Re: Free Desktop Communities come together at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit
- From: Philip Van Hoof <pvanhoof gnome org>
- To: Stormy Peters <stormy peters gmail com>
- Cc: foundation-announce gnome org, Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>, foundation-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Free Desktop Communities come together at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit
- Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:08:13 +0200
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 15:09 -0600, Stormy Peters wrote:
> Here are the survey results with a summary I did initially.
>
> Note that this was a survey, not a vote.
Sure,
But if a majority of the responders in all configurations picked that
they want to co-locate next year, even if it means no profit, ...
Then isn't the decision that was made something that at least have been
discussed on one of the community mailing lists?
Let's go over the numbers.
> 216 people responded (142 attended)
> 138 GNOME people (94 attended)
>
> Of the GNOME people:
> * 59% said it went well, 15% said it didn't
> * 56% said we should co-locate next year, 35% said no
Majority wants to co-locate next year
> * 26% said we should co-locate in the future but not next year, 31%
> said no (Note that 41 of the 59 people that didn't answer were people
> that said we should colocate next year. Adding them in to the yeses
> here would give us a 57% think we should colocate at some point.)
Right, this doesn't change the majority-status for the yeses that want
to co-locate next year.
> * 44% said we should do it even if we lose profit, 32% said no
Majority wants to co-locate next year
> * 55% collaborated with a KDE person, 30% did not
>
> Of the GNOME people who attended:
> * 71% said it went well, 17% said it didn't
> * 53% said we should co-locate next year, 44% said no
Majority wants to co-locate next year
> * 31% said we should co-locate in the future but not next year, 30%
> said no
> * 41% said we should do it even if we lose profit, 39% said no
Majority wants to co-locate next year
> * 68% collaborated with a KDE person, 28% did not
>
> Of the GNOME people who collaborated with a KDE person:
> * 78% said it went well, 7% said it didn't
> * 67% said we should co-locate next year, 29% said no
Large majority wants to co-locate next year
> * 28% said we should co-locate in the future but not next year, 25%
> said no
> * 53% said we should do it even if we lose profit, 32% said no
Majority wants to co-locate next year
> * 55% collaborated with a KDE person, 30% did not
>
> Of all respondents, including KDE folks:
> * 65% said it went well, 13% said it didn't
> * 63% said we should co-locate next year, 30% said no
Large majority wants to co-locate next year
> * 27% said we should co-locate in the future but not next year, 32%
> said no
> * 55% said we should do it even if we lose profit, 24% said no
Majority wants to co-locate next year
> * 55% collaborated with a KDE /GNOME person, 29% did not
You can see that in all configurations the majority want to co-locate
next year. Even if it means not having a profit.
Can you elaborate why the board didn't first discuss this decision with
the community?
Cheers,
Philip
> Comments on what people liked:
>
>
> Ability to attend a larger variety
> of talks.
> 13
> There wasn't so much join
> activities in the program, just the
> general track, no more people from
> kde attending GUADEC talks and
> GNOME people attending to GUADEMY.
> Guadec should maintain Warming up.
> 16
> I can finally see KDE hackers that
> don't work for my employer.
> 17
> The cross desktop tracks where
> potentially interesting and useful.
> 21
> Sharing keynotes and interesting
> talks with KDE folks is great. I
> think we should destroy the
> 'invisible' wall between 2
> comunities and what better than
> co-locating?! Also, to have beers
> with them is fun :)
> 22
> - The possibility to see some of
> the things the "competition" is
> working on that I otherwise
> wouldn't have seen. - It provides a
> "single entity to talk to" with
> regard to (potential) sponsors.
> 23
> more people with different views.
> Lots of projects are suddenly
> interested in cross-desktop
> functionality. Sharing of
> technology.
> 27
> Others that might not necessarily
> come to a GNOME or KDE came to the
> desktop summit. Could also discuss
> things like FreeDesktop.org.
> 30
> It was good to bring both projects
> together, especially from a
> perception standpoint.
> 43
> I went to GUADEC in 2008, What I
> like the most is people gathering
> in the same place but with
> different points of view. If you
> add KDE developers in the same
> rooms, that could be very
> interesting.
> 44
> nothing
> 47
> :(
> 59
> valuable happenstance and random
> cross-fertilisation
> 65
> Try to get a coordinated vision
> 68
> Good collaboration on the
> freedesktop front
> 69
> The very good organization and the
> increased amount of social
> activities. It's great, but we
> shoulnd't feel obliged to keep
> doing it.
> 77
> This is an important step in
> bringing the GNOME and KDE
> communities closer so that there is
> less redundancy in core
> technologies. The results will not
> be apparent immediately, though,
> since there are lot of bridges to
> cross before we reach the level of
> cooperation that we potentially
> can.
> 80
> The opportunity to see what kde is
> doing. However, I think we can
> organize better to encourage more
> cross destop collaboration
> 86
> I think it was great, but not
> valuable enough to do every year.
> 90
> Having all the people in one place
> was good. It creates some synergies
> and was rather successful for a
> first attempt. There is plenty to
> learn from this first desktop
> summit and the experience next year
> will be far greater. I think the
> participants and even more so the
> presenters who took part of the
> cross-desktop talks should be
> commended for their efforts. Great
> start
> 91
> I thought that it was great to have
> people that use the same
> technologies in the same room.
> 92
> To know people from the other
> project and to lern from them what
> they really do and their reasons
> 99
> Fine, but we need more
> crosspolinations and cross-social
> activities :-)
> 100
> flamewars!
> 101
> Cross desktop talks do get a cross
> desktop audiance, therefore, less
> traveling to get your idea across.
> But that is only if the other
> community is responsive and shows
> up at the bof.
> 102
> Crosspolination Better empathy
> because meeting in person «the
> other guys» More contents for the
> crossdesktop track
> 104
> The colocation meant that a larger,
> more comprehensive venue was
> practical, which meant better rooms
> and infrastructure for both
> conferences. That was good.
> 107
> Having people in the same place.
> Good story for sponsors. A broader
> conference opens up new potential
> sponsors for us. Things I didn't
> like: Organisational issues. No
> common vision for the conference.
> Two sites. Perceived inequity in
> where money came from.
> 109
> creating interaction between the
> two communites
> 122
> I liked having the opportunity to
> follow a bit what the KDE guys are
> up to, and use some of their ideas
> to improve the GNOME project. Also,
> even though I personally didn't
> talk much with KDE people, it might
> be really useful to talk to them
> and come up with a common ground
> for the free desktop.
> 126
> The cross-desktop discussions,
> interesting talks and meeting a lot
> of new people!
> 127
> I liked the possibility to see how
> another community, which has the
> same interests and problems, solves
> their issues.
> 130
> A project that I'm working on
> benefited tremendously from
> discussions that took place with
> KDE and GNOME developers.
> 133
> Meeting some freedesktop experts.
> They may have not been at Guadec
> only.
> 144
> cross desktop was cool meeting new
> people
> 147
> having people from both projects at
> the same location makes easy to
> exchange
> 148
> Cross Desktop talks
> 152
> It's great to see people I
> ordinarily wouldn't at conferences
> like this.
> 153
> More crossdesktop colaboration.
> Meeting people from other projects.
> 182
> Great place. Caught up with some
> old KDE friends Talked to KDE folk
> doing similar things
> 186
> Good to encourage cross desktop
> discussions.
> 190
> Ability to talk to KDE folks about
> opportunities to share data and
> technologies, although I had to
> rely on relatively few people I
> already knew (well, hired) from KDE
> to make introductions. Moving
> forward on freedesktop.org
> unsticking with a KDE/GNOME/fd.o
> meeting.
> 192
> It was a very good opportunity to
> share experiences, and talk to
> people you would otherwise not have
> been able to meet because of a
> specific conference being a
> personal priority.
> 194
> the fd.o bof
> 198
> Chance to talk with the equivalent
> project on the KDE side.
> 203
> So many intelligent people to talk
> to
> 209
> Loads of new people I didn't know.
> Maybe it was a bit too longish..
> And maybe it would have been better
> to officially split it into
> warmup/core/cooldown like guadec
> was in the past.
> 210
> The opportunity to talk to more
> developers in other desktops.
> 212
> N/A
> 213
> Was nice, if a bit confusing as to
> what was cross-desktop and what
> wasn't.
> 214
> May not be a technical reason, but
> the breaks in between and longer
> afternoon breaks provided some much
> needed rest and conversation room.
> I felt that I made a lot of good
> connections and even wrote some
> good code during these breaks, as I
> got to mingle with both GNOME and
> KDE folks.
> 215
> we had some very useful bofs with
> folks from both sides, but otoh i
> was a bit disappointed that kde
> didn't bother to send anyone to
> some bofs wher we really could have
> used them, such as the gst bof and
> the audio bof, and others.
> 216
> Maybe the fact that I now know some
> of the KDE developers and that it's
> hard to reason with them.
> 217
> Getting to meet new people, discuss
> ways to share more infrastructure
> between Gnome and KDE.
> 220
> I came to know about kde projects
> like Akonadi, Tracker. I met kde
> community people.
> 221
> I work for a distributor. Although
> we distribute GNOME with our OS, we
> are interested in making sure KDE
> works well on our OS and
> interoperates smoothly with our
> GNOME offering. I would probably
> never go to a purely KDE
> conference, so it was a great
> opportunity to discuss issues with
> the KDE/Qt developers.
>
> Feedback on content and schedule:
>
> Trying to organise both conferences
> simultaneously may have contributed
> to the organisational problems that
> cropped up. It would have been good
> to have a single unified timetable,
> rather than effectively segregated
> conferences.
> 13
> I don't liked the lightning talks
> approach, there should be some
> panels and join BoF, i think we
> should push something like last
> GUADEMY to promote the
> collaboration of developers of both
> projects.
> 16
> We need the GNOME and KDE schedules
> to match. Otherwise, you never
> coincide with the other project in
> the hallways. We need the schedules
> to be published together, without
> splitting them into "KDE schedule"
> and "GNOME schedule" (both online
> and offline). We need to physically
> force people to mingle. Put GNOME
> talks on one side of the building,
> KDE on the other side. For the next
> session, switch them around. This
> forces you to see the other
> project's hackers in the middle
> common area. There needs to be a
> common area in the (physical or
> psychological) center between the
> conference rooms. That needs to be
> the hacking / coffee / sitting
> area. There needs to be a common
> bulletin board at the center of the
> common area. Print the schedule on
> the back of the name tags, so you
> always have it with you!
> 19
> Invite XFCE guys and run
> freedesktop.org panels!
> 21
> I would like to see other desktops
> also, as I feel that XFCE or LXDE
> should be here. The schedule was OK
> for me but maybe less parallel
> talks will make both comunities
> stay together for longer on talks
> instead of big keynotes together
> and the rest each one with the
> community they belong. We must
> destroy some myths around each
> distro, accept the others do and
> finish all the stupid flames like
> "we did this before", "gnome-3 will
> never see the light", "kde4.0 was
> even worse than winME"...
> 22
> Would have liked more cross-desktop
> sessions in the spirit of
> cooperating in freedesktop.org
> style.
> 23
> Expected more cross desktop feeling
> throughout. Felt like a
> CrossDesktop-weekend with a
> separate GUADEC/aKademy week
> attached.
> 27
> Keynotes should be spread out - one
> per day.
> 30
> After the cross-desktop talks, it
> was my opinion that the groups
> split with little to no
> interaction.
> 32
> I think regardless of whether we
> co-locate or not over the coming
> years, would be great to have some
> sort of team building type of
> excersize, like a treasure hunt or
> something similar. Teams would be
> randomly chosen thus promoting
> discussion between disparate GNOME
> members which may not occur during
> party nights out.
> 37
> Didn't actually talk to KDE people.
> I feel like we lost our big
> team-building venue.
> 40
> It seemed that a lot of conference
> attendees deliberately arrived
> after the cross-desktop days were
> over. The camaraderie of past
> conferences was missing.
> 43
> Unfortunately I didn't attend (I'm
> a Gnome member BTW)
> 45
> Did not like the idea of only 30min
> talk slots with no breaks to move
> rooms.
> 47
> :-|
> 50
> There was only one KDE talk that I
> wanted to see (a presentation from
> a designer) and I missed it because
> I wasn't looking at the KDE talks
> schedule.
> 59
> maybe remove the deliniation
> between two tracks?
> 65
> Increase the cross-desktop track
> 68
> Tracks should be focussed on
> freedesktop stack than the
> GNOME/KDE stack.
> 69
> Was okay, though people mostly went
> to the talks affiliated to their
> desktop.
> 71
> If co-locating means just having 2
> separate events in the same city,
> I'm against the idea of co-locating
> again. But if it means getting more
> cooperation and collaboration
> between the 2 projects (much more
> than what was done this year), I
> think we should try to do it again.
> 77
> I would like to see a more explicit
> GUADEC/aKademy split and a longer
> Cross-Desktop part, so developers
> can clearly have a schedule where
> they're working only on the stuff
> they love, and another where the
> focus is cooperation. This might
> not be immediately viable, but in
> the next 2-3 events, it should be
> possible to get a lot closer to
> achieving this.
> 79
> It was very confused, because of
> the split.
> 90
> Yes. It would be great to have
> tracks more focused on technologies
> than the specific projects. Not too
> many of course. But many subjects
> are relevant for both desktop
> environments (kernel integration,
> device management, Xorg,
> multimedia, and more) Activities
> that would break up the projects
> and desktop environments teams
> would be great. Promote a set of
> events where people can be
> affiliated by everything but their
> desktop environment project
> (nationality, area of
> interest, ...)
> 91
> I thought that some of the GNOME
> specific scheduled items should
> have been scheduled as cross
> platform.
> 97
> Please choose much, much less
> expensive locations for future
> conferences. Consider both flights
> from other continents and expenses.
> 99
> Good, but the more, the better
> 101
> Co-locating made the schedule lasts
> for ever. A week should considered
> the maximum length ever and not
> start on friday. I had to attend to
> half of the conference because it
> was too long.
> 102
> The more, the better!
> 104
> The keynotes were necessarily
> non-relevant to both KDE and GNOME,
> which is OK, but perhaps not
> something we want every year. My
> area of work isn't at all
> cross-desktop, so I can't comment
> on how well the cross-desktop
> things have gone.
> 107
> Too KDE & GNOME centric. We should
> organise by function, not
> affiliation, to get people
> interested in the same things
> together. We should also outreach
> to Xorg so that we can fix issues
> with them, and application vendors
> who can give us feedback on how
> they use the platforms. One
> conference, not two co-hosted,
> should be the goal.
> 109
> it was hard to attend to a kde
> keynote/talk, as i did not want to
> miss a GNOME talk. this could be
> improved
> 117
> People should have been able to
> submit to a cross-desktop
> submission system and not one or
> the other.
> 122
> I think having lightning talks on
> the first day has been a bad idea,
> and I would have liked to see the
> core cross-desktop talks straight
> after the first days' morning
> keynotes. The rest of the schedule
> has been fine.
> 125
> The cross-desktop tracks felt a bit
> like alternating GNOME/KDE
> tracks. :-)
> 126
> Should try to have more
> cross-desktop talks and maybe some
> lightning talks about KDE for GNOME
> people and vice versa.
> 127
> I'd try to have the specific
> content and parties at first,
> because I assume that the people
> from one community haven't seen
> theirselves for a year or so and
> need time to catch up on each
> other. Once that's finished, I
> think cross-desktop content and
> parties are ready. So have a
> schedule focused on collaboration
> at the end of the conference.
> 130
> Don't invite Stallman to talk
> again. :D
> 133
> I would like to see more weight to
> the mobile day (part of core).
> 144
> content and schedule was alright,
> but I would love to have a day or
> two where there is no interfering
> gnome and kde talks. What I mean
> is: I would love to go to kde talks
> but if that means missing gnome
> talks I definitely won't do it. I
> would have liked to go to the
> akademy keynote as well, but that
> interfered with guadec keynotes.
> 147
> there was not enough cross desktop
> talks
> 150
> The cross desktop section of the
> program was a joke, almost no real
> cross desktop talks. If one are to
> ever try this again one need to
> actively solicit talks from
> relevant people and groups, like
> X.org and so on.
> 152
> I think the content was balanced,
> but it would be nice to get mroe
> stuff that was of interest to both
> sides. Combined parties are a good
> idea, but there were just too many
> of them, too close together.
> 153
> Not really.
> 157
> While I did not think that
> co-location was an unmitigated
> disaster, I am not sure that the
> few benefits that occurred outweigh
> the negatives associated with
> co-location.
