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