Re: Fwd: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy

[Philip Van Hoof <pvanhoof gnome org>]

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 11:52 +0100, Iain wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) <lefty shugendo org> wrote:
> > On 6/1/10 7:38 AM, "Iain" <iain gnome org> wrote:
> >>
> >> It seems to me that your underlying belief is that there is too much
> >> (large) corporate influence in GNOME. Would you say that you might
> >> have some conflict of interest here given that your project
> >> (Zeitgeist) was ignored/shunned by the GNOME Shell developers?
> >
> > Iain, this seems unreasonable to me. Is anyone who decides to run for the
> > board who's ever had a disagreement with some group of GNOME developers or
> > other going to be subject to the suggestion that they have a "conflict of
> > interest"?
> >
> > If that's the case, I doubt we can really find a single qualified candidate.
> >
> > Everyone's got their interests and views, and (hopefully) the candidates are
> > candid about what their views are. I think these suggestions of "conflicts
> > of interest" are, honestly, a little out of line.
> 
> I disagree, I don't remember any candidate who has quite glaringly
> obvious conflicts of interest running though their candidacy statement
> as Seif's. Its a struggle to find anything in his statement that
> doesn't come from his annoyance that Zeitgeist is not being picked up
> for GNOME 3.

The way I read Seif's candidacy is that he wants more coordination to
take place between different GNOME stakeholders (community, Canonical,
RH, Novell, etc) when it comes to the development and design of a
technology like GNOME's Shell.

This is _perfectly_ reasonable and several people have responded already
that they understand and agree with this. Include me in that group.

> In future, I would prefer it if you would reply in public,

In my opinion is your Seif - Zeitgeist conspiracy theory, crazy. It's
also my opinion that it doesn't belong on the foundation-list.

Can you stick to asking the candidates relevant questions?

> [Context] Lefty fwd'd his reply to the list, but not mine to him.
> In future, I would prefer it if you would reply in public,

Lefty did reply in public. Getting your reply on the foundation-list is
your responsibility, not Lefty's. It would even be impolite if he'd have
forwarded a private reply from you to him unto a public mailing list.


Cheers,

Philip

-- 


Philip Van Hoof
freelance software developer
Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be