> 182
> Cross desktop talks wasn't really
> cross desktop I'm really worried
> that KDE is pushing for Tampre too
> much. While it may end up being the
> best place they seem unwilling to
> listen to other proposals. e.g.
> they have made up their mind.
> 184
> Due to the number of talks, I think
> it was too difficult for GNOMErs to
> attend KDE talks, and I imagine
> that it was the same the other way
> around
> 186
> The schedules shouldn't have been
> seperate. If we're going to
> colocate then having an opportunity
> to see what is going on with the
> other guys easily would have
> encouraged people to mingle.
> Seperate parties wasn't a good idea
> either, make people have a good
> time together. :)
> 190
> There should be one unified
> schedule, to let everyone see what
> talks they could attend on the
> other side.
> 192
> The talks should not be separated
> in two different tracks. I believe
> the tracks should be logical
> grouping of topics (say, semantic,
> and indexing), instead of the two
> different 'conferences'.
> 194
> not really. there was very little
> overlap and it just meant that good
> venues were harder to find. c'est
> la vie.
> 198
> Organize some GNOME
> state-of-the-art talks in the KDE
> conference and the other way
> around. After the summit, i still
> don't know what are the hottest
> topics in the KDE community.
> 202
> Don't change the venue half-way
> through the conference.
> 209
> The cross desktop track was packed
> in only two days, we should have a
> lot more of it. And there were too
> many "Gnome/kde stuff for the other
> desktop" and not enough joint
> things. Maybe encourage gnome/kde
> people who work on similar stuff to
> make joint presentations (would
> also force them to talk together
> more).
> 210
> It wasn't as useful as it could,
> because of separate talks related
> to one or another desktop.
> 212
> I think the way the schedule was
> laid out wasn't really conducive to
> cross-desktop pollination. There
> were separate tracks and I don't
> think many people looked at the
> track they weren't affiliated with.
> It would have probably worked
> better if the talks were
> interleaved on the same schedule.
> Still, I don't think there's a lot
> of value to be had anyway.
> 213
> Seemed OK, but I would have loved
> to have seen more structure around
> getting things done between
> desktops.
> 214
> I felt that the schedule was overly
> populated early on with "popular"
> talks and that by the time we got
> to the last 2-3 days, we had less
> popular talks scheduled and the
> attendance was decreased
> considerably.
> 215
> quite a few of the "cross-desktop"
> talks were not cross-desktop at
> all. it would have made sense to
> drop those and replace them by some
> of the cross-desktop related bofs
> instead.
> 217
> I think we should have some BoFs
> dedicated to finding ways we can
> maximize overlap between Gnome and
> KDE, to help make us more
> interoperable and reduce overhead.
> Specifically, I think we should
> pick well-defined areas of overlap
> and try to find agreement on
> deprecating all but one solution.
> 218
> I wasn't there; I just think
> co-locating sounds like a good
> idea. Reading Planet GNOME, there
> wasn't much talk about the
> co-location (except for occasional
> "i met some kde guys"). Maybe
> because it's the first time. But
> for the future events, I'd like to
> see projects being discussed, joint
> hack sessions etc.
> 220
> Cross desktop talks were good but
> other wise i attended mostly gnome
> sessions.
> 221
> More cross-desktop talks would be
> good. Without giving up on the
> unique style of both desktops,
> sharing ideas and interfaces that
> allow applications to interoperate
> is good for both projects.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Sandy Armstrong
> <sanfordarmstrong gmail com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Philip Van
> Hoof<pvanhoof gnome org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 21:06 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Philip Van
> Hoof<pvanhoof gnome org> wrote:
> >> > Apologizes for asking.
> >> >
> >> > When was the community consulted about this decision?
> >>
> >> There was a survey request on the foundation list about the
> opinion
> >> from the members.
> >>
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-July/msg00006.html
> >
> > Aha, thanks.
> >
> > Are the results of that survey available?
>
>
> Looks like there is at least a FAQ addressing the reasons for
> the decision:
>
> http://www.gnome.org/press/releases/2009-08-desktop-summit-conclusion.html
>
> (scroll down a lot)
>
> I'd be curious to see the survey results, too. I do not
> disagree with
> the decision to split, though I think we could have done the
> joint
> conference a bit better.
>
> Sandy
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
>
>
--
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]
