Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 16th Dec 2009 00:13 UTC
Gnome In the item we ran yesterday about GNOME and the GNU Project, one aspect got snowed under a little bit. It turns out a claim made in the iTWire article about the role a blog post by Miguel De Icaza was false, and even though the claim wasn't ours, I did repeat it, and therefore, should correct it too. I also need to offer apologies for not framing the opening of the article clear enough - had I framed it better, a lot of pointless discussion and name-calling could've been avoided.
Thread beginning with comment 399939
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Clarification
by lucasr on Wed 16th Dec 2009 17:46 UTC
lucasr
Member since:
2007-06-25

The discussion started by me on behalf of the GNOME Foundation's Board of Directors on foundation-list was definitely not caused by posts by Miguel on Planet GNOME. Actually, the discussion was not even supposed to be specifically about Planet GNOME. We just wanted to know the opinion of foundation members about making the GNOME Code of Conduct[1] a requirement to become a foundation member[2]. In other words, the discussion ended up focusing on Planet GNOME but that was not the intention at all.

I wrote a summary[3] of the topics discussed in the thread. I hope it helps to clarify what has actually been discussed and the respective outcomes.

[1] http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct
[2] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-November/msg000...
[3] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-December/msg001...

Reply Score: 5

RE: Clarification
by sorpigal on Wed 16th Dec 2009 18:16 in reply to "Clarification"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Someone who has not already replied to this story mod parent up, please.

Reply Parent Score: 2