1 10:06 < yippi> OgMaciel, are you running this meeting? 2 10:07 <@OgMaciel> yippi: was not planning to but I'll be around for sure 3 10:07 < yippi> who is moderating? 4 10:08 * OgMaciel was under the impression that stormy would be since she scheduled it 5 10:08 * OgMaciel puts on his moderator hat on 6 10:08 * OgMaciel double-checks agenda 7 10:09 <@OgMaciel> shall we get started then? 8 10:09 <@OgMaciel> agenda items are in http://live.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/MeetingAgenda 9 10:09 < pockeylam> OgMaciel, sure 10 10:09 <@OgMaciel> ok 11 10:09 <@OgMaciel> First item is: GNOME Mobile/Maemo integration proposals Update 12 10:10 < yippi> is bastien here? I'm not sure we can discuss that item without him. 13 10:10 <@OgMaciel> haven't seen him... 14 10:11 <@OgMaciel> yippi: what can you tell us about this item? 15 10:11 -!- hadess [~email@example.com] has joined #foundation 16 10:11 <@OgMaciel> we found hadess 17 10:11 < hadess> hey 18 10:11 <@OgMaciel> :) 19 10:11 <@OgMaciel> First item is: GNOME Mobile/Maemo integration proposals Update 20 10:11 <@OgMaciel> hadess has the floor 21 10:11 < hadess> OgMaciel: you could change the /topic :) 22 10:11 < hadess> and it's still missing the time 23 10:12 -!- OgMaciel changed the topic of #foundation to: GNOME Foundation IRC Meeting: Nov. 3rd, 2010 | Agenda: http://live.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/MeetingAgenda 24 10:12 <@OgMaciel> meh 25 10:12 -!- andreasn_ [~firstname.lastname@example.org] has joined #foundation 26 10:12 < yippi> excuse the smoke & mirrors 27 10:12 -!- OgMaciel changed the topic of #foundation to: GNOME Foundation IRC Meeting: Nov. 3rd, 2010 @ 14:00 UTC | Agenda: http://live.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/MeetingAgenda 28 10:12 < hadess> i e-mailed a number of consultancy, and it seems that we have quite a bit of interest in the project 29 10:12 < hadess> consultancies even 30 10:13 < hadess> i should be setting a bid proposal closing date shortly 31 10:13 < yippi> stormy said she will be about 10 more minutes late and apologies 32 10:13 -!- fernandes [~email@example.com] has joined #foundation 33 10:14 < hadess> anyone with questions or comments about the GTK+/MeeGo project? 34 10:14 < yippi> how many bids have we gotten, or expect to receive? 35 10:15 < hadess> we haven't gotten any yet, but we expect at least 4 to come in 36 10:15 < yippi> that sounds very respectable. very good job hadess! 37 10:15 < hadess> and that's just from the people i contacted 38 10:16 < yippi> look forward to reviewing them. Would be good to continue to get the word out so people can submit proposals! 39 10:16 < hadess> as i obviously cannot e-mail every consultancy in the GNOME eco-system :) 40 10:16 <@OgMaciel> hadess: got a handy link for more information on this topic for those who may want to catch up later? 41 10:16 < hadess> OgMaciel: nothing apart from the original announcement 42 10:17 <@OgMaciel> aye 43 10:17 < hadess> which can be found at http://blogs.gnome.org/foundation/2010/10/13/gtkmeego-handset-integration-work-call-for-bids/ 44 10:17 < yippi> thanks, links are handy 45 10:18 <@OgMaciel> does anyone have any comments or questions about this? 46 10:18 <@OgMaciel> ok 47 10:19 <@OgMaciel> so now andreasn_ will give us an update on the next topic: Desktop Summit Update 48 10:19 < yippi> andreasn_, there was a meeting yesterday, no? 49 10:19 < andreasn_> all right 50 10:19 -!- dneary [~dneary@ALyon-152-1-178-121.w109-212.abo.wanadoo.fr] has joined #foundation 51 10:19 < andreasn_> yes, unfortunately it collided with another meeting I had at the time 52 10:19 < andreasn_> so I was unable to attend 53 10:20 < yippi> dneary, good timing - we are talking about Desktop Summit planning update. 54 10:20 < yippi> i believe dneary attended the meeting yesterday 55 10:20 < andreasn_> but as I can see from the meeting notes: 56 10:20 < dneary> Hi yippi 57 10:21 < andreasn_> * Keynote speakers have been invited, all in the first round said no, so more will be asked 58 10:21 < dneary> Shoot... any questions in patricular? 59 10:21 < dneary> andreasn_, We have one confirmed keynote, of 3 invitees 60 10:21 <@OgMaciel> dneary: just a general update 61 10:21 < dneary> Re-read :) 62 10:21 < yippi> dneary, let's see. feel free to join in if you have additional info to provide 63 10:21 -!