Attachment 'GNOME-20111123.log'

Download

<shaunm> Time for the foundation IRC meeting. As a reminder to anyone who just joined, if you'd like to talk about anything, add it here: 
 http://live.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/MembersAgenda
 We don't have much on the agenda this week, but the board would like to continue holding these meetings regularly.
 For announcements:
 As you probably already read, last week we announced 12 new interns for the Outreach Program for Women
--> Bertrand (~lorentz@88.207.152.46) has joined #foundation
 fujii (~luciana@189.59.162.181) has joined #foundation
<shaunm> Thanks to marina for her continuing hard work, and to all the community members who've stepped up to mentor.
--> gpoo (~gpoo@gpoo.segal.uvic.ca) has joined #foundation
<-- gpoo has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
--> dneary__ (~dneary@mne69-h01-31-33-19-101.dsl.sta.abo.bbox.fr) has joined #foundation
 gpoo (~gpoo@gpoo.segal.uvic.ca) has joined #foundation
<-- gpoo has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
<andre> ah. where was this readable?
<shaunm> http://www.gnome.org/news/2011/11/gnome-outreach-program-for-women-participants-continue-to-impress/
--> gpoo (~gpoo@gpoo.segal.uvic.ca) has joined #foundation
<andre> so news.gnome.org, planet.gnome.org and the 20 mailing lists I read are not enough. hmmm.
<shaunm> correct :)
* andre sighs
--> j1mc (~j1mc@99-127-172-158.lightspeed.nsvltn.sbcglobal.net) has joined #foundation
<andre> is that fixable? I never read www.gnome.org.
<shaunm> I guess that's up to the web team. I definitely think gnome.org/news doesn't get enough visibility
<yippi> typically such suggestions should be sent to the marketing list.
 they would be the right people to "fix" it, I'd think.
<mikehill> it made it to Facebook
<andre> anyway, congrats to the new participants :)
<yippi> Any person on planet can blog about such things, also.  The Foundation does need help getting the word out
 yes, the Women's Outreach Program continues to be a great volunteer driven success
<-- dneary_ has quit (Ping timeout: 600 seconds)
<yippi> There seems to be a growing push to improve the GNOME Foundation website.  As a part of this project, we are making an effort to better communicate the value of The GNOME Foundation and membership.
 I believe there have been some small tweaks lately to more specifically provide certain services to GNOME Foundation members, for example.
<shaunm> We also have some upcoming hackfests
 which I would post links to if live.gnome.org would cooperate with me ;)
 There's a WebKitGTK+ hackfest starting next week: http://live.gnome.org/Hackfests/WebKitGTK2011
 And both the GTK+ team and the documentation team will be holding hackfests at the Developer Conference in Brno in February
 http://live.gnome.org/Hackfests/BrnoDocs2012
 http://live.gnome.org/Hackfests/GtkBrno2012
 We'd like to encourage people to plan more hackfests.
 I know there's talk about an accessibility hackfest.
<dneary__> hi
<shaunm> hi dneary__
--- dneary__ is now known as dneary
<dneary> That's better
<shaunm> So, I'm out of announcements. I'm going to open the discussion.
 There's nothing on the MembersAgenda page right now
<dneary> I didn't see anyone reply to my email on foundation-list (which was intended to be direct to you, shaunm)
<dneary> reply-to on foundation-announce caught me out
<shaunm> dneary: you wanted to have more discussion abut the future of the DS?
<dneary> I was specifically concerned about the minutes of the last board meeting in the wiki, whioch make it sound like the board might decide not to have one
 Then I read the minutes of the last IRC meeting & saw that Jon McCann is strongly against another DS
 And for a number of reasons, I'd like to ensure that due reflection is given before any decision is taken
<yippi> at the last meeting, we did open the floor to discussion about the future of DS.  Not many people besides Jon responded.
<dneary> yippi, I don't know who was here - I saw jjmarin, aday and mccann were the only people to contribute outside the board
 As I said, I missed it
 It seems like a topic that would benefit from mailing list discussion
 In any case...
 As a bidding city this year, I have been talking to people about putting in a Lyon bid for next year
 and there's a big difference between hosting a GUADEC and a DS in terms of infrastructure requirements, so I'd like to know soon
<shaunm> That makes sense. Putting together a bid for a combined event is even more difficult, and people need to know enough in advance to do stuff.
<dneary> And as a long-term participant in the event organisation, I can see definite benefits to sharing facilities in terms of both broadening the base of people we appeal to, and gaining economies of scale
 There have been problems, I think they're fixable
 And I would definitely encourage the conference to broaden its scope to "the free software desktop" and not "GNOME + KDE", which is kind of what it was this year
 It's been incremental - we started with GUADEC + Akademy, moved to a GNOME + KDE conference (although I would have preferred more outreach to Unity, Enlightenment, XFCE, and apps)
<shaunm> What do you think are the main advantages of having the different groups together?
<dneary> The natural next step is to get people together to think about what the free software desktop will look like as a whole, and how things will work together - not just bits of it
<yippi> One concern that keeps being voiced amongst the board is about whether the DS generates effective collaboration.  If it were more clear that a future DS would lead to more concrete collaborative results, that would help, I think.
<dneary> yippi, It never will unless it's structured to encourage it - and we didn't quite get that right this time.
 yippi, One thing that would help is a more effective hang-out space
 yippi, There are lots of other possibilities too
<yippi> yes, I don't think we've gotten that right in past Desktop Summits.  As you suggest, it is probably fixable.  But also likely would require some real time investment between communities to put together a more clear agenda of collaboration.
<dneary> (I guess I'm wearing "Lyon bid" hat now, when I talked about the scope of the conference, it was a "GUADEC guy"
 yippi, I agree.
<yippi> especially if the DS is to become something more representative of all free desktops, not just KDE and GNOME combined
<-- en (~en@117.192.194.211) has left #foundation
<yippi> while the DS has been great in some ways, there just isn't a lot of measurable collaboration
<dneary> The collaboration potential, for me, comes from having LibreOffice, Mozilla, GNOME & KDE guys in the same place to talk about things like how to improve the drag & drop story, homogenise printing interfaces, collaborate on lower level infrastructure
 Some people will argue that Collaboration Summit & Plumbers are already there for that
--> en (~en@117.192.194.211) has joined #foundation
<dneary> But not many of the major GUI applications go to plumbers
 And Collab Summiut has become less & less about hackers
 We need to start thinking holistically about the free software desktop
<gpoo> we can start with hackfests
<yippi> at any rate, it seems that the Desktop Summit needs to adjust its focused on measurable goals.
<dneary> gpoo, We already have some - we can certainly continue them
 Hackfests are great, but there's a definite benefit to getting people in the same place at the same time
<gpoo> dneary: I mean, cross/free-desktop hackfests
<yippi> yes, maybe collaboration would benefit from doing more focused work like hackfests for some time.
<dneary> gpoo, I'd argue that we already have them.
<yippi> though a Desktop Summit could also be surrounded by related hackfests.
<shaunm> dneary: Some people have suggested having a separate free desktop collaboration event, and keep the flagship conferences separate from that. What are your thoughts on that?
<dneary> shaunm, Who are the flagship conferences for?
<dneary> I'd ask: how many times do we expect key GNOME hackers to ask their manager to travel to a GNOME/Free Desktop event, or take holiday time to travel to one?
<shaunm> I don't know about Akademy, but I think GUADEC is mostly a developer-focused event
 despite the U in the acronym
<yippi> GUADEC is for users and developers, which covers about everybody really
<andre> my thoughts on that (as blogged): have KDE and GNOME co-located, and have a collab summit right before or after it.
<yippi> as you say, we tend to focus more on developers
<andre> s/KDE/aKademy and s/GNOME/GUADEC
<dneary> shaunm, So if you have a smallerr "more useful" X-desktop collaboration summit, you'll end up with a GUADEC where some key GNOME developers won't come any more, potentially
<dneary> Anyway - let me repeat my first opinion: this is the kind of thing that will benefit from slightly longer, slightly more reflexive thought on a mailing list, rather than being decided in IRC meetings
