Re: Money spending, questions for the candidates

["Lucas Rocha" <lucasr gnome org>]

Hi,

2007/12/3, Lucas Rocha <lucasr gnome org>:
> Hi,
>
> > The questions:
> >
> > o. Given that the Foundation of GNOME has plenty of money, will you if
> >    elected vote to spend this money on important projects?
> >
> >    Being mostly interested in mobile targets and GNOME Mobile, I could
> >    certainly come up with some projects that might both increase
> >    deployment of our GNOME technologies on mobile devices and increase
> >    the amount of contributors.
> >
> >    Both reasons are, I think, part of the reason why our Foundation
> >    exists.
> >
> >     - Development on language bindings, like a binding generator for
> >       for example Android and other mobile targets (plenty of our
> >       components don't require Gtk+ yet could run on this target)
> >
> >     - Funding development on development tools (like the new Anjuta)
> >
> >     - Development on a WinCE port of Gtk+
> >
> >     - Development on a P.I.P.S. (Symbian with POSIX) port of Gtk+
> >
> >     - Improve the existing Win32 target of Gtk+
> >
> >     - Employ a maintainer and/or additional developers for Gtk+'s
> >       development
> >
> >     - Pay people to travel to schools and universities to educate
> >       students about GNOME (serious educating, not just doing cheap
> >       presentations)
> >
> >     - ... (for making these decisions we need people who'll make real
> >       and hard decisions)
>
> First of all, the "plenty of money" that the GNOME Foundation
> currently has is not enough to pay a lot of people to do many
> different things. Second, I'm still not convinced that it's good,
> safe, and healthy to have the GNOME Foundation paying certain people
> from the community to develop software. Specially considering that
> GNOME is heavily based on volunteer work.
>
> As I said before, the GNOME Foundation role is to make sure that the
> community has the needed infrastructure for its daily work and to
> support community activities as much as it can.
>
> > o. What is your opinion on an examination that could carry the title:
> >    "GNOME Mobile certified software developer exam"
>
> I don't like the general idea of certifications. I think the
> contributions that one gives to a certain FLOSS project is more than
> enough to prove its compentence on a certain software development
> area.
>
> > o. How are you planning to help the GNOME community overcome the fact
> >    that we have relatively few technical leadership?
> >
> >    - By waiting for the integration our softwares to turn into
> >      something that looks a lot like that O.S. called CHA-OS?
>
> ?
>
> >    - By letting companies like Nokia, Novell, ... set our goals?
> >      I think this is what's happening right now. Might be fine imo.
>
> I don't really know what you mean here. Anyway, I disagree with the "I
> think this is what's happening right now" part anyway. I don't really
> see those companies setting our goals. IMO, GNOME is totally open for
> volunteer and individual efforts which can have a lot of influence in
> the project and hence setting our goals too.
>
> >      Note that, however, our users sometimes get confused by this:
> >
> >        o. People thinking that Miguel De Icaza, Novell and GNOME are one
> >           entity. (I love your work Miguel, don't get me wrong. A lot of
> >           GNOME people do)
> >
> >        o. Too late announcing of GNOME developers joining the OOXML
> >           discussions (I think it's great that we are among the people.
> >           defining this, don't get me wrong. But our "technical
> >           leadership", the one that we lack, should have made our
> >           position clear to the audience (our users) before getting
> >           Slashdotted by the religious ones in the land of freesoftware.
> >
> >     I think that we are having quite a handicap by this, and that we
> >     should do something about it. This year.
> >
> >     How will you do that? What is your strategy?
>
> As I said before, IMO, there was a communication problem about the
> participation on the ECMA TC45 (actually it was more about the
> timing). There's no "strategy" needed here. It's more about having
> clear and consistent communication.
>
> > Notes on my mind:
> >
> >  o. Technical leadership != one person dictatorship, we can work with
> >     committees too. Let's be open minded in stead of the "I'm against
> >     everything" point of view.
> >
> >     If the right people are in that committee, nobody will be against
> >     anything.
> >
> >  o. I'm still hoping for GMAE/GNOME Mobile to be(come) that committee
> >     for mobile related components. Why not do ...
> >
> >       o. one for the Desktop
> >
> >       o. one for the translators and documentation writers
> >
> >       o. one for that futuristic Online Desktop
> >
> >       o. one for the language bindings and development tools
> >
> >  o. On importance level: I think that without such technical leadership,
> >     GNOME will fragment into a huge amount of unconnected projects.
> >
> >     I think this will eventually render most our components irrelevant.
> >
> > I don't want to end with panic-speech but I just did. I'll continue my
> > philosophic text  with ... passion
> >
> > We are a bunch of passionate people. I've met a lot of the other
> > developers at conferences and my conclusion is that our average level of
> > passion is high.
> >
> > With our combined passion, I think we can compete with any big player on
> > this planet. I believe it has always been passion that made the final
> > difference in technology
> >
> > It would be a waste to steer ourselves to irrelevance. I think we can be
> > both passionate and successful. And if not, let's die trying.
> >
> > (now that's a good conclusion, no?)
>
> I don't feel like answering those comments. I guess you just want to
> give your opinion about the project. Those are very
> important/interesting topics but not  in the context of Board
> elections.

Just a clarification about this "not in the context of Board
elections". What I mean here is that all this technical/development
issues can/should be discussed, decided and achieved by the community.
The Board would then help the community where the support is needed.

--lucasr