- jhs [~firstname.lastname@example.org] has joined #foundation 64 10:21 < andreasn_> dneary, sorry, I'm blind 65 10:22 -!- kittykat [~email@example.com] has joined #foundation 66 10:22 < andreasn_> reading on (correct me where needed dneary) 67 10:22 < dneary> The danger spot for me is IT infrastructure - we don't have a finalised list of requirements for registration, CMS, paper submission, review, scheduling & conference management for attendees 68 10:22 < dneary> Hi kittykat 69 10:22 < andreasn_> Program commitee will be announced shortly, 6 people from gnome, 6 from kde 70 10:23 < andreasn_> there will also be a local team meeting on November 8th in Berlin 71 10:23 < dneary> The other question mark is around sponsorship - since that's something where Stormy was on point 72 10:24 < kittykat> dneary: moin 73 10:25 < andreasn_> dneary, how much time do you feel we have before it's too late to find volunteers for the IT stuff? 74 10:26 -!- emily [~firstname.lastname@example.org] has joined #foundation 75 10:26 <@OgMaciel> dneary: also, can the board help you find volunteers in any way? Blog posts? 76 10:26 < dneary> andreasn_, Last night I suggested that it might be useful for Christer to spend some time on this, if it's in scope for him 77 10:26 < dneary> We're already late on that... but not dramatically so 78 10:27 < andreasn_> that could work, will look into that 79 10:27 < yippi> dneary, andreasn, what do you guys think are the things we need to be focusing on for the Desktop Summit right now? 80 10:28 < dneary> OgMaciel, I'm not really the best person to talk to about that - perhaps Mirko Boehm can give you a better idea of tasks where volunteers would be useful 81 10:28 < dneary> OgMaciel, Or kittykat 82 10:28 * OgMaciel waves at kittykat 83 10:28 -!- SFD_Fred is now known as fredm 84 10:28 < dneary> OgMaciel, I'm really just concentrating on the stuff I volunteered for, and generally making sure we have a good idea what's going on, and what's late 85 10:28 * OgMaciel nods 86 10:29 <@OgMaciel> kittykat: so if I may ask you the same question I asked dneary 87 10:29 < gpoo> dneary: I am taking over contacting GUADEC sponsors, until we find a new ED 88 10:29 < dneary> gpoo, Make sure you co-ordinate with Claudia a lot. 89 10:30 -!- stormy-laptop [~email@example.com] has joined #foundation 90 10:30 -!- fmuellner [~florian@55.Red-217-125-215.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #foundation 91 10:30 * kittykat just came back.. 92 10:30 <@OgMaciel> I can talk to kittykat offline I guess 93 10:31 <@OgMaciel> does anyone have any question or comment about the desktop summit? 94 10:31 <@OgMaciel> ok 95 10:31 <@OgMaciel> next topic is: Evaluate the ways of collaboration with distros 96 10:32 <@OgMaciel> this is more of a question for the audience 97 10:32 <@OgMaciel> does anyone have any suggestions on how we could improve in this area? 98 10:33 < jhs> I take the mostly as "improve cooperation with Ubuntu", right? Because I don't see issues with Fedora/OpenSuSE. 99 10:33 < dneary> jhs, No real relationship either 100 10:33 < stormy-laptop> We have a distribution mailing list that I think is not used much. 101 10:33 < stormy-laptop> Did it used to be used? 102 10:33 < jhs> dneary: no, not a relationsship but it seems that collaboration works for them. 103 10:34 < jhs> stormy-laptop: I don't think so, I think we discussed about that list before 104 10:34 < jhs> however, it would be nice to have some place to discuss with distributions but that would also mean that distributions tell us what they need and plan and that has failed in the past. 105 10:34 < stormy-laptop> Do the distos collaborate among themselves at all? (i.e. about more than GNOME) 106 10:35 < jhs> stormy-laptop: kernel, LibreOffice, ... 107 10:35 < dneary> Is it worth making it easier for up-stream/down-stream bug tracking? 108 10:35 < fredm> so in fact we should be the one subscribing to all major distro mailing list and trying to gather feedback, rather than ask them to come to our place? 