less for
> reimplementers, but use our presence there to highlight Microsoft's
> abusive, convicted monopolistic tendencies.
+1 vote for Luis as word smith par excellance.
Not o
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 01:33:25PM -0700, Andy Tai wrote:
> you don't join ECMA TC45 to prevent OOXML from becoming a standard.
- I fail to see how we have the power to materially manipulate the ISO process.
- It is already an ECMA standard.
- More importantly it is already a de-facto standard by
Here's something IBM's Rob Weir said about what ECMA is doing now:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The practical difficulty here is that of timing. While I have no doubt
that Jody was instrumental in getting additional technical disclosures
from Microsoft back in 2006, Ecma TC45 is not in that mo
OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not.
To pretend otherwise is to deny that the sun will rise in the East
tomorrow.
Please don't be defeatist!
We can and should try to make free software read OOXML, because that will be
a useful feature -- but that doesn'
> Microsoft's goal is, by one means or another, to defeat free software
> which it now considers a serious threat. Whatever they do, it will not
> be a sincere standardization effort that offers no obstacle to free
> software implementions.
This is just your opinion, Richard.
OOXML will be a de facto standard entirely due to Microsoft's dominant
position in the computing industry... the fight is about preventing it to be
a formal standard.
We cannot prevent the former. We can prevent the later. A more activist
opposition to OOXML is called for.
Option 3 is useful on
> Competing is a good thing, and in my opinion it's good that Microsoft
> competes with us. This keeps us sharp and focused.
If you were sharp and focussed nobody would have joined anything in a way
Microsoft could twist.
>
> Competition has never been a bad thing for mankind. In fact has it been
On 10/31/07, Andy Tai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not quiet... you don't join ECMA TC45 to prevent OOXML from becoming a
> standard.
OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not.
To pretend otherwise is to deny that the sun will rise in the East
tomorrow.
So our options ca
Not quiet... you don't join ECMA TC45 to prevent OOXML from becoming a
standard.
On 10/31/07, Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 10:19 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> >
> > I think that The GNOME participating in OOXML lends it a credibility
> > it does not deserv
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 19:58 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Are you seriously suggesting that it's in the best interests of our
> users, of GNUmeric users and Abiword users, not to be able to open OOXML
> files? I disagree with your statement that most in the community want
> the stan
> I think that The GNOME participating in OOXML lends it a credibility
> it does not deserve. Joining ECMA TC45 would be like joining of the
> political party you dislike the most to improve their politics.
It's like starting a competing political party and going to the same
la
Are you seriously suggesting that it's in the best interests of our
users, of GNUmeric users and Abiword users, not to be able to open OOXML
files? I disagree with your statement that most in the community want
the standardisation process to fail - I would suggest that most want the
We'll be making a statement about the issue soon. Don't expect it to please
everyone.
I hope it will displease those that seek to cite the GNOME Foundation
to advocate greater use of OOXML.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.
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 10/31/07, Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 11:41 -0700, Andy Tai wrote:
> > What was done is done. For the future...
>
> The idea and board's decision was transcribed in board meeting minutes
> and sent to this least a few months ago. A mild discussion starte
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 03:06:42PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:30:43AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:56:31PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 02:55:07PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > > > On Tue,
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:14:11PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 08:30 +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >
> > Nonsese, says you. I had direct access to Microsoft representatives as
> > well, and even a Microsoft expert. Microsoft decided to spend their
> > money and
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:18:38PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 10:19 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> >
> > I think that The GNOME participating in OOXML lends it a credibility
> > it does not deserve. Joining ECMA TC45 would be like joining of the
> > political party you
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 10:19 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
>
> I think that The GNOME participating in OOXML lends it a credibility
> it does not deserve. Joining ECMA TC45 would be like joining of the
> political party you dislike the most to improve their politics.
To me, it's more like going to
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 11:41 -0700, Andy Tai wrote:
> What was done is done. For the future the board should really consider
> not sponsoring anyone to work on the OOXML format (and withdraw
> existing involvement on the behalf of the GNOME Foundation), as many
> people in the free software/FOSS com
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 08:30 +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> Nonsese, says you. I had direct access to Microsoft representatives as
> well, and even a Microsoft expert. Microsoft decided to spend their
> money and time for two and half weeks calling me a liar, on blogs and
> even on a new
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 10:19:07AM +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> On 10/31/07, Jody Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nonsense. When GNOME joined ECMA I made an open request for other
> > members to join the TCs of interest. You could easily have
> > contacted me and had direct access to t
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:30:43AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:56:31PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 02:55:07PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:00:58AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > > > 2) OOX
> For the future the board should really consider not sponsoring anyone to
> work on the OOXML format
No one was sponsored to work on the OOXML format.