 I really think the board needs to feel the temperature of the GNOME community before making a decision, but it needs to happen pretty soon
<yippi> sure, but the general lack of measurable collaborative work done at past Desktop Summit's makes it hard to argue that particular key GNOME developers are needed or made use of
<shaunm> We're certainly not deciding here.
<dneary> I've already had meetings trying to source a 750 person hall for keynotes
 Unfortunately, the DS summit was only open for a short time, and didn't get a very wide circulation in the GNOME world
 Attendees weren't emailed about it, so if you didn't find out about it on Planet GNOME or the Desktop Summit news, tough luck
<-- j1mc has quit (leaving)
<dneary> And the two IRC meetings have had a limited number of participants
 I'd definitely be interested in hearing the reasons why Bastein's against, and why desrt & ebassi are leaning towards not having it, or changing its format
<shaunm> That's fair
<dneary> It would be worthwhile to revisit the arguments for having it from 2007, and see how many still hold
<fujii> What was the input from that DS questionaire participants filled?
<shaunm> fujii: The majority were in favor of another DS in two years.
<dneary> fujii, Most GNOME members who responded were in favour of repeating it biennally
<yippi> overall, people seemed positive about having another one.  GNOME people slightly less-so than non-GNOME people.
<fujii> thanks for the info
<dneary> I do think it's important to have a very strong GNOME influence on the organisation for the next one
<yippi> yes, volunteers were lacking for the Desktop Summit.  I'm not sure it makes sense to consider doing another one without some clear motivation from GNOME volunteers to make it happen.
<dneary> DS has tended to be more like Akademy than GUADEC and I think that might be a reason for some of the discontent
<yippi> even if people are positive on the questionnaire, that doesn't mean much if people don't step up to help.
<dneary> Well, if it's worth anything, the core team behind the Lyon bid includes a decent number of GNOME people
 (but it's far too early to lobby yet)
<shaunm> all right
 dneary: so you think our next action ought to be to have a discussion on foundation-list?
<dneary> shaunm, I think so
<yippi> dneary, would you be agreeable to help moderate such a discussion?
<dneary> But beware: just the fact that it's up for active discussion will have an effect on relations with some KDE people
<shaunm> I think they're already aware.
<dneary> There's a potential to use the discussion as a stick to beat us with
 When it's in a public forum
 (our members list is public, theirs isn't)
<shaunm> right
<dneary> Just something to bear in mind - perhaps some policing of the discussion would be useful if it gets heated, as I'm sure it will
<shaunm> Honestly, that's my main aversion to using the mailing list
 I've unsubscribed from foundation-list before because of the lengthy threads that were happening at the time
<dneary> I only recently re-enabled delivery of f-l, and I've left d-d-l disabled for the time being
 It was getting me down during the early Summer
<dneary> shaunm, I think the important thing is to allow views to be expressed, set a deadline, and then have a board meeting to decide, taking into account the member views
<shaunm> right, so you understand hesitance to list discussions that are likely to get heated
<dneary> Bearing in mind, of course, that the people who will express their views are not necessarily a good sample of the membership
<dneary> shaunm, I think the consequences of the board taking a decision on this issue without consultation would be worse
<dneary> But of course, I understand the hesitance
<zana> dneary: the board has, though.  they've asked for feedback via email, the survey, irc meetings....
<shaunm> all right
 It's now 17:00
 Anybody have any last-minute questions or comments?
--> mccann (~jmccann@c-76-24-221-83.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) has joined #foundation
<shaunm> All right, thanks for coming
--> bkuhn (~bkuhn@pool-72-81-191-158.bltmmd.east.verizon.net) has joined #foundation
<shaunm> We'll have another meeting in two weeks, on December 7

Attached Files

To 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.
  • [get | view] (2021-02-25 09:51:09, 12.9 KB) [[attachment:GNOME-20111123.log]]
 All files | Selected Files: delete move to page copy to page

You are not allowed to attach a file to this page.