1 --- Log opened Sun Jan 24 11:56:32 2010
   2 11:56 -!- sandy|out [~sandy@ip68-104-95-17.lv.lv.cox.net] has joined #foundation
   3 11:56 -!- ServerMode/#foundation [+nt] by irc.acc.umu.se
   4 11:56 -!- Irssi: #foundation: Total of 1 nicks [1 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 0 normal]
   5 11:56 -!- Irssi: Join to #foundation was synced in 3 secs
   6 14:27 -!- sandy|out [~sandy@ip68-104-95-17.lv.lv.cox.net] has left #foundation []
   7 --- Log closed Sun Jan 24 14:27:44 2010
   8 --- Log opened Tue Jan 26 09:13:58 2010
   9 09:13 -!- sandy [~sandy@ip68-104-95-17.lv.lv.cox.net] has joined #foundation
  10 09:13 -!- ServerMode/#foundation [+nt] by irc.acc.umu.se
  11 09:13 -!- Irssi: #foundation: Total of 1 nicks [1 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 0 normal]
  12 09:14 -!- Irssi: Join to #foundation was synced in 3 secs
  13 09:14 -!- sandy [~sandy@ip68-104-95-17.lv.lv.cox.net] has left #foundation []
  14 --- Log closed Tue Jan 26 09:14:04 2010
  15 --- Log opened Fri Jan 29 16:57:55 2010
  16 16:57 -!- sandy [~sandy@ip68-104-95-17.lv.lv.cox.net] has joined #foundation
  17 16:57 -!- ServerMode/#foundation [+nt] by irc.acc.umu.se
  18 16:57 -!- Irssi: #foundation: Total of 1 nicks [1 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 0 normal]
  19 16:57 -!- Irssi: Join to #foundation was synced in 3 secs
  20 16:58 -!- sandy [~sandy@ip68-104-95-17.lv.lv.cox.net] has left #foundation []
  21 --- Log closed Fri Jan 29 16:58:01 2010
  22 --- Log opened Sat Jan 30 07:21:01 2010
  23 07:21 -!- sandy|out [~sandy@ip68-104-95-17.lv.lv.cox.net] has joined #foundation
  24 07:21 -!- ServerMode/#foundation [+nt] by irc.acc.umu.se
  25 07:21 -!- Irssi: #foundation: Total of 1 nicks [1 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 0 normal]
  26 07:21 -!- Irssi: Join to #foundation was synced in 4 secs
  27 07:27 -!- gpoo [~gpoo@pc-50-169-46-190.cm.vtr.net] has joined #foundation
  28 07:32 -!- OgMaciel [~omaciel@66.192.95.199] has joined #foundation
  29 07:35 -!- yippi [~bc99092@adsl-69-211-51-250.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net] has joined #foundation
  30 07:37 -!- mode/#foundation [+oo OgMaciel gpoo] by sandy|out
  31 07:37 <@OgMaciel> :)
  32 07:38 < yippi> hiya.  the meeting is supposed to be in 25 mins, right?
  33 07:38  * OgMaciel thought it was supposed to start 8 minutes ago :)
  34 07:38 -!- mode/#foundation [+o yippi] by gpoo
  35 07:38 <@OgMaciel> kids want to go out and play on snow
  36 07:38 <@yippi> really?
  37 07:38 -!- gpoo changed the topic of #foundation to: GNOME Foundation meeting.  16:00 UTC.
  38 07:39 <@yippi> i thought it was supposed to start on the hour, not the half-hour
  39 07:39  * OgMaciel checks calendar
  40 07:39 <@yippi> isn't 16:00 UTC in 22 mins?
  41 07:39 <@sandy|out> yes
  42 07:39 <@OgMaciel> I probably screwed up when I entered it into my calendar
  43 07:40 <@OgMaciel> no biggie
  44 07:47  * OgMaciel will be back in a few... may miss the first 10 minutes
  45 07:48 -!- vuntz [~vuntz@fennas.vuntz.net] has joined #foundation
  46 07:49 -!- mode/#foundation [+o vuntz] by sandy|out
  47 07:50 -!- Gwaihir [~Gwaihir@mail.foredil.it] has joined #foundation
  48 07:53 -!- pcutler [~pcutler@c-75-72-118-230.hsd1.mn.comcast.net] has joined #foundation
  49 08:00 <@vuntz> not a lot of people here :-)
  50 08:01 < pcutler> I would have forgotten except for your email yesterday
  51 08:01 -!- stormy [~chatzilla@c-24-9-32-102.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #foundation
  52 08:01 <@vuntz> yeah, I think that many people forgot even with the reminder
  53 08:01 <@vuntz> hey hey stormy 
  54 08:01 < stormy> I was thinking (just now) it would help to have an agenda too.
  55 08:01 < stormy> hey vuntz
  56 08:02 <@yippi> i have a proposed agenda in gobby
  57 08:03 < stormy> I meant to attract people to the meeting.
  58 08:04 <@vuntz> nod. We can happily blame diegoe, though ;-)
  59 08:04 <@yippi> so, its now a few minutes after 10, should we start?
  60 08:04 <@yippi> there are only 3 board members, though.  We should probably try to get quorum if we can first
  61 08:04 <@vuntz> yippi: nah, it's not a board meeting
  62 08:04 <@vuntz> we don't need quorum
  63 08:05 <@yippi> ok, though it would be nice in case any decisions needed to be made
  64 08:05 <@vuntz> so, let's start
  65 08:05 <@vuntz> OgMaciel, sandy|out, Gwaihir, pcutler: is there any specific topic/question you'd like to discuss?