> (and withdraw existing involvement on the behalf of the GNOME Foundation),
> as many people in the free software/FOSS community are working h
What was done is done. For the future the board should really consider not
sponsoring anyone to work on the OOXML format (and withdraw existing
involvement on the behalf of the GNOME Foundation), as many people in the
free software/FOSS community are working hard to try to prevent the OOXML
from be
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 11:02:46AM -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
>
> If I recall correctly, now that Gnome is a member organization
> of the ECMA, we can put people on committees without paying any
> more for each person.
>
> Jody is absolutely qualified to take part in discussions about
> the OOXM
If that had been possible I would have done it that way, and avoided
the political fallout for GNOME. Unfortunately, there is no
provision for individual members of ECMA.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:12:26PM -0700, Andy Tai wrote:
> Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and tot
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 15:15 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> What we've shown is not having a full-time director has been a mistake,
> and I would urge the next board to invest financially in the hiring of
> someone.
Perhaps you could sweet talk some corporation to lend/sponsor some
desirable person to
> What we've shown is not having a full-time director has been a mistake
It has actually been a very helpful learning experience -- understanding
what the purpose of that role should be, by grokking the gaps. It's less
obvious what that role ought to be now that we're so far away from the
"Execu
> > On 6/10/07, Jody Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > As a non-profit we (GNOME) would not have voting privileges.
> > > The membership will serve as a mechanism to allow interested
> > > foundation members to join ECMA committees. I'm advocating this in
> > > relation to ECMA376/TC
Hi,
Jeff Waugh wrote:
> A related issue: I think we've pretty much shown that the seven person Board
> thing is a bit of a failure. Even if you're not elected or didn't run, we
> could appoint you to the Board for this function. :-) We ought to consider
> adding a couple of people to the Board.
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 10:19 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> Are you also Novell's representative on TC 45 if I may ask?
Jody no longer works for Novell. Novell has its own representative on
TC-45.
Hub
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@
> I'm hesitant to declare it a failure until I see more evidence that
> delegation has been tried and failed. For example, I could do this sort of
> thing without being on the board at all- no need to appoint me to the
> board. But frankly I have not felt like my attempts to help out have been
>
> Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and totally
> separated from, and have nothing to do with, GNOME.
His involvement is facilitated by our membership of ECMA. We were entirely
willing to do so.
- Jeff
--
GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/
Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and totally
separated from, and have nothing to do with, GNOME.
On 10/30/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > the GNOME Foundation should make a statement opposing the acceptance of
> > OOXML and explaining the reason for p
On 10/31/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > I am frustrated, and so I will be running for the board again.
> >
> > If elected, my almost-exclusive focus will be handling legal and
> > secretarial issues for the board. So I can't guarantee that my being on
> > the board would necessa
> I am frustrated, and so I will be running for the board again.
>
> If elected, my almost-exclusive focus will be handling legal and
> secretarial issues for the board. So I can't guarantee that my being on
> the board would necessarily have prevented this particular problem, but
> I'd like to
On 10/30/07, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I look forward to further aggravated public shaming of past incompetencies,
> > especially ones so obvious in hindsight, as it always improves motivation
>
> So you can do PR some of the time then Jeff
>
> "aggravated public shaming of past incom
Hi Bjorn,
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> On 10/31/07, Jody Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It is uncomfortable acting as a representative of the foundation in
>> a role that many members do not agree should exist. My private
>> preferences should not negatively impact the foundation, or go
>> a
On 10/31/07, Jody Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nonsense. When GNOME joined ECMA I made an open request for other
> members to join the TCs of interest. You could easily have
> contacted me and had direct access to the MS reps. With the
> capability to open issues and suggestions on how
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:56:31PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 02:55:07PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:00:58AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > > 2) OOX is a file format that is in use, and we will have to interact
> > >with it.
> Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and totally
> separated from, and have nothing to do with, GNOME.
That would be challenging, given ECMA's participation model. Besides, what
is wrong with the GNOME Foundation supporting Jody's participation in a
standards body? He's d
Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and totally
separated from, and have nothing to do with, GNOME.
On 10/30/07, Jeff Waugh < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > the GNOME Foundation should make a statement opposing the acceptance of
> > OOXML and explaining the reason for
> the GNOME Foundation should make a statement opposing the acceptance of
> OOXML and explaining the reason for participating in ECMA.
We'll be making a statement about the issue soon. Don't expect it to please
everyone.
