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

Michael Meeks <michael helixcode com> writes:

>         Did my footnote references not help:

If I remember this correctly, you forgot to include the footnotes in your
post :-(

> [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" (

Oh, they have an official answer to our foundation, reading ....

Martin Baulig
martin gnome org (private)
baulig suse de (work)

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]