  66 08:05 < pcutler> not that I can think of
  67 08:06 -!- herco [~chatzilla@vfppp079167185161.dsl.hol.gr] has joined #foundation
  68 08:06 <@gpoo> or topics that would like to be informed
  69 08:06 < Gwaihir> not for me
  70 08:06 -!- vuntz changed the topic of #foundation to: GNOME Foundation meeting | Feel free to name any topic you'd like to see discussed
  71 08:07 <@vuntz> herco: hi! Is there any topic you'd like to see discussed?
  72 08:07 -!- KaL [~KaL@89.141.75.116.dyn.user.ono.com] has joined #foundation
  73 08:07 -!- nacho [~nacho@62.159.220.87.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #foundation
  74 08:07 < nacho> hey guys
  75 08:07 <@vuntz> KaL, nacho: welcome!
  76 08:07 < KaL> hi!
  77 08:08 <@vuntz> so there's no topic people want to discuss? Does it mean the Foundation is perfect? :-)
  78 08:09 <@yippi> paul, you have a longstanding action item as follows: " Will provide an overview of hiring a sysadmin and the benefits that has for the overall GNOME community."  it would be good to get status on that, and close that action if possible.  
  79 08:09 <@yippi> I've pinged you a few times, but never got a real clear response
  80 08:09 < stormy> vuntz, and we communicate perfectly. :)
  81 08:09 < pcutler> yippi: I emailed you a response a week ago
  82 08:09 < herco> hi vuntz ! yes, i would like to see something about GNOME 3 -  is this a relative topic ?
  83 08:09 <@vuntz> herco: sure
  84 08:10 < herco> (goodevening to all)
  85 08:11 <@vuntz> herco: that's actually a huge topic. Do you want to discuss the "technical" part, marketing, or anything specific? Or just GNOME 3 in general?
  86 08:11 <@yippi> pculter, i missed your email, could you let me know again?
  87 08:12 < herco> i think the "marketing" side is more interesting at the time :-)
  88 08:12 <@vuntz> so the marketing team was working on a plan there
  89 08:12 <@vuntz> stormy, pcutler: do you want to talk a bit about this?
  90 08:13 < stormy> We did some planning on the November hackfest.
  91 08:13 -!- Ford_Prefect [~ford_pref@122.171.0.207] has joined #foundation
  92 08:13 -!- seb [~seb@cvl92-3-82-247-217-100.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #foundation
  93 08:13 -!- Susana [~Susana@bl6-8-77.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #foundation
  94 08:13 < stormy> 1) Have really good materials (event box & presentations) for people that want to promote GNOME 3.0
  95 08:13 < stormy> 2) A slogan/saying
  96 08:14 < stormy> 3) Make sure the marketing materials we make can be easily used by our partners.
  97 08:14 < stormy> We had talked about creating videos, and they would all have a spot for downstream partner logos.
  98 08:14 < stormy> We plan to have 2 more marketing hackfests/meetings before September.
  99 08:14 < pcutler> I would also add we we want #2 to be a campaign slogan - as part of this campaign we want to build a dedicated GNOME 3.0 website that will include short videos highlighting one specific feature 
 100 08:14 < stormy> And I expect a lot of marketing activity at GUADEC.
 101 08:15 -!- vuntz changed the topic of #foundation to:  GNOME Foundation meeting | Currently discussing: Marketing for GNOME 3 | If you want to see a specific topic discussed, please tell vuntz
 102 08:15 < stormy> We also talked about doing release parties - worldwide hosted by people in the community.
 103 08:15 < stormy> herco, any specific questions?
 104 08:15 < pcutler> we're trying to add some more organizatoin to the marketing team, including monthly meetings to work on specific tasks so we can accomplish these goals.  We're always looking for more help!
 105 08:16 -!- ploum [~ploum@86.183-200-80.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has joined #foundation
 106 08:16 <@vuntz> Ford_Prefect, seb, Susana, ploum: hi :-) Feel free to ping me if you want to add a topic to the agenda
 107 08:17 < ploum> hi Vuntz
 108 08:17 < Ford_Prefect> Hello vuntz, all - just here to watch for now. Will chime in if I have anything to say/ask. :)
 109 08:17 -!- behdad [~behdad@grad335-018.resnet.yorku.ca] has joined #foundation
 110 08:18 < herco> thank you stormy & pcutler. A dedicate GNOME3 site is a very good idea
 111 08:18 < behdad> sorry for being late.  it's saturday :)
 112 08:18 < stormy> We're discussing the GNOME3 site on the marketing list.
 113 08:18 < stormy> Just needs someone to do it!
 114 08:18 < herco> i see :-)
 115 08:19 < stormy> We do have a wiki page with GNOME 3 "myths" that we'd like to start promoting.
 116 08:20 <@vuntz> I guess the new plone-based website will also help when building the GNOME 3 site?
 117 08:20 < stormy> People ask a lot of the same questions.
 118 08:20 < stormy> vuntz, I think we should get something up really soon. Then we can do it better later in plone.
 119 08:20 < pcutler> vuntz: yes, in a perfect world we'd like to build the sub-site in Plone, but we need that up first
 120 08:21 <@sandy|out> what's the ETA on the plone site?
 121 08:21 < Ford_Prefect> Do we have any artwork? Stuff to put on blogs/wallpapers and whatnot?
 122 08:21 < ploum> vuntz, I've some questions about the process used to make design and usability choices in GNOME 3. Is this appropriate in the current meeting or not ?
 123 08:22 <@vuntz> Ford_Prefect: I've asked for a GNOME 3 specific logo (see http://live.gnome.org/GnomeArt/ArtRequests/GNOME3Logo)
 124 08:22 <@vuntz> Ford_Prefect: but this needs some discussion I guess
 125 08:23 <@vuntz> ploum: well, we can probably discuss this a bit, but I'm not sure we have the most appropriate people here, though
 126 08:23 <@vuntz> ploum: (let's queue it after the current topic)
 127 08:23 < ploum> vuntz, ok, forget it for now then
 128 08:23  * vuntz looks for an answer to sandy|out's question
 129 08:24 <@vuntz> sandy|out: as far as I know, the technical side is ready, and we have http://website-editors.gnome.org/
 130 08:24 < Ford_Prefect> vuntz, ah, cool. Just curious so I can put something on my blog. No art skillz to contribute there.
 131 08:24 <@vuntz> what's missing now is content
 132 08:24 <@sandy|out> vuntz: weird, I thought we wrote all the content like three years ago :-P
 133 08:24  * OgMaciel is catching up
 134 08:24 <@sandy|out> anyway, kind of off-topic
 135 08:25 <@vuntz> sandy|out: heh. I've not followed closely the looooong story of the new website, I just know this:
 136 08:25 -!- jhs [~jhs@ppp-88-217-126-213.dynamic.mnet-online.de] has joined #foundation
 137 08:25 <@vuntz> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-web-list/2009-December/msg00009.html
 138 08:26 <@vuntz> jhs: hey hey
 139 08:26 < jhs> vuntz: btw, is the CMS also available for other projects (projects.gnome.org)?
 140 08:26 < jhs> vuntz: hi ;)
 141 08:27 < pcutler> jhs: not in phase one if I remember correctly
 142 08:27 <@vuntz> jhs: hrm, good question. I would hope it will be available
 143 08:27 <@vuntz> yeah, I guess the n?1 priority was "get the new www.gnome.org out and then..."
 144 08:28 < jhs> pcutler, vuntz: ok, would then be a medium-time goal. Currently projects.gnome.org lacks lot of features (no scripting, etc.)
 145 08:28 <@vuntz> nod
 146 08:28 < jhs> And many web designers feel that git is a pain-in-the-ass for website maintaince
 147 08:28 <@vuntz> it would also make it easier to create consistent & good-looking pages for apps
 148 08:29 < pcutler> agree - we wanted to do a second round of adding content to the site, and then create a GNOME Applications site that I think would tie-in
 149 08:29 < jhs> pcutler: great!
 150 08:30 < herco> pcutler: yeap
 151 08:30 <@vuntz> anything else on GNOME 3 marketing or website?
 152 08:31 <@vuntz> (fwiw, help is very much appreciated in those two areas :-))
 153 08:31 < jhs> vuntz: OT: is there a log available for this session? Sorry, but I came home late...
 154 08:31 <@sandy|out> i can make one available if nobody else is
 155 08:32 <@vuntz> I could probably make some live log, if I remember how to save the log in irssi
 156 08:33 <@sandy|out> http://armstrong-clan.net/dump/#foundation.log
 157 08:33 <@vuntz> thanks!
 158 08:33 <@sandy|out> I'll clean it up at the end and put it on l.g.o
 159 08:33 <@sandy|out> heh, that link doesn't work
 160 08:34 <@vuntz> ploum: do you still want to discuss a bit the design/usability choices for GNOME 3?
 161 08:34 <@vuntz> ploum: or should we skip it as you suggested later?
 162 08:35 -!- seb [~seb@cvl92-3-82-247-217-100.fbx.proxad.net] has left #foundation []
 163 08:35 <@sandy|out> jhs: http://armstrong-clan.net/dump/foundation.log
 164 08:35 <@OgMaciel> about GNOME 3, is there a list of what type of system is needed to run it? Sort of a "you must be this tall to ride" spec?
 165 08:36 <@OgMaciel> new shell and bells and whistles will sirely require more potent systems
 166 08:36 <@sandy|out> OgMaciel: that should go in the Myths page, I would think
 167 08:36 <@OgMaciel> myths?
 168 08:36 <@sandy|out> http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3Myths
 169 08:37 <@sandy|out> we could add more info there
 170 08:37 < jhs> OgMaciel: "potent system" is wrong. You just need a support graphic card.
 171 08:37 <@vuntz> OgMaciel: we don't have this. But the main change in requirements would be for GNOME Shell, where working 3d graphic drivers is needed
 172 08:37 <@OgMaciel> myth is not a good choice imho
 173 08:38 <@OgMaciel> it is good to know that you have addresed this concern...
 174 08:38 <@vuntz> OgMaciel: depends how you write it: I've seen people saying "you need the latest computer to run what will be GNOME 3". This is certainly a myth, if expressed this way
 175 08:38 <@OgMaciel> not too sure it is obvious to get to it
 176 08:38 < jhs> What came into my mind: I proposed a talk about Gnome3 on LinuxTag and I wonder if we have some standard slides or want to create any.
 177 08:38 < pcutler> we just started the page a week or two ago, and as we build a GNOME 3.0 site later I'm sure we'll have a more formal FAQ
 178 08:38 < stormy> OgMaciel, we need to use the myths to propel are marketing efforts.
 179 08:39 < stormy> We can write about them, include them on the GNOME 3.0 site, in a FAQ, in dents/tweets.
 180 08:39 <@vuntz> having a more formal FAQ later certainly makes sense, indeed
 181 08:39 < pcutler> jhs: yes, we do - we started this project at the hackfest to do exactly that, we just need to get it cleaned up and finish it (we do have a slide template available too)
 182 08:39 <@OgMaciel> stormy: I can see how this page would help internally but making it easier to get and stand out would be nice
 183 08:40 < jhs> pcutler: great! The would make my life easier and ensure that people are informed.
 184 08:40 < stormy> OgMaciel, absolutely. The page is not focused at external folks.
 185 08:40 <@vuntz> OgMaciel: that's definitely right. That would be part of the GNOME 3 website effort
 186 08:40 <@OgMaciel> nod
 187 08:40 <@yippi> yes, I think the myths page would be better as a more standard FAQ.  Myths seems an odd word choice to me
 188 08:41 <@sandy|out> yippi: it's an Anti-FUD device
 189 08:41 <@sandy|out> there has been a lot of GNOME3 FUD
 190 08:41 < pcutler> that's an understatement  :)
 191 08:41 <@OgMaciel> a "formal" blog post followed up by presentations, etc may help dismiss this fud
 192 08:41 <@sandy|out> but yeah, an official user-facing FAQ is also necessary,as you say
 193 08:42 <@OgMaciel> that was my only question related to GNOME 3
 194 08:44 <@vuntz> any other comment/question about GNOME 3?
 195 08:44 -!- Dodji [~dseketel@nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com] has joined #foundation
 196 08:44 <@vuntz> Dodji: hello (tu es en retard ;-))
 197 08:45 <@OgMaciel> the agenda page is empty so, is there another list of topics that will brought to the table?
 198 08:45 < jhs> vuntz: do we have information from the distributers? How is likely to adapt GNOME 3 immediately?
 199 08:45 < jhs> s/How/Who
 200 08:45 < Dodji> vuntz: hey.yeah, I am late, sorry. I missed the notice.
 201 08:45 <@vuntz> OgMaciel: for this meeting, we wanted to let members propose agenda items so we could discuss what's of interest to you
 202 08:46 <@yippi> should we talk about co-locating in 2011?
 203 08:46 < jhs> sandy|out: thanks for the log, btw.
 204 08:46 <@vuntz> jhs: so I guess the main question here is "who will use gnome shell by default?"
 205 08:46 < jhs> vuntz: yes
 206 08:47 <@vuntz> jhs: we (release team, not board) discussed this a bit with various people
 207 08:48 <@vuntz> jhs: it's still a bit unclear, but the feeling I got is that ubuntu will probably stay with the standard shell (panel + metacity/compiz) in the short term; not sure about fedora/mandriva (although I think fedora might choose to switch)
 208 08:48 <@yippi> I know at Sun, that there will be issues with migrating to GNOME 3.0 if it isn't accessible.
 209 08:48 <@vuntz> for opensuse, we'll try to switch to gnome-shell by default and see how it goes
 210 08:49 <@vuntz> jhs: so right now, it's a bit unclear. Most distros probably are waiting to see how it goes
 211 08:49 <@yippi> though, if it is possible to deliver an accessible GNOME 3 with the GNOME 2.x panel/metacity and deliver GNOME 3 at the same time, then Sun would likely deliver both and make the a11y one the default
 212 08:49 <@vuntz> although it's worth mentioning that they'll probably all ship GNOME 3 with the old shell in the worst case
 213 08:49 < jhs> vuntz: ok, I think fedora will switch (hey, the employ all those people). But yeah, that's a bit hypothetically atm as we don't know how ready it is.
 214 08:50 <@OgMaciel> vuntz: are there drawbacks for the user when the time comes around to switch? meaning, is there a "migration" step that needs to be taken in order to switch from the user's pov?
 215 08:50 < jhs> vuntz: yes, I was meaning gnome3 = gnome-shell. That's not the whole truth of course...
 216 08:50 <@yippi> what do you mean by "old shell"  do you mean the old panel and metacity, or something else?
 217 08:50 <@vuntz> yippi: old shell = gnome-panel + metacity/any-other-wm
 218 08:51 <@yippi> i get the impression that gnome 3 will not be accessible initially, and that a11y may be added in 3.2 or a later release.  Is this the plan, or will GNOME 3.0 slip for a11y?
 219 08:51 <@vuntz> OgMaciel: I don't think there's any need for migration steps
 220 08:51 -!- shaunm [~shaunm@c-98-212-133-244.hsd1.il.comcast.net] has joined #foundation
 221 08:52 <@yippi> that sort of mimics what happened with GNOME 2.  GNOME 2 wasn't really usably accessible until somewhere around GNOME 2.10-2.16
 222 08:52 <@vuntz> OgMaciel: (or at least, I don't see anything right now)
 223 08:52 <@vuntz> hey shaunm 
 224 08:52 <@OgMaciel> vuntz: well, say you rely on something that runs on the panel... all of a sudden this item may be gone...
 225 08:52 <@yippi> i suspect GNOME 3 won't take so long since there were many more issues with GNOME 2.x with a11y being new.
 226 08:52 <@sandy|out> OgMaciel: yeah, but there's nothing to migrate
 227 08:52 <@vuntz> OgMaciel: do you have an example?
 228 08:52 <@sandy|out> metacity and mutter share configuration
 229 08:52 < jhs> OK, that leads to another question: Will we have something like "Tour through GNOME 3.0" to help usual users to find their way. Like what windows does but less annoying?
 230 08:52 <@yippi> but, perhaps GNOME 3.2 or 3.4 might be a more reasonable time to expect really usable a11y with GNOME 3...unless the plan is to slip GNOME 3 until a11y is ready
 231 08:53 <@OgMaciel> vuntz: keyboard layout changer
 232 08:53 <@OgMaciel> vuntz: dropbox
 233 08:53 <@OgMaciel> vuntz: hamster
 234 08:53 <@vuntz> yippi: this is not the plan
 235 08:53 <@sandy|out> OgMaciel: there isn't any applet support in gnome-shell
 236 08:53 < shaunm> hi vuntz
 237 08:53 <@vuntz> yippi: and the accessibility is working very hard to make sure it will just work fine
 238 08:53 -!- muelli [~muelli@83-71-42-122-dynamic.b-ras1.srl.dublin.eircom.net] has joined #foundation
 239 08:53 < pcutler> jhs: from a doc team point of view - no, probably not videos, though we want to re-write the user guide in Mallard and do topic based help 
 240 08:53 <@OgMaciel> sandy|out: exactly my concern
 241 08:54 <@OgMaciel> sandy|out: so the user has things just so and during the update/upgrade these things will be "gone"
 242 08:54 <@OgMaciel> thus my question for a migration
 243 08:54 < nacho> pcutler, do you have any roadmap for the mallard switching?
 244 08:54 <@yippi> i know they are working hard, and it might be possible for them to get all a11y work done in the timeframe.  But between WebKit, clutter, and the CORBA->D-Bus migration, it seems very optimistic to expect it to work just fine 
 245 08:54 < jhs> pcutler: I didn't mean videos. Rather something that pops up on first start and say "Hey we changed something, you want to know more?"
 246 08:54 <@sandy|out> well I don't think that's a migration issue
 247 08:54 <@vuntz> OgMaciel: no idea about dropbox; the keyboard layout stuff is moving to notification area in 2.30 already, so it will just work; hamster is creating a stand-alone app for the same reason I guess
 248 08:54 <@OgMaciel> where migration could mean a tour
 249 08:54 <@sandy|out> ah
 250 08:54 -!- sasi [~sasi@112.110.25.187] has joined #foundation
 251 08:55 < pcutler> nacho: for the user guide?  gnome 2.32 / 3.0.  Mallard was implemented in GNOME 2.28 with empathy being the first app to use it
 252 08:55 < shaunm> nacho: the roadmap is to do what we can, one document at a time
 253 08:55 <@vuntz> OgMaciel: we could probably make the app autostart if there were applets in the 2.x config of the user. That's an idea that can be investigated, indeed
 254 08:55 < nacho> ok
 255 08:55 -!- Bertrand [~lorentz@87.240.206.6] has joined #foundation
 256 08:55 <@OgMaciel> vuntz: sounds good... just want to make sure that users don't get allienated
 257 08:55 < nacho> I tried to to make something on the mallard switching for gedit but it was really painful
 258 08:56 <@vuntz> OgMaciel: yes. That's important, so if you can think of cases like this, maybe document them in some way so we make sure they'll get handled
 259 08:56 < shaunm> really?
 260 08:56 <@OgMaciel> vuntz: aye
 261 08:56 -!- KaL [~KaL@89.141.75.116.dyn.user.ono.com] has quit [Bye]
 262 08:56 < shaunm> nacho: could you stop by #docs today to talk about it?
 263 08:56 < nacho> shaunm, sure
 264 08:56 <@yippi> but i do think a11y needs to be managed, especially if the plan ends up being that a11y will be broken and fixed in a later 3.2/3.4, etc. release.  From a marketing perspective, it could alienate people and make people question GNOME's values if we don't set expectations right.
 265 08:56 -!- sasi [~sasi@112.110.25.187] has left #foundation []
 266 08:57 <@yippi> I don't think it is a problem if a11y users need to wait for a follow-up release for full a11y-support if we make it clear that is what we are doing.
 267 08:57 <@yippi> though i understand right now we don't really know what the plan is
 268 08:57 <@yippi> or whether all the work will get done in time
 269 08:58 <@vuntz> yippi: yeah. The plan is known, but it's unclear whether everything will be ready in time
 270 08:58 <@vuntz> yippi: (although that's really more about gnome-shell than about the rest of the a11y stack, I think)
 271 08:58 <@vuntz> yippi: the main issue is really clutter a11y, afaik
 272 08:58 <@yippi> yes, but the ORBIT->D-Bus conversion is another real sensitive area which might be more work than people think atm
 273 08:59 -!- reinouts [~reinout@s559355fe.adsl.wanadoo.nl] has joined #foundation
 274 08:59 <@vuntz> hrm, my understanding is that it'd be okay -- it's nearly already fine, isn't it?
 275 08:59 <@sandy|out> yippi: the at-spi-dbus work is going great
 276 08:59 <@yippi> if, for example, if makes for real performance issues, that could also make GNOME 3.0 not very usable from an a11y perspective.  But we need to wait and see.
