Re: GNOME Local user groups

El dc 26 de 07 del 2006 a les 09:59 +0200, en/na Dave Neary va escriure:

> GNOME user groups


> > - Active mailing list for coordination
> Required

Ok, this is enough for the kind of 'certification' I'm looking for.
Should be hosted in the GNOME server? My vote is +1.

There is a mismatch between the user groups related lists found at and the user groups listed at . Someone wants to make a diff?  ;) See

> > - GNOME Foundation members in the group
> Desirable (I'd like to make this required - it would be nice for all
> user groups to maintain a full membership list)

I think this is a requirement if you want to have your group listed at You wouldn't need Foundation members to start a group,
and you could be operating with mailing list and pages.
The fact of starting and consolidating a GNOME user group should be
enough to qualify to become a Foundation member. You see my point, this
way we list in wgo consolidated groups with Foundation members in it.

> > - Agreed contact with the GNOME Foundation
> English speaker - for the gugmasters mailing list we discussed during
> the marketing BOF.

Great idea.

> > - Local press contact
> Required, probably. And this should be a person. No more mailing lists
> as press contacts!

What if we say that since the GNOME Foundation is the official speaker
of GNOME, then we would request to have Foundation members if they want
to be listed at 

We can discuss if the person in charge of contacting the press needs to
be a Foundation member her/himself. I think this is required, being open
to exceptions (basically people with an ongoing application to become
Foundation member). I mean, we need to keep a minimal control over who
can speak officially as GNOME - also at a local level.

Coordination of these press contacts would be another priority.

> > - Democratic and non-profit structure (legal existence desirable)
> Definitely not required.

Sorry, instead of 'democratic' I meant 'open'. Having a public mailing
list to which anyone can subscribe is open enough. It is clear that
legal existence is not required, and not even desirable (this is
something the own groups needs to evaluate).

> > Perhaps a first question would be whether we need to have something like
> > an official list of GNOME groups and a checklist to know if your group
> > is official or not.
> I don't think so. We should simply have a list of all the groups we know
> about, but you don't need a stamp of approval to support GNOME in your
> town/region.

What about the now more refined proposal of letting anyone having a
mailing list and go to the wiki pages, but have some requirements for
those being listed in wgo as local groups and press contacts. 

We don't want to control people willing to crete a GNOME user group, but
we don't want to disappoint local users and local press either. We need
some kind of quality control since local people perceive local GNOME
groups "as GNOME" as the GNOME Foundation itself, or probably more.

> I disagree quite strongly. We can take out the bad guys one at a time,
> using the community mark idea. But we need to allow people to
> self-organise without passing through the GNOME Foundation.

Agreed. Now my proposal is only about advertising in wgo groups as GNOME
User Groups and individuals as press contacts. The Foundation as such
has nothing to do with this, but with the wgo maintainers. 

Note that wgo maintenance is responsibility of marketing-list, so it
makes sense that we want to promote consolidated groups and recognized
speakers only. In the same way that we want to promote in wgo only the
cool software (letting anyone to create a GNOME application) and only
the cool success stories (letting anyone to have their own GNOME

> I insist, though, that the foundation is not the place where groups get
> created or made official. We will be a service provider for user groups
> - a place for information exchange and co-ordination - not a centralised
> command & control structure.

Fully agreed now, thank you for your clever points.

Quim Gil /// |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Aix=F2?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_=E9s?= una part d'un missatge, signada digitalment

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