Re: Candidacy (Michael Meeks), I'm still totaly misunderstood <sob>

[Michael Meeks <michael helixcode com>]

	Since Bruce is complaining about a lack of traffic, and since I
notice that I didn't correct this:

Hi Dan,

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Dan Mueth wrote:
> >         So in summary; I think the people best equipped to represent
> > and lead the Gnome team are the technical[2] people who have so far
> > created what we have.
>
> Your use of "hackers" and "technical people" is a little unclear here.

        Did my footnote references not help:

[1].  hacker here refers to any or all of documenter, UI designer,
artist, translator, and coder.

[2].  by technical I mean 'involving detailed knowledge of the
workings of Gnome's documentation systems, UI style, artistic
homogeneity, translational systems or code structure is needed'
preferably an understanding of the hacker[1] mentality too.

> I am hoping that you really mean "contributors".  For GNOME to
> succeed, it requires contributions in many shapes and sizes from a
> diverse group of contributors.  The most obvious is hackers.  However
> the project could not exist without sys admins (for web pages, cvs,
> mailing lists, ...), it would look horrible without artists to do
> graphics, users could not use it without user documentation, ...

        It really looks like you didn't read my footnote. What I am trying
to convey by 'hacker' is someone who has made a substantial and measurable
contribution to Gnome over the long haul. It seems I forgot sysadmins, web
designers, very remiss of me, of course they are included.

        Neither am I trying to be as alarmist as this:

"Now we have been asked 'Will KDE ever create a KDE Foundation in the same
sense as the GNOME Foundation?' The answer to this is no, absolutely not.
KDE has always been and always will be controlled by the developers that
work on it and are willing to do the code. We will resist any and all
attempts to change
this" (http://www.kde.org/announcements/gfresponse.html)

        I think we should be represented by all the people that have made
a substantial and quantifiable contribution to Gnome; I just term these
people hackers [1] having carefuly defined it.

> I don't think we want to talk about who "owns" GNOME.  It is Free, so I
> don't have to care who "owns" it.

        Well; the collective copyright holders are the hackers [1].

> I take all of these very seriously.  And while some hackers would be
> very good board members, most would not IMO.  (This is not to "diss"
> the hackers, you can say the same thing about the GDP or GTP or GNOME
> as a whole.)

        I fundamentaly disagree ( as you know ), let us agree to differ.

        Regards,

                Michael.

-- 
 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot