Minutes for Board IRC Meeting of Febraury 27th, 2010
- When: Saturday, Febraury 27th, 16:00 UTC
- Where: irc.gnome.org, #foundation
Meeting Log
Topics Discussed
vuntz |
as far as I see, we have only one (big) agenda item: Strategic roadmap for GNOME: long term goals |
stormy |
Anybody heard from gpoo? Since the earthquake? |
diegoe |
I haven't heard from people in Concepción yet |
vuntz |
I guess we'll have to wait for some online news :/ |
diegoe |
but people in other regions is starting to msg in twitter |
stormy |
ok, sorry, vuntz, I didn't mean to derail. |
vuntz |
it's okay |
stormy |
I think it would really help get individuals and companies involved if we had a longer vision roadmap. |
vuntz |
okay, I wanted to wait a bit before giving my opinion, but let me go :-) |
diegoe |
(actually that's a point to think: how long do we want our theorical major stable cycles to be?) |
vuntz |
yep, that's something the release team had initially discussed when doing the planning for 3.0, and one of our orinigal ideas was to have a cycle of around 3 years, iirc |
diegoe |
vuntz, kde 4.0 is not kde 4? :) |
vuntz |
diegoe: heh. To clarify: 3.0 is a specific version, 3 is a whole cycle |
diegoe |
yeah it makes sense ;) |
vuntz |
I don't want to start chatting about GNOME 4 right now; I'd just like to hear from people here if all this was unclear, or if you feel it wasn't communicated at all |
diegoe |
jjardon, any opinion from gtk land? :) |
vuntz |
(we can move to the GNOME 4 topic afterwards, of course; it's just that I'm interested in seeing how people about what were the release team plans) |
afranke |
is the roadmap for GTK+ 3.0 available somewhere? |
vuntz |
afranke: there's been a few mails on gtk-devel-list this week or last week with the plans |
diegoe |
afranke, http://live.gnome.org/GTK+ there are two links there, but not sure how up to date they are |
vuntz |
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2010-February/msg00040.html |
diegoe |
jjardon should now |
vuntz |
and the few mails after that |
jjardon |
all the info is here: http://live.gnome.org/GTK+/3.0/ |
jjmarin |
I agree this is a good strategical document. However, I miss a easy way to follow where we are |
vuntz |
jjmarin: I guess that people following the development closely know the current status; but they lack time to update the status on such a wiki page. So help would be welcome here |
jjardon |
jjmarin, GTK +3 document or Gnome 3 document? |
jjmarin |
vuntz: maybe to set some rules about this can help |
vuntz |
jjmarin: what kind of rules? |
jjmarin |
vunt: For example a page for every task to follow the status |
vuntz |
jjmarin: sure, but the issue is that somebody needs to update the status |
bkuhn |
vuntz: (re devs updating wiki) Yeah, that makes sense. Perhaps a tutorial on how it should be updated. What would someone do? Watch merges, and update based on commit messages? |
jjardon |
As far as I know http://live.gnome.org/GTK%2B/3.0/Tasks is up-to-date |
vuntz |
jjmarin: I guess you're maintaining this page? Is this something where you need help? |
jjmarin |
vuntz: I guess mean jjardon :) |
vuntz |
fwiw, one issue with the page is that it doesn't list the features planned for integration -- but that's probably because the gtk+ team itself is not completely clear on this |
jjmarin |
Another thing that we can discuss is: how to set strategical goals. If we need a LTS cycle. |
vuntz |
jjardon: do you plan to add the features that mclasen listed in http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2010-February/msg00040.html on this tracking page? |
jjardon |
well, as far as I know, GTK+ 3.0 will not be a feature release, only a "cleaning" release (we are removing all the deprecated code, so we'll break the API and the ABI). Also, all the public members will be moved to private structures, so you should use accessor functions instead direct access |
jjmarin |
A strategical roadmap is good for manage our planning, but as well is good fo giving a public message of the direction. |
diegoe |
agree |
jjardon |
vuntz, these features are already in the GTK+ roadmap: http://live.gnome.org/GTK%2B/Roadmap |
stormy |
It is really hard for someone not emeshed in GNOME to follow along. |
jjmarin |
A strategical roadmap can helps as well for planing a API and ABI breakage. |
stormy |
(And I agree, a strategic roadmap would very much help that.) |
jjardon |
Also, for GTK+ 3 work, all kind of hands are needed, even a newbie can help |
diegoe |
jjardon, could we perhaps promote that? with easy clear steps maybe? |
vuntz |
may I ask what you think should be in a strategical roadmap? |
iven |
This page has more information: http://live.gnome.org/GTK%2B/3.0/Roadmap |
diegoe |
maybe reviewing patches, like kalikiana and I used to do |
stormy |
vuntz: high level goals? |
vuntz |
stormy: okay, let me rephrase. Is http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero/Plan something that looks like what you'd expect? |
stormy |
Yes. |
diegoe |
vuntz, perhaps with an optional "bullet point summarised" summary |
vuntz |
fair enough |
diegoe |
yeah, highlights |
vuntz |
we all know release team people can't communicate well, though ;-) |
stormy |
And maybe some priority/timeline to it. |
rubenv |
vuntz: that's because of the amount of french speakers in there ;-) |
vuntz |
no, they are GNOME 3 |
stormy |
In the GNOME 3 life span, when will they come out? |
diegoe |
one thing I might wonder if I read casually some blogs is "oh the task pooper, when will I see that? 3.0?" |
vuntz |
I agree with the priority/timeline thing, and that's actually an action item I took during the usability hackfest |
stormy |
cool |
vuntz |
