Re: Free Desktop Communities come together at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit
- From: john palmieri <john j5 palmieri gmail com>
- To: quimgil gmail com
- Cc: Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>, Philip Van Hoof <pvanhoof gnome org>, foundation-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Free Desktop Communities come together at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:43:25 -0400
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Quim Gil <quimgil gmail com>
So I guess there is no way back.
Speaking clearly, I wonder what weight in people's opinions (in the
polls and the board meembers) had the Qt branding in badge, towel,
roll-up ad in the main entrance, etc. Many GNOME people said they
didn't felt 'at home' in such context. But that is something easy to
solve in future editions.
For me that was a huge part of it (though I was not part of the final vote). Some parts felt hijacked and need thought on how to avoid it in the future. I still think there is value to co-locate but I personally felt some of the pitfalls I wanted to avoid, such as identity issues got steamrolled by those who had other agendas. If GNOME and KDE are going to have a more united front it needs to happen slowly in an organic manner, not abruptly with agendas. Speaking for myself and not the board I felt there was an arrogance in some peoples thought that a co-located event was going to happen again next year even before this year's was over. It made some of the important details, such as the badges, fall by the wayside. I had specifically stated in the initial meetings that I felt badges went a long way to preserving the identity of each conference.
I felt there was also the same steamrolling with next year's venues. In some circles Tampere was already decided before the event was over and we haven't even made a call for proposals yet. There was even a proposal that we not have a call for proposals and just decide on Tampere. Now we may decide on Tampere but there numerous factors such as some wanting to have next years GUADEC near a major transportation hub that need to be considered. So, making brash decisions like that felt like poorly disguised agenda pushing.
Speaking for myself, little details such as those and the fact that things like the schedule weren't fleshed out better made me think we needed to step back and approach such events from a better thought out position. I didn't have a vote this time around but I think the board took the correct action here. Again, I think there is value in the future of doing this again but only if we work out the changes needed. I feel jumping right into another one would have perpetuated the issues instead of working to solving them.
John (J5) Palmieri
] [Thread Prev