Board meeting now.
spam_spam_spam_and_spam at bleeter.id.au
Tue May 15 20:41:10 EDT 2007
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) IMFreedom.org 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 conference.pidgin.im?join
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at pidgin.im
More information about the Devel