Re: Official Compliant

Hi Ali,

first off, you're considered a developer.  You have developed
applications that use GNOME technology, and you've submitted patches to
GNOME platform and desktop modules, so there's no denying that.

> 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.

Semantically speaking, all it says here is that "developers" are
equivalent to "GNOME hackers".  I don't know the exact term for it in
English grammar, but the modifying sentence "who are contributing..." is
a restriction on the set of "developers" - ie, the sentence means "all
those developers that are currently contributing to GNOME".  It does NOT
mean that someone who contributes to GNOME is a developer.

Anyway, it's just a sentence in the Charter meant as an introduction, it
is not gospel.  It all depends on your idea of "developer".  Some see it
as only writing code, and some as others.

Again, I already consider you a developer.

>  From the
> definitions of the Charta this makes me a developer too. 

... so this does not apply, but ...

> So the
> offending sentence by Mark which letting me know that I am NO DEVELOPER
> is wrong


>  and offensive.

When on the internet, you need a minimum of thick skin.  It's not that
offensive, though I could see how you'd interpret it that way - it's
just a very ungrateful job to have, Mark's job as a moderator.  There
are very few *developers* (you are an exception I assume, and sure there
are others, but ...) who consider button order or HIG on-topic for this
list.  This list is for discussion of *development*, not discussion of
style guides.

> 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.

I don't know who's right, but Glynn says that you were not ignored, but
informed that the Foundation does not feel it's their job to settle a
personal conflict.  Which is a resolution of some sort, and in my
opinion the only possible the Foundation can take.  Basically this is a
case of one person's opinion against another's - what do you expect the
Foundation to do, flip a coin and take sides ?

If what Glynn says is true, it has addressed your complaint, declared
itself not responsible for the resolution, and that's it.  That's what
happens in a court case as well at times.

> ... 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 ...

Please stick to the topic of your mail.  Don't use it as a springboard
to other issues.

> "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.

He's not saying you can't talk about it or try and get it changed.  All
he's saying is that it's not considered on-topic for desktop-devel.

Mark is concerned about people like Bastien who also are core devel
hackers, who we want on this list, unsubscribing.  Surely you agree that
that is a worthy goal ? Core developers should be on desktop-devel.

> 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.

You obviously care enough about the Charta, you've invoked it more in
this mail than anyone before you :)

You have to decide for yourself: either the Charta has meaning, and then
it's ok for you to invoke it for your complaint.  Or you denounce it, in
which case you shouldn't even mention it wrt. your complaint.  Make a
choice :) make your mails self-consistent, so people understand what you
are trying to say.

> "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.

Again, keep your mail on topic.  You're addressing other pet peeves of
yours, one of which is Jeff.  Keep it to the subject of "Is it ok for
Mark to tell me that a given discussion is not on topic."  You will get
your point across better if you don't drag other pet peeves into the
discussion.  It's just a suggestion of course, but I have learnt it gets
the point across better.

> 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.

I advise these others to speak up.  If lots of people feel these people
in key positions are doing a good job, and very little feel the
opposite, it's hard to believe that there are a lot of them that feel
the same.  I'm not saying they're not there, I'm just saying that they
should make themselves heard.

I worry just as much as you that GNOME could become more exclusive over
time while people join, but I don't think the situation is currently as
bad as you make it out to be.  For example, you and I both are still a
part of this community, so we both haven't felt expelled yet, have we ?


Dave/Dina : future TV today ! -
<-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*->
Kiss me please kiss me
Kiss me out of desire baby not consolation
Oh you know it makes me so angry cause I know that in time
I'll only make you cry
<-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*->
URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! -

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