feb 27 17:04:11 as far as I see, we have only one (big) agenda item: Strategic roadmap for GNOME: long term goals feb 27 17:04:23 Anybody heard from gpoo? Since the earthquake? feb 27 17:05:24 I haven't heard from people in Concepción yet feb 27 17:05:37 * KaL (~KaL@213.37.96.140.static.user.ono.com) ha entrado en #foundation feb 27 17:05:38 I guess we'll have to wait for some online news :/ feb 27 17:05:40 but people in other regions is starting to msg in twitter feb 27 17:05:45 ok, sorry, vuntz, I didn't mean to derail. feb 27 17:05:50 it's okay feb 27 17:05:52 * andreasn (~andreas@90-224-168-174-no128.tbcn.telia.com) ha entrado en #foundation feb 27 17:06:27 so, does anybody want to start on the roadmap topic? feb 27 17:07:28 I think it would really help get individuals and companies involved if we had a longer vision roadmap. feb 27 17:07:44 We don't have to commit to specific dates but having a vision would greatly benefit us. feb 27 17:09:11 okay, I wanted to wait a bit before giving my opinion, but let me go :-) feb 27 17:09:38 I didn't read the whole thread on foundation-list, so maybe I'll write things that were already mentioned there feb 27 17:10:06 the long-term roadmap topic is something that, in my opinion, the release team has been working on feb 27 17:10:18 and the first visible result of this was the GNOME 3 planning document: http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero/Plan feb 27 17:10:40 if you look at this, you'll see it mentions area that are worth exploring feb 27 17:11:09 the way I see it, most of what is mentioned there are items that are for GNOME 3 feb 27 17:11:28 not GNOME 3.0, but GNOME 3 -- so for the next 2.5 years, let's say feb 27 17:12:06 and GNOME 3.0 is just the beginning of all this feb 27 17:12:32 (actually that's a point to think: how long do we want our theorical major stable cycles to be?) feb 27 17:13:13 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 feb 27 17:13:15 vuntz, kde 4.0 is not kde 4? :) feb 27 17:13:32 sounds good, LTS distros have similar ranges afaik feb 27 17:13:34 diegoe: heh. To clarify: 3.0 is a specific version, 3 is a whole cycle feb 27 17:13:53 yeah it makes sense ;) feb 27 17:14:36 * dayo (~dayo@83.229.6.19) ha entrado en #foundation feb 27 17:15:19 a question might be how does recent UX hackfest results fit there feb 27 17:15:36 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 feb 27 17:16:17 diegoe: from what I saw of the hackfest in the last two days, most things should be targetted for GNOME 3 (cycle, not 3.0) feb 27 17:17:10 jjardon, any opinion from gtk land? :) feb 27 17:17:18 (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) feb 27 17:17:31 how people feel feb 27 17:18:55 is the roadmap for GTK+ 3.0 available somewhere? feb 27 17:19:24 afranke: there's been a few mails on gtk-devel-list this week or last week with the plans feb 27 17:19:51 afranke, http://live.gnome.org/GTK+ there are two links there, but not sure how up to date they are feb 27 17:19:57 http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2010-February/msg00040.html feb 27 17:19:59 jjardon should now feb 27 17:20:05 and the few mails after that feb 27 17:20:57 * iven (~iven@114.246.166.191) ha abandonado #foundation feb 27 17:21:01 all the info is here: http://live.gnome.org/GTK+/3.0/ feb 27 17:21:28 the work is coordinated here: http://live.gnome.org/GTK%2B/3.0/Tasks feb 27 17:22:41 * hhlp (~hhlp@164.Red-79-153-137.