 277 08:59 <@yippi> yes, it's going well.  But it is hard to predict performance issues until users really start hammering it
 278 09:00 <@yippi> that was the main reason why GNOME 2.x wasn't really usably accessible until the GNOME 2.10-2.16 timeframe
 279 09:00 <@yippi> even though it "worked" before, it wasn't really usable.
 280 09:00 <@sandy|out> that's why it's supposed to be ready for testing in the next stable GNOME
 281 09:00 -!- Ankh [~liam@208.69.244.135] has joined #foundation
 282 09:00 <@sandy|out> we have plenty of time to evaluate what's going on before GNOME3
 283 09:01 <@yippi> yes, but one cycle is ambitious to think all issues will be addressed.  I hope that is enough time, as you suggest.  But we should be prepared for finding out that it may take more time.
 284 09:01 <@sandy|out> sure
 285 09:01 -!- zana [~zana@static-71-174-236-21.bstnma.fios.verizon.net] has joined #foundation
 286 09:02 <@vuntz> okay, moving away from the GNOME 3 topic?
 287 09:02 <@vuntz> yippi: you wanted to discuss a bit guadec/akademy colocation in 2011?
 288 09:03 <@yippi> i think it would be a good topic.
 289 09:03 <@yippi> do you have results from your survey?
 290 09:04  * sandy|out has to go away for a few hours, will post complete log later
 291 09:04 <@vuntz> yippi: I'm looking at the raw results right now
 292 09:04 < jhs> I personally think that co-location failed in 2009. I didn't talk to any KDE guys except on one of the beach parties. But I think with a shared schedule we could do much better!
 293 09:04 <@vuntz> not quite sure if I can create stats out of it with the web interface
 294 09:04 -!- pcutler is now known as pcutler|away
 295 09:05 -!- giusef [~giusef@host10-250-dynamic.37-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has joined #foundation
 296 09:05 <@OgMaciel> jhs: agreed but it was a good step forward imho
 297 09:05 < Ankh> jhs, it wsa not somewhere I could rtavel to, but, were there many shared sessions? e.g. for desktop interop stuff?
 298 09:06 -!- jrb [~jrb@static-71-174-236-21.bstnma.fios.verizon.net] has joined #foundation
 299 09:06 < jhs> OgMaciel: sure. I even think the best would be to have one dedicated "cross-desktop"-day. Because otherwise you always have to decide which of the project specific talks you attend and as a GNOME contributer that almost always the GNOME side.
 300 09:06 <@yippi> personally, i think the most important thing is to invest more time setting up the schedule so that the GNOME and KDE communities have more time to focus on their separate projects, and that the time we spend on "collaboration" projects is truly focused on areas that collaboration is useful and likely to be productive.
 301 09:06 < jhs> Ankh: not really, that was one of the problems.
 302 09:07 <@OgMaciel> jhs: agree 100%
 303 09:07 <@yippi> I think a big problem with the last GCDS summit is that this sort of planning wasn't done carefully
 304 09:07 -!- vuntz changed the topic of #foundation to: GNOME Foundation Meeting | Log at http://armstrong-clan.net/dump/foundation.log | Currently discussing: GUADEC & Akademy co-location | If you want to see a specific topic discussed, please tell vuntz 
 305 09:07 <@gpoo> Ankh, jhs: it was supposed to be a co-hosted conference.  Two conferences at the same place and at the same time.
 306 09:07 <@vuntz> jrb: hey. I see you're coming just in time for your favorite topic ;-)
 307 09:07 <@gpoo> neither it did not work in that way, but for other reasons
 308 09:08 <@vuntz> jhs: actually, there's was at least a cross-desktop morning
 309 09:08 < jrb> vuntz: which is my favorite topic?
 310 09:08 <@vuntz> jhs: (but I see the point about not enough cross-desktop)
 311 09:08 < jrb> oh, co-location; gah
 312 09:08 <@vuntz> :-)
 313 09:08 < jhs> yippi: yes. But we have this time for 2011. I didn't think the location was a great choice anyway but that's another question
 314 09:08 <@vuntz> jrb: I feel sorry for you
 315 09:09 < jrb> why?
 316 09:09 <@vuntz> jrb: you have to deal with this topic one more time here ;-)
 317 09:10 <@vuntz> jrb: just kidding
 318 09:10 <@vuntz> so looking at the raw results of the survey...
 319 09:10 < jrb> vuntz: were there results from the survey?
 320 09:10 <@vuntz> we didn't have that many people answering (103)
 321 09:10 < muelli> I am in favour of having a conference together. But as jhs said, it'd be nice if it was organized better, i.e. allow more collaboration by having breaks together.
 322 09:10 < Ankh> in some ways i'd be happier to see guadec colocated with some applicatoin/domain-specific conference like libregraphicsmeeting.org
 323 09:10 <@yippi> jrb: I think vuntz is compiling the results as we speak
 324 09:11 -!- tristan [~Tristan@74.210.0.150] has joined #foundation
 325 09:11 <@vuntz> 65.05% said "do it", 27.18% said "don't do it"
 326 09:11 <@yippi> yes, i think the organizers should make sure that we have enough time separately, and also encourage people to actually co-mingle better.
