Re: pvanhoof issue (was: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap)

["Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeenix gmail com>]

Hi,

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Jonathon Jongsma
<jonathon quotidian org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 03:11 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 04:02 +0200, Zeeshan Ali wrote:
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > > I don't think we need ethics-teachings about this. We GNOME
>> > programmers  know. We do.
>> >
>> > I can't say for others but I for one find it extremely insulting when
>> > Mr. Van Hoof represent me without my concent. I really want to know
>> > who in the the hell made him the GNOME developers' representative and
>> > be able to tell others what I know and need?
>>
>> Saying that we don't need lessons morality is "extremely insulting" to
>> you?
>
> I think you know perfectly well what Zeeshan is objecting to, despite
> your feigned incredulity above.  You repeatedly post imflammatory things
> and try to pick fights with Richard Stallman and the FSF, and then you
> act as if you're speaking for GNOME developers when the predictable
> argument begins.  I for one have basically stopped reading most
> foundation-list threads because you insist on dragging every single
> conversation down into the mud.

  Thanks for your clarification. Thing is that Philip had been using
the word 'we' quite a lot in the recent endless discussions as part of
his crusade to draw a thick border between Free Software and GNOME[1].
I didn't complain so far because it wasn't always 100% clear if he
means 'all GNOME developers' by 'we' until now where he made it
perfectly clear.

  Now that that is sorted out, I would like the foundation to forbid
him from doing so in future. Once that is done, I can live a happy
life by joining the ever growing 'just put pvanhoof on your ignore
list on IRC and email' group.

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124

[1] Which I believe is doomed to fail since GNOME started as an effort
to create a completely free (as in freedom) desktop environment and
despite all efforts from Philip & Lefty we have yet to see any
compelling reason to change that definition.