Re: [SPAM] Re: [fsf-community-team] Gnome Dev suggests Split from GNU?

[Brandon Lozza]

At the same time, Mr Lefty's employer (ACCESS) pays $10,000 a year to
have him there. If you look at the foundations page it says that
people on the advisory board make suggestions (not decisions) to the
board of directors (Stormy seems to be his friend too). The advisory
board is made up of mostly business/proprietary interests. They makeup
almost half of Gnome's funding (the other half comes from GUADEC and
individuals).

In 2010, Gnome is increasing advisory fees for large companies. It's
being increased to $20,000 ($10,000 for small companies). It will be
interesting to see if he stays on.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Simon Bridge <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 17:29 -0700, address@hidden wrote:
>> OH! i didnt know that Matthew can you post some links to give us that
>> dont know some more background on this
>
> Because it messes up the way people process information.
>
> Ages ago address@hidden asked the following:
>>>> Q. Why is top-posting a bad idea?
>
> Lookee below :)
>
>> > From: Matthew Davidson <address@hidden>
>> > Date: Mon, December 14, 2009 12:01 am
>> > To: FSF Community Team <address@hidden>
>> >
>> > Slashdot notwithstanding, the GNOME/GNU split is still largely in the
>> > head of one person.
>> >
>
> Never take the news at face value.
>
> The motion for gnome to leave gnu was put by:
>
> Miguel de Icaza - MS Apologist - also wants mono (MS .net framework)
> integrated into gnome. Breifly:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza#Advocacy_of_Microsoft_technologies
>
> ... the motion was seconded by:
>
> David Schlesinger - another apologist if I have the right guy: also
> thinks that mono in gnome is a good idea and was lost in the public eye
> attacking Stallman as "sexist". Example:
> http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-zeal-becomes-zealotry-tawdry-tale.html
>
> Is this getting smelly enough yet?
>
> I am trying hard to avoid ad homenim here - in a political debate it can
> be useful to know what the different parties stand for and so better
> understand their motivations.
>
> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/29995/1090/1/0/
> iTwire tells us that it was a post by de Icaza, about MS Silverlight,
> which triggered the initial complaints. Those complaints were
> uncontroversial - i.e. the gnome planet community agreed they were
> inappropriate.
>
> If PGO wants to stand on freedom of speech as reason to allow
> unrestricted comments from their member's feeds then surely they should
> not have members to start with? They also need to be more tolerant of
> critical speech - which is what makes freedom of speech so useful.
>
> The problem is not with gnome but with PGO - perhaps it should be kept
> as a way to catch up with what past and present gnome devs are up to and
> keep a dedicated list for gnome itself?
>
> >From the profiles of the main players here, we can be forgiven for
> concluding:
>
>>
>> > There's this one guy who wants to work on GNOME, but is not willing to
>> > work on the terms of the free software community. He's known perfectly
>> > well all along that GNOME was a GNU sub-project, but does not want the
>> > philosophy of the GNU project to play any part in GNOME.
>> >
>
> It is easy to see that a code of conduct for PGO is overdue. We should
> also be concerned that such senior members of a gnu sub-project should
> be so dismissive of gnu ideals.
>
>> > If anything comes of this, I hope it will be the realisation that
>> > developers and projects need to be very explicit about whether they
>> > identify with open source or free software, so that in future trolls can
>> > be dismissed with "You knew what you were getting into, now play nice."
>
> Speaking of which - do we have such a code for this list yet?
>
>
>
>