 327 09:11 <@yippi> we need a bit of both
 328 09:11 < Ankh> focused sessions sessions with developers on other platforms can be incredibly useful, but focused sessions with user communities can too.
 329 09:11 < muelli> sure. My point was to *allow* collaboration. Not necessarily force it ;-)
 330 09:12 <@vuntz> for foundation members you replied: 47.57% for do it, 21.36% for don't do it
 331 09:12 <@vuntz> s/you/who/
 332 09:13 <@yippi> right, forcing is bad...but there could be more opportunities to encourage doing activities together.  Rather than going to a bar where people tend to group with the people they know, perhaps activities where people are encouraged to break up into groups and meet new people might help
 333 09:13 <@vuntz> hrm, I'm obviously not using this web interface correctly since numbers don't add up
 334 09:13 <@yippi> maybe some didn't respond to certain questions?
 335 09:13 <@OgMaciel> vuntz: maybe just stick to ball park figures for now
 336 09:15 < muelli> one could also set up a "Call for Issues" (or so) so that the KDE and GNOME folks can place their issues somewhere (say in a Wiki) that they think deserve discussion. People then should be able to follow further plannings on their topic then, i.e. if someone books a room to discuss that, interested parties should be notified.
 337 09:15 <@vuntz> yippi: nah, I think that's just that I'm not sure how to generate percentages for just a subpart of people who replied (eg, only foundation members) -- should be easy to do outside the web interface, though
 338 09:16 <@yippi> it sounds like people are mostly positive about doing it, though it also seems that we learned a lot of lessons the last time about the need to focus more energy to organize it more effectively.
 339 09:16 <@yippi> that seems to be the general feeling of everything I've heard people say at this and other meetings
 340 09:16 -!- giusef [~giusef@host10-250-dynamic.37-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has quit [exit (-1);]
 341 09:16 < Ankh> could also try specific sessions on some xdg desktop specs, maybe with call-in facilities and audio streaming
 342 09:17 < stormy> vuntz, after you click on the "get statistics" pie chart icon, you can select answers in the field that you want to filter on.
 343 09:17 <@yippi> Ankh, if we are lucky enough to ever plan a conference somewhere where we have good internet
 344 09:17 < Ankh> there was good internet at some of the guadecs I've ben to, but not been recently
 345 09:18 < Ankh> (can't go to conferences unless they pay my travel & hotel, ouch)
 346 09:18 <@gpoo> Ankh: you can apply for sponsorship
 347 09:18 < Ankh> true
 348 09:18 < muelli> What are the reasons to not colocate?
 349 09:19 <@gpoo> muelli: in the survey or in general?
 350 09:19 <@yippi> i'd think the biggest reason to not colocate in the near future is that GNOME 3.0 is a big transition for the GNOME community, and we perhaps have too much on our plate to focus on collaboration issues
 351 09:19 <@vuntz> stormy: yeah, but I want to get stats only for people who replied yes to one question. (ie, I get 47.57% (do it) + 21.36% (don't do it) for foundation members, which obviously doesn't make 100%)
 352 09:19 < jrb> it also dilutes the community; and provided kde with a big financial boost
 353 09:20 < stormy> jrb, actually it provided us with a big financial boost.
 354 09:20 < Ankh> yippi - surely it's also the best time t ofocus on increased interop?
 355 09:21 < jrb> stormy: that's true too.
 356 09:21 < Dodji> I also feel like co-locating makes talks planning harder. It's very hard to to schedule talks in a way that leaves hole for people to chat in corridors. If yo co-locate, it's even harder to do that.
 357 09:21 < Dodji> s/yo/you/
 358 09:22 <@vuntz> 18.45% will only attend or be more likely to attend in case of co-location, while 10.68% will be less likely to attend or will not attend in this case
 359 09:22 <@OgMaciel> I am a strong supporter of increasing interop with other communities, not only KDE... the most important thing, however, is figure out which areas will most likely make sense to include in these sessions
 360 09:22 < Dodji> so in the end, yes, co-location happens but in practise, little is shared.
 361 09:23 <@vuntz> anyway, I'll try to create stats that make sense later. Now is not the best time ;-)
 362 09:23 < stormy> I think we need to cooperate. 
 363 09:23 <@OgMaciel> Dodji: exactly! so instead of packing tracks with people talking about similar topics but on different buildings, I'd like to see them running this together
 364 09:23 < stormy> The free desktop has a long ways to go market share wise and we shouldn't spend our energy competing with those that share our goals.
 365 09:23 <@OgMaciel> nod
 366 09:24 < Dodji> well. Something similar is happening with Fosdem actually, I think
 367 09:24 < Dodji> They are willing more and more to be "inclusive", which is great.
 368 09:24 <@OgMaciel> vuntz: btw, my concern about applets and GNOME 3... I'm sending an email to the foundation with my notes
 369 09:24 < Dodji> but as time goes, the conference becomes less and less "focused"
 370 09:25 <@OgMaciel> probably reply to the email about this meeting
 371 09:25 < Dodji> will lots of talks about webby stuff, for instance
 372 09:25 < Dodji> which is great, in a way. but not much if you are interested in "core stuff"
 373 09:25 < Dodji> and for me, core stuff would be GNOME.
 374 09:25 < muelli> Dodji: what stops you from doing core stuff?
 375 09:26 <@yippi> ankh, I guess it depends on your perspective on whether the GNOME 3.0 transition calls for more or less collaboration in the near ter 
 376 09:26 < Dodji> muelli: me in particular ? nothing
 377 09:26 < Ankh> yippi: I think any architectural change calls for more attention to interperability
 378 09:26 <@OgMaciel> I'd like to see ally sessions with people from different communities who deal with this topic in their own projects... share their pains and knowledge
 379 09:26 < muelli> Dodji: so being more inclusive does not touch people doing "core stuff"?
 380 09:27 <@vuntz> Dodji: that's something people have noticed too. I think for next GUADEC already, the organizers will possibly try to get a bit more focus again
 381 09:27 <@OgMaciel> same goes for l10n
 382 09:27 < zana> maybe it would make sense to do colocated hackfests instead?
 383 09:27 < Ankh> you have to be careful that you're not introducing changes that seem easy now but will be really difficult to deal with a year or two from now.
 384 09:27 < muelli> Dodji: or the other way round: Why is it not great for people that want to do core stuff if the conference is more inclusive?
 385 09:27 <@OgMaciel> zana: +1
 386 09:27 <@vuntz> zana: that's a good idea. I actually talked with a KDE eV board member about this
 387 09:28 <@vuntz> zana: I think everybody likes the idea, but then nobody has come with a topic for a cross-desktop hackfest yet ;-)
 388 09:28  * stormy needs to go. Will catch up on logs later.
 389 09:28 < Dodji> muelli: Think about in practise. You'd have twice more talks about many more topics when you co-locate
 390 09:28 <@OgMaciel> what I just said about ally and l10n sessions held by members from different communities is exacrly that: colocated hackfests
 391 09:28 <@OgMaciel> vuntz: I just did
 392 09:28 < Dodji> muelli: in the end, most people miss more stuff.
 393 09:28 < Dodji> muelli: most of the core people I mean :-)
 394 09:28 < Dodji> muelli: I'd be for doing *less* talks :-)
 395 09:29 <@gpoo> vuntz: it makes a lot sense, especially to increase cooperation before having a big co-located conference
 396 09:29 < Dodji> and have more time for people to have corridor chats
 397 09:29 < Dodji> and have more "core stuff" covered.
 398 09:29 < Dodji> but that's a hard sell, I know :-)
 399 09:29 <@vuntz> OgMaciel: want to propose a hackfest about this?
 400 09:29 <@OgMaciel> gpoo: the big colocated conference could then have people presenting together the result of their work
 401 09:29 < muelli> Dodji: hm. yes and no. Nobody stops people from doing the very same thing they did all the last years, or am I missing something? So by just adding talks we enable people that want to see more talks but do not interfere with the people that don't.?
 402 09:29 <@vuntz> OgMaciel: (see http://live.gnome.org/Hackfests/New for the first steps)
 403 09:30 <@OgMaciel> vuntz: yes, but I would like to see the board kick start it
 404 09:30 <@vuntz> OgMaciel: hackfests are not kickstarted by the board, but by the people who want to see them happen
 405 09:30 < Ankh> zana, the reason I suggest colocating xdg specfest :) is that partly I don't know how much shared code there really is
 406 09:30 < Dodji> muelli: it's not about *stopping* people, I think. It's less of a "hard" fact than that I guess.
 407 09:30 < Ankh> but there are a lot of shared specs
 408 09:30 <@OgMaciel> vuntz: right, but the board is in a better position to get the right people together
 409 09:31 <@OgMaciel> vuntz: much like Canonical does
 410 09:31 < Dodji> muelli: I think you get the idea. I just wanted to bring that POV to the table.
 411 09:31 <@vuntz> OgMaciel: okay, let me give you a more concrete answer: the board cannot know what the goals of the hackfest should be
 412 09:31 <@vuntz> OgMaciel: the board can help contact people who could help or who should go there. But in the end, the hackfest has to be lead by someone who knows the topic
 413 09:31 <@OgMaciel> vuntz: this is why we're meeting and I'm here to provide you then with what the board should know
 414 09:32 <@OgMaciel> fair enough
 415 09:32 < Dodji> stormy: I am not against collaboration, who could be against that.
 416 09:32 <@vuntz> OgMaciel: (and I'd love to see a l10n hackfest)
 417 09:33 <@OgMaciel> vuntz: I can promise you that I will send in a proposal to the board :)
 418 09:33 <@vuntz> OgMaciel: awesome!
 419 09:33 < Dodji> stormy: but maybe guadec is not necessarily the best venue for that, I don't know.
 420 09:34 < Dodji> anyway, I think this is a minority point of view :-)
 421 09:34 < Dodji> the majority of people are not interested about core things :-)
 422 09:35 < Dodji> still I think it can be worth to keep this POV in mind.
 423 09:35 < Dodji> +it
 424 09:35 <@vuntz> Ankh: btw, would you like to work on proposing a xdg spec hackfest?
 425 09:35 <@gpoo> Dodji: I agree with you.  And I do think that hackfest is a better place to share and be productive at the same time
 426 09:35 < Dodji> gpoo: yeah, maybe.
 427 09:35 < Ankh> vuntz, I'm 100% maxed out right now, but I'm willing to send some notes to gnome-foundation list and see if someone else has more time than I do
 428 09:36 <@vuntz> Ankh: that'd be great. I'd be interested in seeing this happen :-)
 429 09:36 < Ankh> ok, thanks for the support!
 430 09:36 <@vuntz> since we slightly move from co-location to hackfests