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net) ha entrado en #foundation feb 27 17:23:16 Also, there already is a gtk-2-90 branch in GTK+ git feb 27 17:23:36 I agree this is a good strategical document. However, I miss a easy way to follow where we are feb 27 17:23:38 * iven (~iven@114.246.166.191) ha entrado en #foundation feb 27 17:24:44 * fargiolas (~fargiolas@95.234.93.52) ha entrado en #foundation feb 27 17:24:54 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 feb 27 17:25:23 jjmarin, GTK +3 document or Gnome 3 document? feb 27 17:25:34 vuntz: maybe to set some rules about this can help feb 27 17:25:49 jjmarin: what kind of rules? feb 27 17:26:26 vunt: For example a page for every task to follow the status feb 27 17:26:42 jjmarin: sure, but the issue is that somebody needs to update the status feb 27 17:26:51 jjmarin: and this is where we need help from people, I think feb 27 17:27:29 asking developers to update the wiki page just doesn't work, unfortunately feb 27 17:28:21 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? feb 27 17:29:22 As far as I know http://live.gnome.org/GTK%2B/3.0/Tasks is up-to-date feb 27 17:30:22 jjmarin: I guess you're maintaining this page? Is this something where you need help? feb 27 17:30:59 vuntz: I guess mean jjardon :) feb 27 17:31:01 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 feb 27 17:31:14 jjmarin: yeah :-) diegoe is right, it's confusing to have both of you ;-) feb 27 17:31:53 * zana (~zana@static-71-174-236-21.bstnma.fios.verizon.net) ha entrado en #foundation feb 27 17:33:34 Another thing that we can discuss is: how to set strategical goals. If we need a LTS cycle. feb 27 17:33:40 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? feb 27 17:33:55 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 feb 27 17:34:06 * rubenv (~ruben@li145-167.members.linode.com) ha entrado en #foundation feb 27 17:34:36 Some of these features can be implemented in 2.22 or 3.0 feb 27 17:35:00 (If we want a 2.22 release) feb 27 17:35:14 A strategical roadmap is good for manage our planning, but as well is good fo giving a public message of the direction. feb 27 17:35:49 agree feb 27 17:36:02 vuntz, these features are already in the GTK+ roadmap: http://live.gnome.org/GTK%2B/Roadmap feb 27 17:36:17 It is really hard for someone not emeshed in GNOME to follow along. feb 27 17:36:17 A strategical roadmap can helps as well for planing a API and ABI breakage. feb 27 17:36:32 (And I agree, a strategic roadmap would very much help that.) feb 27 17:36:56 Also, for GTK+ 3 work, all kind of hands are needed, even a newbie can help feb 27 17:37:32 jjardon, could we perhaps promote that? with easy clear steps maybe? feb 27 17:37:34 may I ask what you think should be in a strategical roadmap? feb 27 17:37:35 This page has more information: http://live.gnome.org/GTK%2B/3.0/Roadmap feb 27 17:37:46 maybe reviewing patches, like kalikiana and I used to do feb 27 17:37:56 that was easy, just a bit time consuming feb 27 17:38:27 vuntz: high level goals? feb 27 17:38:50 stormy: okay, let me rephrase. Is http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero/Plan something that looks like what you'd expect? feb 27 17:38:59 or would you like to see something else? feb 27 17:39:08 Yes. feb 27 17:39:23 But I think it could be presented in a way that would make it easier for people to see highlights. feb 27 17:39:33 vuntz, perhaps with an optional "bullet point summarised" summary feb 27 17:39:34 fair enough feb 27 17:39:37 yeah, highlights feb 27 17:39:43 we all know release team people can't communicate well, though ;-) feb 27 17:39:44 And maybe some priority/timeline to it. feb 27 17:39:53 Are all these things for 3.0? feb 27 17:40:08 vuntz: that's because of the amount of french speakers in there ;-) feb 27 17:40:09 no, they are GNOME 3 feb 27 17:40:10 In the GNOME 3 life span, when will they come out? feb 27 17:40:24 one thing I might wonder if I read casually some blogs is "oh the task pooper, when will I see that? 3.0?" feb 27 17:40:38 so priority/rough "releaseline" would be good feb 27 17:40:43 I agree with the priority/timeline thing, and that's actually an action item I took during the usability hackfest feb 27 17:41:18 * lixem (be28f514@widget.mibbit.com) ha entrado en #foundation feb 27 17:41:48 cool feb 27 17:41:55 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 feb 27 17:42:04 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? feb 27 17:42:11 It's ok