109 10:36 < fredm> especially if distros want to differentiate themselves they might not be so comfortable to talk 'publicly' 110 10:36 < hadess> stormy-laptop: the distribution list does get used 111 10:37 <@OgMaciel> fredm: definitely not imho 112 10:37 < dneary> fredm, I'd like to see us create reelationships with the release teams of major distros 113 10:38 <@OgMaciel> what are the main pain points that distros face when trying to reach out to us and how can we improve this? 114 10:38 < stormy-laptop> I see a lot of "you need to do it our way" from both sides. 115 10:38 < fredm> so we would need 1 or 2 guys focusing on 'hanging out there' and making it known that he is a feedback collector for GNOME? 116 10:38 <@OgMaciel> are we, GNOME< doing a good job of providing the necessary information for distros to reach out to us? 117 10:39 < andreasn_> OgMaciel, one thing that a lot of people told me at UDS was that it was tricky to get patches in, so I'm going to look into that issue 118 10:39 < stormy-laptop> Or are we reaching out to them, OgMaciel? It has to go both ways. 119 10:39 < dneary> fredm, Do you know the name of the Fedora release manager(s) & bugmaster(s)? 120 10:39 < fredm> dneary: no i don't 121 10:39 < andreasn_> me and vuntz met the new Ubuntu release manager in person last week, so we can take care of contacting him 122 10:40 <@OgMaciel> stormy-laptop: imho we don't have someone with the bandwidth to serve as the chaperone per se, but my concern is about at least making it dead simple for someone to get the info they need from us 123 10:40 < fredm> dneary: but that's something that can be dug, and relationships can be built 124 10:40 < andreasn_> and maybe it would be good to have a list of the Release managers and bug masters of the big distros 125 10:40 < stormy-laptop> OgMaciel, you have to have time for relationships like that if you want to work together. And we have people in the community that span both organizations. 126 10:40 < fredm> andreasn_: +1 127 10:40 < stormy-laptop> (both organizations = GNOME + any distro) 128 10:40 < dneary> fredm, My point exactly :) 129 10:41 < dneary> Plus, technological solutions to link bugzillas & push bugs & comments up & downstream would be useful 130 10:42 <@OgMaciel> stormy-laptop: so, once again, do people think we're providing enough information to them out there or do we need to make a better job (this is us reaching out to them) 131 10:42 < stormy-laptop> dneary, I think if we had a list of those technologies, it would be possible to get distros to work with us on implementing them 132 10:42 <@OgMaciel> I like the idea of establishing a relationship with release managers for sure 133 10:42 < stormy-laptop> OgMaciel, the fact that we don't know what info they need, means we aren't working as well as we could with them 134 10:43 < dneary> stormy-laptop, I believe that there are bugs open on bugzilla.org for this kind of functionality 135 10:43 <@OgMaciel> stormy-laptop: point taken 136 10:43 < stormy-laptop> dneary, we should put them together and present them at an adboard meeting. See if there are resources - people or funding. 137 10:43 < aday> OgMaciel: i think it depends who 'them' is. are we just concerned about managers, or about those who contribute to distros too? 138 10:44 < jhs> as the release-team was mentioned - I could be positive to have someone from Ubuntu/Debian-fame in the release-team. Doesn't have to be from Canonical 139 10:44 <@OgMaciel> aday: I'd say both 140 10:44 < aday> OgMaciel: in that case, i think we can do a much better job of explaining what gnome is, how it works, and what our vision is 141 10:44 < jhs> the debian system is a bit underrepresented in GNOME IMHO, the often have quite some downstream patching that might be useful for us. 142 10:45 <@OgMaciel> aday: great comment! 143 10:46 < yippi> jhs, although there are some unique concerns with Canonical, I think all distros could improve their cooperation - including Fedora and OpenSuSE. 144 10:47 < jhs> yippi: true, but those two are represented in most of the teams (release-team, board, etc.) 145 10:47 <@OgMaciel> so, GNOME should reach out to distributions and convey in a better and clear way what GNOME is, how it works, our vision, etc as a good first step? 146 10:47 < yippi> for example, many distros are releasing GNOME 2.28, 2.30, etc. in their upcoming Long-Term-Support (LTS) releases. There are likely a lot of opportunities for these distros to work together to ensure that these "stable" versions of GNOME are well maintained, that patches are shared, etc. 147 10:48 <@OgMaciel> good point yippi 148 10:48 < hadess> yippi: for fedora, pretty much all the patches actually go upstream 149 10:48 < yippi> and I think little is being done in these areas, regardless of which distros have people on various GNOME groups (board, release team) 150 10:48 < hadess> yippi: so we make new releases 151 10:49 < yippi> hadess, yes, but are there plans to continue providing 2.28 or 2.30 releases for GNOME modules to keep everyone sharing? 