Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

discourse.gnome.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 77 posts

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#21

Post by djfhag »

motohagiography wrote: post #9

Does free software have academic title IX courts? Even while there may be legit complaints against someone, I'm very suspicious of FOSS governance being abused as a network of star chambers of people with a tremendous amount of influence on the security and privacy of user machines. A metadata tag and registry of whether FOSS dependencies are governed by a non-profit and the organizations we have exposure to seems li…

Indeed, also one needs to investigate if the 503c organizations that claim to be in "the public interest" are really in "the private interest".

Many software foundations serve their directors and the power of a select group of developers, do not fund actual development and largely serve as self-marketing and propaganda groups.

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#23

Post by bananamerica »

lkdfjlkdfjlg wrote: post #22
v3ss0n wrote: post #16

Ah, the good old gnome drama. They consider users , stupid and make their system as stupid as possible and never let the user to do advance customization as they please. Their gate keeping nature back fired I guess.

[flagged]

Have you actually used vanilla Gnome? I did it fairly recently. Gnome 46 is like a fridge. It has fewer graphically exposed settings than Windows 95. I literally had to install a program to scale my wallpaper. It's absolutely ridiculous.

I understand this is a forum for programmers, but it's unrealistic to expect real users to manipulate a program like that by rewriting its source code, or even through dconf.

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#24

Post by lkdfjlkdfjlg »

bananamerica wrote: post #23
lkdfjlkdfjlg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Have you actually used vanilla Gnome? I did it fairly recently. Gnome 46 is like a fridge. It has fewer graphically exposed settings than Windows 95. I literally had to install a program to scale my wallpaper. It's absolutely ridiculous. I understand this is a forum for programmers, but it's unrealistic to expect real users to manipulate a program like that by rewriting its source code, or even through dconf.

I know absolutely nothing about Gnome, but my comment wasn't about Gnome specifically.

It just grabbed my attention when people say "software X treats people like they're stupid", and then they want things done for them.

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#25

Post by bananamerica »

lkdfjlkdfjlg wrote: post #24
bananamerica wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually used vanilla Gnome? I did it fairly recently. Gnome 46 is like a fridge. It has fewer graphically exposed settings than Windows 95. I literally had to install a program to scale my wallpaper. It's absolutely ridiculous. I understand this is a forum for programmers, but it's unrealistic to expect real users to manipulate a program like that by rewriting its source code, or even through dconf.

I know absolutely nothing about Gnome, but my comment wasn't about Gnome specifically. It just grabbed my attention when people say "software X treats people like they're stupid", and then they want things done for them.

And I answered with the actual issue that is relevant to conversation.

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#26

Post by lkdfjlkdfjlg »

bananamerica wrote: post #25
lkdfjlkdfjlg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know absolutely nothing about Gnome, but my comment wasn't about Gnome specifically. It just grabbed my attention when people say "software X treats people like they're stupid", and then they want things done for them.

And I answered with the actual issue that is relevant to conversation.

If you wanna be relevant to the conversation you're gonna have to clarify for me: are you in the camp that thinks Gnome treats its users like they're stupid, or not?

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#27

Post by bananamerica »

lkdfjlkdfjlg wrote: post #26
bananamerica wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I answered with the actual issue that is relevant to conversation.

If you wanna be relevant to the conversation you're gonna have to clarify for me: are you in the camp that thinks Gnome treats its users like they're stupid, or not?

I am firmly in the camp where I am not answering this question only to satisfy an irrelevant need to take things literally while ignoring the actual issue being discussed.

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#28

Post by znpy »

isantop wrote: post #18

CoC violations — particularly ones egregious enough to warrant removal from a project — often involve topics of a highly sensitive nature regarding events which could potentially reveal the identity of the victim party, which is entirely not appropriate. While I completely understand the frustration around the current lack of communication regarding this incident, it's fully appropriate given the situation at hand an…

> often involve topics of a highly sensitive nature regarding events which could potentially reveal the identity of the victim party, which is entirely not appropriate.

And?

On the other hand, allowing people to be removed "no-questions-asked" and accepting zero transparency is dictatorial.

There's a reason why courts proceedings are usually public: there cannot be justice without transparency. Otherwise it's an easy playbook to avoid accountability.

Re: Sonny Piers was removed from the GNOME Foundation board

#30

Post by znpy »

lkdfjlkdfjlg wrote: post #24
bananamerica wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually used vanilla Gnome? I did it fairly recently. Gnome 46 is like a fridge. It has fewer graphically exposed settings than Windows 95. I literally had to install a program to scale my wallpaper. It's absolutely ridiculous. I understand this is a forum for programmers, but it's unrealistic to expect real users to manipulate a program like that by rewriting its source code, or even through dconf.

I know absolutely nothing about Gnome, but my comment wasn't about Gnome specifically. It just grabbed my attention when people say "software X treats people like they're stupid", and then they want things done for them.

> It just grabbed my attention when people say "software X treats people like they're stupid", and then they want things done for them.

It's a childish argumentation though. As a former GNOME user, the most infuriating things is that stuff was there (already developed) and was working fine, and got removed or dumbed down so much it made GNOME unusable.

It's not about wanting stuff done for me, it's about fine software being actively, purposedly made worse.

Post reply on HN