Re: Getting to Topaz (Was Re: getting on a longer release cycled)

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Hi,

Travis Reitter wrote:
> 1. Pick a short list of major concepts to put into Topaz.
>
> We don't need perfect consensus at this stage, but it'd be nice to start
> forming some agreement. Concepts ("superfeatures" across the
> platform/desktop) would be along the lines of "People as a first-class
> object", "Integrating Web apps and desktop apps", "User tasks instead of
> individual apps", "Pervasive integration of Creative-Commons artwork,
> music, etc.", and so on.

The concepts thing is just not really right. It's architecture astronaut 
stuff. If you want to redefine GNOME it should look like a benefit to an 
audience. Something like:
 - provide the best way to use the web for today's teenagers
or
 - get seniors who find Windows overwhelming in touch with their
   families
or (more realistically)
 - provide the best environment for software developers to work in
or
 - provide the ideal console for UNIX-like server operating systems
or
 - provide a functional equivalent to Windows for schools and non-US
   governments that see the democratic value in open source

Or whatever. But it's about people and things you might offer them they 
don't already have.

Unfortunately a lot of people have the IMNSHO insane theory that the 
above sort of stuff is "too specific" for something "general purpose" 
which is sort of like saying a "hammer" is too specific so our product 
should be "a tool."

> 2. Have everyone create mock-ups and prototypes of their ideas for these
> concepts.

This is a great idea, though. And in fact I think you'll find it leads 
you away from the "architecture concepts" mode of thinking and toward 
something more real. It also tends to show that you can't prototype "a 
tool" but you can prototype a hammer.

Havoc