152 10:49 < yippi> there probably are, but this is likely just up to individual module maintainers without a great deal of GNOME-wide coordination 153 10:49 < yippi> but, this is likely an opportunity for distros to work more together 154 10:50 < hadess> yippi: it's up to the upstream maintainers to do that 155 10:50 < yippi> just to give an example, since some people seem to think there is little to do 156 10:50 < hadess> yippi: it's up to the distributions to get involved in upstream 157 10:50 <@OgMaciel> so better integration with distros, specially via communication with release personel would be a good thing to happen to 158 10:50 < stormy-laptop> hadess, and up to us to make sure they feel invited, welcome and know how to submit patches 159 10:50 < yippi> well, i'm not sure that saying "it is up to upstream maintainers" is really the sort of cross-distro collaboration we are trying to encourage with this discussion topic. 160 10:50 < hadess> stormy-laptop: right 161 10:50 < yippi> exactly, how do we invite distros to get involved, and to make sure we are working together 162 10:51 < stormy-laptop> Just think of mobile manufacturers instead of traditional desktop distros. 163 10:51 < jhs> stormy-laptop: +1, we failed here a bit in the past 164 10:51 < hadess> stormy-laptop: right, that's a whole different kettle of fish 165 10:51 < yippi> and we need to make sure that module maintainers are on board and don't just ignore these stable releases 166 10:51 < yippi> or that we find new maintainers to maintain these older versions if there is a real need. 167 10:51 < aday> i think we need a high quality gnome news source - something positive, motivational, informative 168 10:51 < yippi> or additional maintainers rather 169 10:52 <@OgMaciel> aday: how so? 170 10:52 < stormy-laptop> Should we put together a committee or an owner to discuss some of these ideas and a plan? 171 10:52 <@OgMaciel> I +1 on this ^^ 172 10:52 < jhs> aday: well, that's planet.gnome.org and news.gnome.org and desktop-devel-list - if you read it you should be quite up-to-date 173 10:53 * stormy-laptop thinks it would be awesome if someone read all those and put together a weekly newsletter. But that's a lot of work! 174 10:53 < aday> OgMaciel: what about central gnome blog? could explain what's happening in gnome, where we're going, spread the gnome love, etc 175 10:53 < hadess> stormy-laptop: i can help anyone that will take this on if they need examples on how to do this well :) 176 10:53 < jhs> stormy-laptop: I think the owner would need to contact the distros/manufacturers and try to that everybody sents someone to join some kind of board. 177 10:53 < jhs> aday: you volunteer? 178 10:54 < stormy-laptop> Boards are usual elected or merit based so they just can't send someone. 179 10:54 <@OgMaciel> aday: so a more formal, authoritative(sp) news feed 180 10:54 < aday> jhs: arghh! i *really* shouldn't! 181 10:54 < yippi> i don't know. in terms of getting distros to work together on stable releases, the GNOME community has never been particularly effective at getting distros to cooperate well in this area. It's always been rather a hot potatoe to pass around. So, it's likely a big job to get people to focus attention in this sort of cooperative way. 182 10:54 < aday> OgMaciel: not sure about formal, but certainly something that can speak for gnome 183 10:55 < jhs> stormy-laptop: call it something else than board - something that probably has a monthly meeting with people from several distros where they can share and complain. 184 10:55 < stormy-laptop> jhs, there has to be more of a draw. 185 10:55 < stormy-laptop> What's in it for them? 186 10:55 < stormy-laptop> Who will listen there? 187 10:55 < stormy-laptop> The release team? 188 10:56 <@OgMaciel> makes sense to me 189 10:56 < jhs> stormy-laptop: release-team with CC to desktop-devel-list 190 10:56 < stormy-laptop> What guarantees of action will there be? 191 10:56 < hadess> stormy-laptop: when you get your patches upstream, it makes it easier to maintain 192 10:56 <@OgMaciel> what hadess says 193 10:56 < stormy-laptop> But we have to promise them that this meeting is useful. 194 10:56 < hadess> if they are acceptable upstream, obviously 195 10:56 < stormy-laptop> jhs, the release team will attend the monthly meeting with the distros? 196 10:56 < hadess> and you get them reviewed 197 10:56 < jhs> stormy-laptop: no guarantees, we cannot do that. But they have the chance to talk to us so we know in which areas they see problems. 198 10:57 <@OgMaciel> makes sense to me 199 10:57 < stormy-laptop> To get them there, we have to guarantee them we will be there to listen. 200 10:57 < jhs> stormy-laptop: *someone* from the release-team should probably attend and write meetings. The release-team has enough work already and I don't think the whole team is necessary. 201 10:57 < gpoo> is not the advisory board a place to listen to them? 202 10:57 < jhs> s/meetings/meeting minutes 203 10:57 < stormy-laptop> jhs, then the distros are likely too busy too. 204 10:57 < jhs> stormy-laptop: what would you propose then? 205 10:58 <@OgMaciel> :) 206 10:58 < yippi> it might be worthwhile to dedicate an adboard meeting to discuss this to find out if there is a real desire to dedicate more effort ot maintain stable branches 207 10:58 < jhs> gpoo: it probably is but it doesn't work, right? 208 10:58 < fredm> how many distros are we talking about? 209 10:58 < stormy-laptop> jhs, I don't know but it can't be a "come talk to us". We have to show we are making a big effort too. 210 10:58 < fredm> 5 or 350? 211 10:58 < fredm> ;-) 212 10:59 < stormy-laptop> 5 213 10:59 < stormy-laptop> which is a good point 214 10:59 < stormy-laptop> a one-to-one effort for a while might help too 215 10:59 < fredm> i can initiate the contact, do the research and say we're trying to reach out (for 5 distros) 216 10:59 <@OgMaciel> I don't want to spoil the fun but we should move on to the next topic 217 10:59 < jhs> stormy-laptop: it was more about: "We invite you - here is a place to share your thoughts" 218 11:00 < fredm> then once we get initial feedback we can see how to organize those monthly meetings 219 11:00 < stormy-laptop> jhs, we invite you to do all the work and figure out how to work with us 220 11:00 <@OgMaciel> fredm: I'd be very interested in chatting with you about that later 221 11:00 < fredm> OgMaciel: ok 222 11:00 < jhs> fredm: sounds good! 223 11:00 <@OgMaciel> sweet 224 11:00 < stormy-laptop> jhs, just playing devil's advocate, sorry 225 11:00 <@OgMaciel> shall we proceed? 226 11:00 <@OgMaciel> ok 227 11:00 <@OgMaciel> the next topic is: GNOME Shell & Unity 228 11:00 < jhs> stormy-laptop: :) It things like "we have to patch gdm because of xyz - can't that be upstream", etc. 229 11:00 < jhs> stormy-laptop: anyway, next 230 11:00 < yippi> i love it when people invite me to do all the work. :) 231 11:00 <@OgMaciel> stormy-laptop: all yours 232 11:01 < stormy-laptop> yippi, you are quite good at volunteering to do lots of work. :) 233 11:01 < stormy-laptop> All mine? 234 11:01 < stormy-laptop> GNOME Shell & Unity 235 11:01 < stormy-laptop> I assume someone added it because they wanted to discuss it, which I think is a good idea. 236 11:02 < stormy-laptop> Canonical has announced that they will ship Unity instead of GNOME's shell. 237 11:02 < stormy-laptop> They have told me they still consider themselves a GNOME distro and plan to continue to support GNOME and the GNOME Foundation and GNOME events as usual. 238 11:02 < stormy-laptop> If you have questions about Unity, they should go to Canonical. 239 11:02 < stormy-laptop> But we can discuss what it means for GNOME. 240 11:02 < jhs> stormy-laptop: do we have some official Foundation reply to that announcement? 241 11:03 < stormy-laptop> jhs, no 242 11:03 < stormy-laptop> I think the board would like a better understanding of how the community feels 243 11:03 < stormy-laptop> or thinks 244 11:04 < jhs> stormy-laptop: should we? Something like that we can understand that and hope that they will continue supporting GNOME but that we dislike the copyright assignment according to our policies? 