if they change ... feb 27 17:42:19 something like the long term releases for ubuntu / rhel / ... feb 27 17:42:25 stormy: yeah, could be feb 27 17:42:42 17:13 <@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 feb 27 17:42:46 rubenv: ^ feb 27 17:43:11 * pcutler (~pcutler@c-75-72-118-230.hsd1.mn.comcast.net) ha entrado en #foundation feb 27 17:43:11 diegoe, sure feb 27 17:43:18 vuntz: great, so will that idea be put into place or has it been dismissed? feb 27 17:43:36 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 feb 27 17:43:44 I'd love to hear what people think feb 27 17:43:58 i'm hungry feb 27 17:44:09 rubenv: it's not dismissed, but not really adopted either feb 27 17:44:30 rubenv: lack of time, etc. feb 27 17:44:42 vuntz: Maybe it is necesary to open a period of petition of request of changes or something like that feb 27 17:44:53 * lixem se ha marchado (http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client) feb 27 17:45:48 rubenv: my feeling is that we'll do something like that feb 27 17:46:04 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 feb 27 17:46:24 vuntz: great :-) I'll stop hijacking the meeting! feb 27 17:46:32 jjmarin: actually, we tried this feb 27 17:46:44 vuntz: OK :) feb 27 17:46:45 http://live.gnome.org/RoadMap/Process feb 27 17:46:48 jjmarin, debian has something like that, they propose goals with developers "backing up" it (just as proposing a module) feb 27 17:47:18 this was a way to get feedback from maintainers for the next 6 months, but also for the long term feb 27 17:47:40 it worked to some extent, but required too much work feb 27 17:48:31 what happened during the GNOME 3 planning phase is that a few people stepped back and looked at all the interesting areas that were being explored feb 27 17:49:50 jjmarin: would you be interested in trying to make the roadmap process I linked to lighter, so we can restart it again? feb 27 17:50:30 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. feb 27 17:52:06 jjmarin: can you detail which suggestions? :-) feb 27 17:52:49 * Fabo se ha marchado (Remote closed the connection) feb 27 17:53:14 btw, my request for volunteers to improve the old roadmap process is valid for everybody, not just jjmarin ;-) feb 27 17:53:20 * Fabo (~fabogranq@lns-bzn-56-82-255-246-211.adsl.proxad.net) ha entrado en #foundation feb 27 17:54:37 vuntz: basically, unify branding of GTK bindings and easy to install process on all OSes feb 27 17:54:55 ah, bindings feb 27 17:55:08 jjmarin, I'm working with aruiz on implementing part of his plan feb 27 17:55:09 the release team is working on a plan to change the modulesets feb 27 17:55:32 and one part of this is to make the bindings part of the GNOME platform instead of having them in a separate moduleset feb 27 17:55:39 to clarify our message around them feb 27 17:56:08 vunzt: how well is working the roadmap process by far. I mean, people do their reports ? feb 27 17:56:30 jjmarin: after a while, some maintainers didn't feb 27 17:56:56 * iven (~iven@114.246.166.191) ha abandonado #foundation feb 27 17:57:10 and we stopped the roadmap process for with 2.28 since we were working on the 3.0 planning feb 27 17:57:22 (if I'm not mistaken) feb 27 17:57:42 * slee se ha marchado (Ping timeout: 600 seconds) feb 27 17:57:45 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 feb 27 17:57:58 but that's something we'll want to restart for 3.2 and later anyway; we just need to improve this feb 27 17:58:49 jjmarin: yep. The question is how to find the general areas feb 27 17:59:40 I feel those big areas would be related closely to UX targets feb 27 17:59:50 say integrating IM in these or those ways feb 27 18:00:02 About the bindings: Maybe http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/AddGObjectIntrospectionSupport should be a official GnomeGoal ? feb 27 18:01:06 Or the r-t has other plans? feb 27 18:01:47 jjardon: I would say it should become official :-) feb 27 18:02:14 jjardon: but you've