Re: Official Compliant

[Ross Golder <ross golder org>]

On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 13:19 +0200, Ali Akcaagac wrote:
> 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.
> 

That's just your interpretation of 'developer'. There are many
interpretations of the work 'developer', as there are many
interpretations of the word 'hacker'.

> "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.
> 

What are you trying to achieve here? You just want people to recognise
that you think that Mark is 'behaving badly', or do you want someone to
forcibly remove his list moderator privileges or something?

> "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 ...
> 

OK, now we're ranting.

> "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.
> 

Now you're twisting what Mark said again. He isn't trying to deny you
any rights (except suggested that you should consider how you use your
rights to post to desktop-devel-list). He's just trying to keep the
noise down on an already busy mailing list.

> "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.
> 

More ranting - now you appear to be generating noise on the foundation
list.

(snipped a load of irrelevant quoting to save bandwidth).

> 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.
> 

At the end of the day, contributors are not employees. The foundation
have no right to tell individuals what they can or can't do or say.
These are free people. If you can make a good case for Mark being an
irresponsible list moderator, make it here, and maybe someone else can
take over that job (I don't expect Mark enjoys it). Otherwise, please
just stick to contributing constructively.

Thanks,

--
Ross