it'd be nice to have other release team members here to have their opinion; but in my case, I don't think we could have put real timeline for this document until recently |
rubenv |
question: (I joined late so I don't know if this already came up) would it be desirable for gnome to adopt something like a major-version release cycle? |
stormy |
It's ok if they change ... |
rubenv |
something like the long term releases for ubuntu / rhel / ... |
vuntz |
stormy: yeah, could be |
jjardon |
diegoe, sure |
rubenv |
vuntz: great, so will that idea be put into place or has it been dismissed? |
vuntz |
there's also the discussion on whether the release team is the most appropriate group to write those kind of documents. Some people feel it is, some people disagree |
lixem |
i'm hungry |
vuntz |
rubenv: it's not dismissed, but not really adopted either |
jjmarin |
vuntz: Maybe it is necesary to open a period of petition of request of changes or something like that |
vuntz |
rubenv: my feeling is that we'll do something like that |
rubenv |
vuntz: might be good to keep it on the table though, I think both distro's and ISVs will like it when they know what to expect + developers need to spend less time on API/ABI conservancy and more time on innovative stuff |
vuntz |
jjmarin: actually, we tried this |
jjmarin |
vuntz: OK :) |
vuntz |
|
diegoe |
jjmarin, debian has something like that, they propose goals with developers "backing up" it (just as proposing a module) |
vuntz |
this was a way to get feedback from maintainers for the next 6 months, but also for the long term |
jjmarin |
Some nice suggestions for easy improving like http://live.gnome.org/GUADEC/2008/Slides?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=marketing_gtk_Guadec2008.pdf can be reconsider on the strategical roadmap. |
vuntz |
jjmarin: can you detail which suggestions? :-) |
jjmarin |
vuntz: basically, unify branding of GTK bindings and easy to install process on all OSes |
vuntz |
ah, bindings |
diegoe |
jjmarin, I'm working with aruiz on implementing part of his plan |
vuntz |
the release team is working on a plan to change the modulesets |
jjmarin |
vunzt: how well is working the roadmap process by far. I mean, people do their reports ? |
vuntz |
jjmarin: after a while, some maintainers didn't |
jjmarin |
This roadmap is good for the stable versions. Maybe for strategic roadmap is better to disccuss a general area of improvement and see how this affect to every component |
vuntz |
but that's something we'll want to restart for 3.2 and later anyway; we just need to improve this |
diegoe |
I feel those big areas would be related closely to UX targets |
jjardon |
About the bindings: Maybe http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/AddGObjectIntrospectionSupport should be a official GnomeGoal ? |
vuntz |
jjardon: I would say it should become official :-) |
jjardon |
vuntz, thank you But maybe a "offcial" announcement from the release team will have more impact (inside your strategic for the bindings) |
vuntz |
jjardon: heh, if you think it helps... Can you write a draft mail for this? We can then send it |
jjardon |
vuntz, sure |
vuntz |
so, let's step back a bit |
diegoe |
yes |
vuntz |
- we need people to take what the release team (or another group) publishes and promote it in a understandable way |
diegoe |
mmm, and that we should communicate clearly that gnome 3.0 does not aim to meet *all* the proposed goals |
vuntz |
and do people think the release team is the appropriate group to do this job? |
pcutler |
vuntz: when you talk about communication and promotion, I'd like to see collaboration with the marketing team |
vuntz |
pcutler: how would you like to see this happening? |
jjmarin |
About the where to start from. Maybe is good idea to write a SWOT analysis |
vuntz |
jjmarin: is this something you'd want to make happen? |
pcutler |
vuntz: i came to the meeting late, but you mentioned the release team is looking at the module sets, and andre had mentioned something similar a while back too. I don't know if I know the answer to "how" yet, but looking at the work we're doing with Plone, we have to have communication between the two teams for stuff like that |
jjmarin |
vuntz: I can help to create it if it helps |
vuntz |
jjmarin: the best to make it happen is to lead the effort to make it happen :-) |
stormy |
jjmarin: it's worth trying for sure. |
jjmarin |
vuntz: I don't have experience on that, but I can try it |
vuntz |
pcutler: the way I see it (and please tell me if it's wrong) is that the marketing team would see the plan when it's proposed (on d-a-l) and start to play with how to promote it |
diegoe |
jjmarin, would you like to assign yourself an task item to do that? :), maybe chat a bit with stormy about it |
pcutler |
vuntz: that's fair |
vuntz |
pcutler: sure, it's fair. But maybe it's not optimal for the marketing team. Is this something we should change a bit? |
jjmarin |
diegoe: OK, I have a new task then :) |
diegoe |
cool. then #task: jjmarin to discuss with stormy about a SWOT analysis |
vuntz |
anything else on this topic? |
jjmarin |
good enough by now :) |
vuntz |
any other topic people want to discuss? |
diegoe |
:) |
vuntz |
thanks to everyone for joining! |
stormy |
:) |
bkuhn |
:) |
jjmarin |
;P |
vuntz |
diegoe: any idea if we'll do the next meeting next month? Or in two months? |
diegoe |
good question, maybe next month makes sense since we have a release, so opinions will be fresh |
vuntz |
okay |
jjardon |
I have the log of the meeting |
vuntz |
jjardon: cool. Can you put it on the wiki? |
jjardon |
vuntz, sure |
vuntz |
jjardon: maybe linked from http://live.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes (see the bottom) |