245 11:04 < stormy-laptop> We do have things to say ... 246 11:04 < stormy-laptop> but no strong stances one way or the other so far. 247 11:04 < shaunm> I suspect there are differences in how people within the community feel 248 11:05 < stormy-laptop> Our talking points were: 249 11:05 < stormy-laptop> 1) Ubuntu is still using GNOME technologies. 250 11:05 < stormy-laptop> 2) We support people using GNOME technologies in different ways, MeeGo, Unity, etc. 251 11:05 < stormy-laptop> 3) We still support GNOME Shell and it will be part of GNOME 3. 252 11:06 < stormy-laptop> jhs, we could say that. 253 11:06 < jhs> I would personally add the copyright-assignment as we resolved that for clutter and it feels like an important agenda for us. 254 11:07 < gpoo> jhs: nothing has changed in our position regarding to copyright assignment. We have set a policy and still is valid. 255 11:08 < jhs> gpoo: yes, but I probably would mention that with regard to Unity. 256 11:08 < stormy-laptop> Thoughts? Opinions? Should we say something officially? Something about copyright? 257 11:09 < shaunm> I think we should. It's keeping in line with existing GNOME policies. 258 11:09 < jhs> I agree with shaunm but it should be something to calm down everybody while making our position clear. 259 11:09 < stormy-laptop> So we could write a brief statement for the Foundation blog that includes the 3 points above and the fact that we are disappointed that Unity doesn't follow our copyright policies? 260 11:09 < jhs> +1 261 11:10 < stormy-laptop> And we could mention the work andreasn_ is doing on improving upstream patch flow. 262 11:10 < shaunm> um, yes. please let's not be inflammatory. (not that I think anybody on the board would write an inflammatory official statement) 263 11:10 < stormy-laptop> Is someone willing to take this? 264 11:10 < aday> stormy-laptop: that sounds like we're saying that we've been the problem... 265 11:10 -!- kittykat [~firstname.lastname@example.org] has left #foundation  266 11:10 < stormy-laptop> aday, how so? 267 11:11 < stormy-laptop> We have 4 agenda items left and 19 minutes: 268 11:11 < stormy-laptop> 3 left: 269 11:11 < stormy-laptop> Branding considerations: stop people from seeing downstream decisions as "GNOME" 270 11:11 < stormy-laptop> GNOME 3.0 Worldwide Launch Party and GNOME.Asia pre-event survey 271 11:11 < stormy-laptop> My leaving my position as ED. 272 11:12 < fredm> 2nd item was discussed last week I believe 273 11:12 < stormy-laptop> cool 274 11:12 < fredm> but if anyone has any question... please feel free 275 11:12 < fredm> and thanks for the support and people who filled the survey and blogged about the launch party :) 276 11:12 < jhs> is branding an issue? I don't think our brand is particularly strong. You hardly see a GNOME foot in a distro. 277 11:13 < aday> stormy-laptop: i guess it's just a matter of phrasing 278 11:13 < shaunm> I think (3) is important to discuss, i.e. what the heck are we going to do now? 279 11:13 <@OgMaciel> :) 280 11:13 < yippi> thanks for all the great work over the past 2.5 years, Stormy 281 11:13 < gpoo> shaunm: work harder 282 11:14 < stormy-laptop> aday, I'm still interested in your perspective on the statement 283 11:14 < stormy-laptop> aday, I think we can word it in a way that we are willing to make extra efforts to work together. 284 11:14 < stormy-laptop> Not that we were doing something wrong. 285 11:14 < stormy-laptop> We need an owner for that too ... 286 11:14 < stormy-laptop> Brandign considerations. 287 11:14 < stormy-laptop> We are going to hire another ED. 288 11:14 < jhs> shaunm: well, we create the GNOME Desktop we planned for all distros. Unity doesn't really seem to work on anything else than Ubuntu as I read from the recent blog posts. 289 11:14 < stormy-laptop> And continue to do awesome work! 290 11:15 < shaunm> regarding hiring a new ED, we managed to kind of scrape by for years without one. how long are we willing to hold out to find the right person? 291 11:15 < aday> stormy-laptop: that sounds good to me :) 292 11:15 < stormy-laptop> For the brand, and for the mission, I think we need to realize that GNOME is more than a desktop. It is used in phones, devices, etc. 293 11:15 < stormy-laptop> shaunm, I think finding the right one is a matter of having everyone think of who would be great in that role. 294 11:16 -!