Re: Official Compliant


> > 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.

I have to be honest, it has been a while since I've read it. As you've
already seen, the charter was drafted up nearly 4 years ago and could
well do with being refreshed to reflect the stand off nature that the
GNOME Foundation has traditionally adopted.

> 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.

Grow up. I have yet to see a substantial contribution from you. As far
as I can see you just turn up to consistently annoy developers with your
whinges. If you want people to take you seriously, you will have to
prove yourself - contributing solid ideas and rationale, backing them up
with code contributions or mockups, fixing bugs....everything else will
just fall on deaf ears. Others have proved themselves in this fashion,
and are respected contributors to the project - what makes you so
different? Something that I think you need to go away and think about.

> "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.

If I thought the conflict was of great harm to the project, then yes, I
would expect the GNOME Foundation to have to step in. As it stands
though, your complaints seem to be isolated against a few individual
members of the community and I don't consider them to be a threat to the
community as a whole - obviously I would be uncomfortable having the
GNOME Foundation stepping in, where there is no real need to do so.

> "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 ...

There is nothing to stop you running for the board next year. I would
welcome your candidacy, and since GNOME is an open project you have as
much chance of being elected as some of the eliteist members of the
current Board.

> "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.

Typically that's not how OSS development works. You need to build up
trust before you can expect to determine the direction of the project.
It's pretty clear you haven't.

> "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.

I have no idea why your request for a CVS account was ignored. Perhaps
your years of rubbing people up the wrong way and getting on their bad
side worked against you.

> 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.

I think you should be blaming yourself as much as you blame other
people. You have consistently proved to be an utter pain in the ass on
mailing lists, on IRC, on various news forums and many other locations.
Many people have issues with you. Why do you think that is? There are a
*lot* of other contributors to the project that have no problem getting
involved. Of course there will always be exceptions to that rule where
some people can't get along, and maybe it's time to pack your bags and
go home if that is the case. I'd welcome the 'others' to comment, but I
suspect they'll be keeping quiet and not look like fools ;)

Your complaining to foundation-list gnome org hasn't helped your case
one bit.


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