been doing a good job at pushing the goals, so don't think you need approval from the r-t ;-) Just propose it on d-d-l and see reactions there feb 27 18:03:33 vuntz, thank you ;) But maybe a "offcial" announcement from the release team will have more impact (inside your strategic for the bindings) feb 27 18:04:18 * bzone se ha marchado (Remote closed the connection) feb 27 18:04:41 jjardon: heh, if you think it helps... Can you write a draft mail for this? We can then send it feb 27 18:04:56 vuntz, sure feb 27 18:04:59 so, let's step back a bit feb 27 18:05:14 what I got from this discussion feb 27 18:05:44 - we need ways to identify project-wide goals for the long term. Usability hackfest can be a way to do this, but it's not the only one feb 27 18:06:02 - we need to put some timeline on the goals to help clarify our message feb 27 18:06:26 yes feb 27 18:06:29 - we need people to take what the release team (or another group) publishes and promote it in a understandable way feb 27 18:06:38 am I missing something? feb 27 18:07:10 mmm, and that we should communicate clearly that gnome 3.0 does not aim to meet *all* the proposed goals feb 27 18:07:12 and do people think the release team is the appropriate group to do this job? feb 27 18:08:26 vuntz: when you talk about communication and promotion, I'd like to see collaboration with the marketing team feb 27 18:08:45 pcutler: how would you like to see this happening? feb 27 18:08:50 About the where to start from. Maybe is good idea to write a SWOT analysis feb 27 18:09:26 * KaL es ahora conocido como KaL_afk feb 27 18:10:02 jjmarin: is this something you'd want to make happen? feb 27 18:10:33 * brunobol (~bruno@189.104.20.93) ha entrado en #foundation feb 27 18:11:12 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 feb 27 18:11:13 vuntz: I can help to create it if it helps feb 27 18:12:14 stormy: what do you think about a SWOT analysis for generating ideas for strategy feb 27 18:12:28 jjmarin: the best to make it happen is to lead the effort to make it happen :-) feb 27 18:13:04 pcutler: the release team is working on the plan for the modulesets right now, and I guess it'll be proposed once we're happy with the plan feb 27 18:13:13 jjmarin: it's worth trying for sure. feb 27 18:13:17 vuntz: I don't have experience on that, but I can try it feb 27 18:13:38 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 feb 27 18:13:51 jjmarin, would you like to assign yourself an task item to do that? :), maybe chat a bit with stormy about it feb 27 18:14:04 vuntz: that's fair feb 27 18:14:35 pcutler: sure, it's fair. But maybe it's not optimal for the marketing team. Is this something we should change a bit? feb 27 18:14:51 diegoe: OK, I have a new task then :) feb 27 18:15:48 cool. then #task: jjmarin to discuss with stormy about a SWOT analysis feb 27 18:16:53 * hhlp (~hhlp@164.Red-79-153-137.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net) ha abandonado #foundation feb 27 18:17:11 anything else on this topic? feb 27 18:17:33 good enough by now :) feb 27 18:18:42 any other topic people want to discuss? feb 27 18:18:49 or should we close the meeting? feb 27 18:20:33 okay, no reply means we're done feb 27 18:20:46 :) feb 27 18:20:52 thanks to everyone for joining! feb 27 18:20:57 :) feb 27 18:20:59 :) feb 27 18:21:04 ;P feb 27 18:21:23 diegoe: any idea if we'll do the next meeting next month? Or in two months? feb 27 18:21:51 good question, maybe next month makes sense since we have a release, so opinions will be fresh feb 27 18:21:58 okay feb 27 18:22:18 hm, does someone saved a log of the meeting? feb 27 18:22:42 we'll want to publish it and send minutes to foundation-list feb 27 18:24:38 I have the log of the meeting feb 27 18:25:44 jjardon: cool. Can you put it on the wiki? feb 27 18:25:54 vuntz, sure feb 27 18:25:54 jjardon: maybe linked from http://live.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes (see the bottom) feb 27 18:25:58 lovely