Board meeting now.

Peter Lawler spam_spam_spam_and_spam at
Tue May 15 20:41:10 EDT 2007

Hi Sean,
To cover my comments on the devel at c.p.i, I'll follow up here.

1) I apologise for not bringing this topic up earlier.
2) The initial constitution and board were voted on by a closed loop. 
That loop was only the people 'involved' in the AOL issue, not 
necessarily all devs and cpw's (ie, actively interested parties)
3) The constitution isn't easily available*. One has to ask and then be 
pointed to a message in a previously closed mail list.
4) The President and Lead of Pidgin work for Corporate IM companies. 
There is nothing in the constitution that would force them to excuse 
themselves from any topic based on conflict of interest.
5) is taking monies based partly on my work, yet I have 
had *no* say in it's initial setup until three weeks ago (well after the 
horse has bolted).

One of the reasons, apart from lack of time, that I didn't mention any 
of this earlier is that I just *know* many of the board members with be 
saying right now 'Oh, shut up Pete, it's only Pidgin. It's our source, 
we'll do what we like.' or similar. Which is, of course, my point 
entirely. It's not all your own source. No one owns it. I find it odd 
that a corporate entity can take control of my code without any input 
from me whatsoever.

I appreciate that the product itself is not a democracy, however as a 
CPW and occasional IRC contributor, I feel the above whilst worthy of 
treatment for Random Q User in #pidgin is a bit out of order for the 
fostering of collaborative input from others. I only hope no one posts 
similar to 'Pidgin now controlled by Corporate IM employees' to /.

Yes, this post would no doubt been more thoughtful if I'd spent more 
time composing it, but I'm sure I would have still missed the three week 




Sean Egan wrote:
> xmpp:boardroom at
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at

More information about the Devel mailing list