- zana [~email@example.com] has joined #foundation 295 11:16 < stormy-laptop> And then going and recruiting them. 296 11:16 < shaunm> right. somebody go recruit Stormy Peters. she'd be awesome 297 11:16 < stormy-laptop> :) Thanks. 298 11:16 < aday> shaunm: perfect! 299 11:16 < jhs> stormy-laptop: so I guess there is nobody you have in mind or the board has in mind to follow you? 300 11:17 < stormy-laptop> jhs, a number of names have been mentioned. 301 11:17 < yippi> how about RMS? :) 302 11:17 < pockeylam> yippi, you are funny 303 11:17 < fredm> haha 304 11:18 < jhs> stormy-laptop: ok, thanks for all the work you did by the way. I hope we will find someone else soon as it would in general be a bad impression for any commercial companies wanting to use GNOME technologie in some way if they have nobody to talk to directly. 305 11:18 < fredm> yippi: he is too busy with the FSF 306 11:18 < gpoo> jhs: they still can talk directly with us 307 11:19 < shaunm> I'm content for now just knowing the board has tossed names around. 308 11:19 < stormy-laptop> sorry, I should clarify 309 11:19 < stormy-laptop> In conversations I've had with different board members and other people that care about GNOME, names have been tossed around. 310 11:19 < jhs> gpoo: sure - but I guess you know what I mean. 311 11:19 < stormy-laptop> So the conversation hasn't happened with the whole board. 312 11:19 < jhs> but the board is taking care of searching a new ED, right? 313 11:20 < stormy-laptop> Seriously, everyone should think about candidates. 314 11:20 < stormy-laptop> jhs, yes 315 11:20 < shaunm> and we can safely assume this is on their agenda for a soonish board meeting? 316 11:20 < stormy-laptop> shaunm, and being discussed on the board list 317 11:20 < shaunm> great 318 11:21 < stormy-laptop> I'm not being clear today. 319 11:21 < gpoo> shaunm: fwiw, everybody can always add topics to be discussed on the board meeting 320 11:21 < stormy-laptop> The conversation of a new ED is being discussed by the whole board! 321 11:21 < shaunm> if community members have suggestions for candidates, should they email the board? 322 11:22 < stormy-laptop> shaunm, that would be great. 323 11:22 < shaunm> (not that I do. just a general question) 324 11:22 < stormy-laptop> Or if you'd prefer you can approach a board member to discuss it first. 325 11:22 <@OgMaciel> I guess this would be a good time as any to officially end this meeting 326 11:22 < jhs> stormy-laptop: could you mail that info to foundation-list? 327 11:23 <@OgMaciel> thanks everyone for attending and the great questions and comments! 328 11:23 < stormy-laptop> Yes, we are working on an official job description and will announce that it's officially open very soon. 329 11:25 < bkuhn> stormy-laptop: I got a phone call and fell behind on meeting traffic, but I want to echo the thanks others gave for your work as Executive Director. You've left a tough spot to fill now that you've done such fine work in the job. I'll keep candidates in mind and look forward to the job description post. 330 11:25 < stormy-laptop> thanks, bkuhn 331 11:26 -!- jhs [~firstname.lastname@example.org] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 332 11:32 < aday> OgMaciel: i'm up for a discussion on communications strategies if you are 333 11:34 <@OgMaciel> aday: absolutely... maybe we can catch up in a couple of hours? got a tight deadline here 334 11:34 < aday> OgMaciel: sure - i'm busy right now myself 335 11:35 <@OgMaciel> aday: what's the best way to continue? ping you right here? 336 11:35 < stormy-laptop> Thanks everyone for everyone's hard work! 337 11:36 < andreasn_> I'm glad that there was so much to discuss last week we ended up with two meetings 338 11:36 < aday> OgMaciel: yes, i'll hang around 339 11:36 < andreasn_> so when is the next meeting? 340 11:36 -!- stormy-laptop [~email@example.com] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
Attached FilesTo refer to attachments on a page, use attachment:filename, as shown below in the list of files. Do NOT use the URL of the [get] link, since this is subject to change and can break easily.
You are not allowed to attach a file to this page.