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

[Travis Reitter <treitter-dev netdrain com>]

Hi!

On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 02:02 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> 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.

That's a really good point. I'm new to development on large, real-world
projects, so if any of my ideas sound naive, don't be too shocked. :)

So, adjusting 1. to "Unique, focused, user-centric benefits" (instead of
the too-vague "concepts"/"major features that sound cool"), how do you
(and everyone else) think the plan sounds now?

> 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."

The "Big Question", then, is whether Gnome could support many
significantly different user profiles (like all the ones listed above,
and many others) _really well_, and not just wandering into the
"mediocre middle". Is it possible?

> > 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.

Thanks. My main goal with this approach is to hopefully (with enough
people involved) encourage some rapid prototyping of flexible solutions
to fairly far-reaching goals, without anyone getting too heavy-handed at
the beginning.

-Travis