- Jeff
--
GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org
Although I disagree with the tone and content of your email, an
announcement is pending about a related issue, which may address
concerns (legitimate or not) raised about GNOME's involvement in
TC45-M. Participation in the TC45-M process does not imply
approval or support for IS
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 02:55:07PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:00:58AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > 2) OOX is a file format that is in use, and we will have to interact
> >with it. The opportunity to improve the spec and have MS answer
> >questions
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:00:58AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> 2) OOX is a file format that is in use, and we will have to interact
>with it. The opportunity to improve the spec and have MS answer
>questions and clarify necessary details should not be wasted.
Microsoft has done it's ver
On 10/30/07, Jody Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This flaming was completely and utterly predictable. I'm disappointed
> > that the board took the time to approve an action that obviously
> > exposed GNOME to PR problems without taking the (very obvious) PR
> > steps to reduce that impact.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 12:15:44AM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> On 10/29/07, Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > So, uh... this apparently didn't happen, and now we're getting flamed
> > > (rightfully) for appearing to give a stamp of approval to a deeply
> > > flawed standard.
Flawe
> I have another word for that newspeak ... "Accountability"
It's entirely possible to be held accountable without being unduly slapped
around, particularly by otherwise upstanding members of the community, who
ought to know better.
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiaht
> I look forward to further aggravated public shaming of past incompetencies,
> especially ones so obvious in hindsight, as it always improves motivation
So you can do PR some of the time then Jeff
"aggravated public shaming of past incompetencies"
I have another word for that newspeak ...
"Acc
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 11:46:47PM -0400, Corey Burger wrote:
> Wait a sec. The simple matter is that we are getting hammered for
> something that isn't even true. How is the board fixing that?
Apparently, it *is* true, but a PR as proposed didn't end up being
published.
It's a pity because unint
> This flaming was completely and utterly predictable. I'm disappointed that
> the board took the time to approve an action that obviously exposed GNOME
> to PR problems without taking the (very obvious) PR steps to reduce that
> impact.
Based on the genesis of the "open letter", it is hard to b
On 10/29/07, Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, uh... this apparently didn't happen, and now we're getting flamed
> > (rightfully) for appearing to give a stamp of approval to a deeply
> > flawed standard. So... when is the board making this happen?
>
> Right. I should be blamed f
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 23:06 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> On 6/10/07, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 6/10/07, Jody Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 08:18:54PM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > > On 6/10/07, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > 1
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 23:46 -0400, Corey Burger wrote:
> On 10/29/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > So, uh... this apparently didn't happen, and now we're getting flamed
> > > (rightfully) for appearing to give a stamp of approval to a deeply flawed
> > > standard. So... when
On 10/29/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > So, uh... this apparently didn't happen, and now we're getting flamed
> > (rightfully) for appearing to give a stamp of approval to a deeply flawed
> > standard. So... when is the board making this happen?
>
> Although I disagree with the
> So, uh... this apparently didn't happen, and now we're getting flamed
> (rightfully) for appearing to give a stamp of approval to a deeply flawed
> standard. So... when is the board making this happen?
Although I disagree with the tone and content of your email, an announcement
is pending abou
On 6/10/07, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/10/07, Jody Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 08:18:54PM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > On 6/10/07, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > 1) ECMA
> > > >
> > > >We have the opportunity of joining EC
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 00:16 -0400, Claudio Saavedra wrote:
>
> So, why not giving a lift to GUADEMY and making of it an instance for
> KDE and GNOME hackers to get together once a year?
Because it's already too hard and too expensive to get to one European
event for many of us?
Sure for those w
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 19:02 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> FWIW...
>
> On 6/13/07, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Paul Cooper wrote:
> > > * People aren't exactly falling over themselves to host and organise
> > > these things
> >
> > Agree - while we constantly pitch that org
On 6/18/07, Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > KDE. When both sides mentioned that the logistics of such an event
> > seemed quite difficult, someone pointed out that helping with this
> > kind of collaboration is one of the reasons for the existence of the
> > Linux Foundation. So, t
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 19:02 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
>
> This combined conference topic was brought up at DAM-4 last week in
> the Desktop Organization Panel session with jrb and I in the panel
> from GNOME and Lars and George (don't remember the last names) from
Lars Knoll.
> KDE. When bot
FWIW...
On 6/13/07, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Paul Cooper wrote:
> > * People aren't exactly falling over themselves to host and organise these
> > things
>
> Agree - while we constantly pitch that organizing GUADEC can be an amazingly
> rewarding experience, the stress that w
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo