2010/2/25 Stormy Peters :
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Juanjo Marin
> wrote:
>>
>> This thread is about how can we set a strategic roadmap. It is more
>> about innovation vs stability. We are doing pretty well on the stability
>> side with our six-months cycle schedule. We are even addi
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
[...]
> I'm surprised that a suggestion that a specific site be singled out by GNOME
> for extra-special treatment, including warning messages, based on what
> amounts to unsourced gossip, is being treated with even a moment's serious
> consider
2010/3/3 Andrew Cowie :
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:09 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
>> Like I say, I'm not
>> happy with the "vision" part of this (GNOME everywhere, and invisible)
>
> I'm not happy with the invisible part either.
>
> We *do* compete with three other desktops: Windows, Mac OS, and KDE.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Baptiste Mille-Mathias
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've seen the foundation will organize a contest to design a tee-shirt
> for the GNOME 3 release [1], and while reading the terms of the rules
> [2], I found the first part of paragraph 4 particularly unfair to
> people li
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Andre Klapper wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 14:25 -0400, Liam R E Quin wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 09:21 -0400, Allan Day wrote:
>> > It would be great to be able to run something like Bip [1] for GNOME IRC.
>>
>> Note, it's of course NOT OK to publish public
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Andrea Veri wrote:
> 2012/10/15 Bastien Nocera :
>> On Sun, 2012-10-14 at 15:45 +0200, Andrea Veri wrote:
>>> I see many people have expressed their consensus in this, thus I'll
>>> defer the decision to the Board. Thanks to anyone sending a mail about
>>> this con
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Andrea Veri wrote:
> 2012/10/15 Emmanuele Bassi :
>> hi;
>>
>> On 15 October 2012 11:32, Andrea Veri wrote:
>>> 2012/10/15 Emmanuele Bassi :
>>>
have we had any indication that being on irc.gnome.org is in any way,
shape, or form preventing people from c
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Andrea Veri wrote:
> 2012/10/15 Tristan Van Berkom :
>
>> Again, how do you expect to achieve this hypothetical migration ?
>>
>> You will post a memo and people will just happily follow the
>> foundation's decree ?
>>
&
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Sebastian Keller
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I have seen people on #gnome on freenode asking for the official
>> channels of gnome components, but those were very very few and almost
>> all of them were ask
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote:
> The wrong idea of course is that people think we're just removing features
> for no apparent reason even though for instance fallback mode was never
> guarantee. We need to correct those misconceptions.
Are you saying that a fallback mo
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi,
>
> According to the calendar, with the upcoming 3.8 release, we will soon be in
> feature proposal again.
For what it's worth, "Feature Proposals" in the open doesn't really work as
a concept.
GNOME is comprised of hundreds of modules, mu
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:21 AM, James wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Karen Sandler wrote:
>> On Fri, April 26, 2013 4:51 am, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
>>> I'd love to visit Portland!
>>>
>>> However we might want to take into account that doing it in the west
>>> coast will have an impact o
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Sumana Harihareswara
wrote:
> On 05/10/2013 10:17 AM, Rui Tiago Cação Matos wrote:
>> Seriously, can everyone relax and not take every little detail so
>> seriously? I'm all for advertising irc.gnome.org in our websites etc.
>> But there's really no need to take d
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-05-11 at 01:27 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
>
>> Would you like to join a community where everything you say is
>> under strict scrutiny ? where you cannot freely express yourself
>> in your blog with
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Hashem Nasarat wrote:
> On 05/10/2013 12:27 PM, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
>> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Sumana Harihareswara
>> wrote:
>>> On 05/10/2013 10:17 AM, Rui Tiago Cação Matos wrote:
>>>> Seriously, can ever
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:47 AM, Michael Hill wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
>
>> People have common sense, they know that since we are at the zoo,
>> there actually are monkeys to go see.
>
> Tristan, your analogy should have be
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Germán Póo-Caamaño wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-27 at 14:47 -0700, Germán Póo-Caamaño wrote:
>> The GNOME Foundation provides travel sponsorships to individuals
>> that want to attend GUADEC and need financial assistance.
>>
>> We are happy to announce that the Travel
Changing topic as this thread has branched in many directions (as others
later in this thread pointed out).
On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 15:16 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 13:58 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 09:51:15AM +0100, Ekaterina Gerasimova wrote
On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 21:15 +, Magdalen Berns wrote:
[...]
> Further to that, on looking at some of the recent membership data
> gathered so far with specific regard to the interns, I have to say, it
> does seem like a few interns have been significantly undervaluing
> their own contributions
On Fri, 2017-09-29 at 11:51 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There are a number of GNOME or GNOME-related project fundraisings:
>
> For GIMP:
> https://www.gimp.org/donating/
> https://www.patreon.com/pippin
> http://film.zemarmot.net/en/
>
> PulseAudio: https://www.pat
Hi all; I'll put a word in,
I've been thoroughly reading these threads on foundation-list
and have to admit that voting on this weighs on me as a heavy
responsability, that being said I will try to do my best.
While for the most part I've had to agree with Anne where she says:
"Reducing
Jeff Waugh wrote:
I think that we need energetic people who are really up to the task
of innovating the future of GNOME;
That is not what the board - or even the foundation - is for! Innovating the
future of GNOME is a *COMMUNITY* responsibility, not an organisational one.
My fear is th
Andrew Sobala wrote:
[...]
Is it? What are we actually talking about?
The original referenced e-mail
(http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2005-November/msg00177.html)
is a technical opinion on how to make open standards as useful as
possible in providing cross-platform/cross-deskto
Baris Cicek wrote:
I wanted to put my 2 cents on this women involvement issue.
Me too :)
Actually women in proprietary software market have a good motivation
like earning money from what they do. But in free software world, they
hardly have this motivation, and most of time it's volunteer wor
I think one of the things I like most about GNOME, is its anarchistic
democratic nature, this is a true example of how people get along
in real life, if alot of good-natured people with productive intents
gather together and form a society, GNOME is an example of how things
would work out.
Su
Murray Cumming wrote:
[...]
The current hackers appear to be at least somewhat content with the
current atmosphere. If we change it too drastically, we run the risk of
pushing existing hackers away, or failing to attract new (western/male)
ones. And I still haven't seen anything to make me believ
Richard Stallman wrote:
So I would definitely agree that given an idea of contributing (code),
women will easily ask who will pay for it where men might not. Maybe
they consider open source more as "working" than as a hobby or a way
social networking or even as a way to educate on
Telsa Gwynne wrote:
> Ar Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 11:57:10AM +0200, ysgrifennodd Philip Van Hoof:
>
>>On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 11:38 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
>>
>>>The idea is to state what we consider acceptable behaviour, in order to
>>>advertize to newcomers what they can expect when getting invol
Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 20:11 +0200, Anne Østergaard wrote:
>
>>I think that we have most people with us now
>
>
> How do you know? _I_ may think that most people who are opposed to this
> additional legislation do not dare to speak up anymore.
Keeping in mind that thi
Jeff Waugh wrote:
[...]
> As an aside, it was never intended to be "legislation" or "rules", and every
> time it's painted as such, it says more about the poster's attitude than the
> CoC's intent (not that you have done so in this mail, but others have done
> so recently on the list).
Very intere
Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
>On Thu, 2006-03-08 at 00:22 +0100, Bill Haneman wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>Principles are rules. Check Worldnet for
Joachim Noreiko wrote:
>>for the advance of computer users' freedom.
>>
>>
>
>What freedoms exactly?
>
>The computer users I know can't code. What are they
>going to with the source code they have the freedom to
>modify?
>And free as in beer makes no difference to them: they
>either got their
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 12:18 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote:
> I saved logs of both the meetings.
>
> http://www.gnome.org/~shaunm/070227-soc.txt
> http://www.gnome.org/~shaunm/070306-soc.txt
>
Embarrassing as it sounds, I have to admit that when I volunteered
to be on the selection committee I was u
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 01:35 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > That said if there is any proposal for Canada (Montreal is IMHO a better
> > choice than Ottawa), count me in :-)
>
> Where necessary, and in this case I think it is, we should be very clear
> about GNOME's geopolitical view of the wor
On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 21:45 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
[...]
> In either of the cases above, we have to make Gnome so good, so
> compelling, that people wouldn't want to use anything else. In the
> first case they would say, "not powered by Gnome? I'm not using it,
> then". In the seco
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 09:13 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > We have no editorial control. Get over it :)
>
> We absolutely *do* have editorial control at the moment. The challenge I
> have at the moment is to continue that, while improving what people see to
> be the drawbacks of the current p
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 01:14 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
[...]
> Just so everyone knows: That is *extremely* unlikely to happen. There has
> been significant support for the editorial stewardship of Planet GNOME for
> ages now. When I last considered making it a free-for-all, there was a *LOT*
> of pus
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 17:56 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
[...]
> Planet GNOME without a strong editorial control would probably suck.
> Just like maintainers vouch and check patches in each of their modules,
> we need to have some control on blogs getting added to planet. And
> that's Jeff's module
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 17:33 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 12:21 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> >
> > Well, gnome is people that have a choice to contribute or not - making
> > those people (i.e. you me and everyone else) feel accepted and import
On Nov 6, 2007 7:26 PM, Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/6/07, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I guess it's no surprise that money and free/open software have a
> > delicate relationship...
>
> I have been putting it in this way:
>
> The connection between free
On Nov 8, 2007 12:07 PM, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Posting 'a beer at
> > next Guadec for whoever fixes bug #7' is informal enough that I think
> > we avoid the main issue which is the alienation of volunteers,
> > however, it doesn't really address the big issue whic
On Nov 6, 2007 7:26 PM, Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/6/07, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I guess it's no surprise that money and free/open software have a
> > delicate relationship...
>
> I have been putting it in this way:
>
> The connection between free
Hi,
We've been talking about relicensing Glade 3 under LGPL for
a few years now (other primary contributors and myself), and I'm
about to try and bite the bullet and take the plunge.
I have a vague idea about what things must be done and steps that must be
taken for this to happen, i.e. c
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> You need to:
> 1. Make a list of each author of Glade
> 2. Contact each of them, requesting permission to relicence Glade
> 3a. When all of them have sent you a written note (email is OK) then you
> can go ahead.
> 3b. I
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do you want to relicense Glade under the GNU Lesser GPL?
> The current license, the GNU GPL, seems more appropriate since
> it prevents the release of non-free extensions of Glade.
Hi,
Basically, the glade co
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> As free software developers we naturally feel good to see our own
> programs in wider use. But what is really important is for free
> software to replace proprietary software. We can achieve more for
> freedom
(apperently my other email just now missed the list due to mailing from my
ordinary email address, here it is...)
Hi Guys,
Theres obviously been some scrutiny concerning our decision to finally
relicense Glade or primarily, libgladeui - so I will try to do my best
to address your concerns and th
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linus decided that Bitkeeper was fine for his needs, and started using
> it and publishing his repository in a public Bitkeeper repository.
> Bitkeeper guy (Larry McVoy) gave free copies of the client to free
> software develop
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Hubert Figuiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Seriously, that even more reason for hoping the relicensing of
> libgladeui as LGPL does not happen. Basically, what you are proposing,
> is that Glade be licensed in a way that it would favor fragmenting GNOME
> wh
2009/5/29 Stormy Peters :
> So I'm hearing Dave say we need more policing and Philip saying everything
> is ok. What do others think?
>
Well, if anyone wants some perspective, its not like we havent been
through all this before:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-May/thread.htm
2009/5/30 Stormy Peters :
> So my "freedom of speech" comment was not well written.
>
> I do think anyone has the right to say what they want, but if they want to
> be heard they have to think about their tone. (I was trying to explain why
> someone might want to moderate their tone even if they th
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
[...]
>
> We are trying to fix a non-existing problem.
>
I dont know about the rest of you but for me this is a
touchy emotional subject, its really painful, and we all
did go through it before, it died with this Code of Conduct
publication
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 12:13 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Philip Van Hoof
>> wrote:
>> I (fully) agree with John here.
>>
>> The lawyer-talk proposal of Jason is a no for me personally.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Le vendredi 12 février 2010, à 13:43 +0100, Philip Van Hoof a écrit :
>> On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 13:37 +0100, Pascal Terjan wrote:
>> > I'm for suggesting it in the welcome email, not for enforcing it
>>
>> The problem is that without any such e
Name: Tristan Van Berkom
E-Mail: t...@gnome.org
Corporate affiliation: Codethink
IRC: tristan
Dear foundation,
I would like to announce my candidacy for the GNOME Foundation board of
directors in this election.
I have been a GNOME contributor for well over 15 years now in the
capacity of a
Hi Philip,
On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 18:10 +0100, Philip Withnall wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for running for the board!
>
> What steps do you think the Foundation could take to reduce its
> environmental impact, and the environmental impact of the project as a
> whole?
>
Thanks for raising this i
Hi Max,
On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 08:42 +0800, Max via foundation-list wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for running for the board.
>
> Thanks everyone who want take times to make GNOME better.
> Just a simple question about Minutes of the board meeting.
>
> Data and information might be different.
> For
57 matches
Mail list logo
