Re: Official Compliant

On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 22:04 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> The Foundation Board's role is to make sure the project has all the
> necessary resources to continue being successful, not acting as an
> intermediate body for people with personality conflicts.

When was the last time you read the GNOME Foundation Charta ? I hope
that it's not just written words that no one cares about - and when it
comes to such points that people change their meaning in a way how they
think it might fit for their own benefit.

Here is an excerpt:
"... the amount of code contributed has exploded, the number of
developers (also known as GNOME hackers) who are contributing to GNOME
has more than doubled ..."

Means, that every contributor to GNOME is also a developer. From the
definitions of the Charta this makes me a developer too. So the
offending sentence by Mark which letting me know that I am NO DEVELOPER
is wrong and offensive.

"We need a more structured environment to smoothly integrate new
citizens into the community. The GNOME Foundation will provide this
support. The Foundation will also provide a place to resolve the
inevitable conflicts that arise in a diverse community. Equally
important, the Foundation can voice the decisions and positions of the
GNOME project, and, therefore, can act as a liaison with the press and
corporations who want to be involved with GNOME."

You read the line that The Foundation is also the place to resolve the
inevitable conflicts that arise in a diverse community. So basicly my
compliant filled her was right - but ignored.

"In almost every sense of the word, GNOME is an open project. This is
one of our greatest strengths, has always been, and should be the
balefire by which we plot our course into the future."

... it won't - if we let people continue act like this. Not just him but
a handful of them surely ... Giving them a seat in the Board through a
fair election doesn't mean for some of them (please pay attention
"some") to act eliteist ...

"The foundation should not be exclusionary or elitist. Every GNOME
contributor, however small his or her contribution, must have the
opportunity to participate in determining the direction and actions of
the project."

So having Mark say that I can not change anything about having the HIG
become part of whatever is wrong, it's offending and false.

"Anyone can become a contributor, write access to our CVS does not
involve trial by fire or other masonic rituals, we don't use Access
Control Lists, and we've always been exceedingly good about folding
talented newcomers in our arms and welcoming them to the project."

This is not necessarily related to this compliant but I just came across
this sentence and call it a laughable. I was requesting CVS access for a
couple of years even contacted the right email address without even
getting a reply. Just in case, nuke this sentence in the Charta - no
wait, nuke the entire Charta no one cares anyways.

"The GNOME foundation must not stifle the interest of outsiders. An ill-
conceived foundation could discourage outsider participation directly,
by establishing rules which limit the ability of potential contributors
to make their mark, or indirectly, by engendering an alienating sense of
elitism. The stained glass of the cathedral creates a colorful spectacle
for those inside, but from the outside, the building is just a hulking
grey edifice, intimidating and impenetrable."

"This principle has real, concrete meaning for the foundation: All
discussions must be publicly viewable, any person must have the
opportunity to contribute to the decision-making process, and every
GNOME contributor must have the direct ability to influence the
decisions which are made. The foundation must be democratic and friendly
to those responsible for making GNOME what it is."

Aha interesting.

"If we've lost consensus to the point where we're regularly forcibly
ejecting people from the foundation and co-opting their projects, we're
sunk anyway."

I don't know whether I should blame it on some individuals such as Jeff,
Mark and some others or if I should start blaming the Foundation for not
having intervene in this process before it reached such a state.

Of course as bigger a community gets as more problems occour but
shouldn't we all work together in a more nice and friendly way ? Of
course there are always people who cause problems but I and others feel
so sad that these sit in key positions within GNOME.

"This document was put together from contributions by many people. The
crucial first draft was written by Nat Friedman based on discussions he
had with Joe Shaw. This document is maintained by the GNOME Foundation
Board of directors."

     * Joe Shaw
     * Linas Vepstas
     * Maciej Stachowiak
     * Havoc Pennington
     * Daniel Veillard
     * Telsa Gwynne
     * Mike Prestner
     * Jim Gettys
     * Alan Cox
     * Kelly
     * Frank Hecker
     * Brian Behlendorff
     * Robert Humphreys
     * Rusty Conover
     * Miguel de Icaza
     * Elliott Lee
     * Others

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