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