Re: Question to the candidates (what is a "complete" desktop?)

[Jeff Fortin Tam <nekohayo gmail com>]

Replying inline to your reply (stripping my own previous text):
[...]
> I'm not asking you to be technical, but to be managers. (Not saying
> here that manager can/should/must be non-technical)
[...]
> Being a director of the board for me, means having the power to
> allocate resources to make GNOME better, gather the community
> consensus and improve HDPi support the way we did once, for instance.
[...]
> So far, you've tell me what you want, not how to accomplish it. And I
> know, we as community provide a huge pools of ideas and discussion,
> but I would love to know how each candidate thinks about it. I would
> like a board of directors to be strong leaders of the project, with
> clears views on what to improve and how.


As others have indicated in the original thread, the Foundation Board is
not a technical body, it is a legal/financial/policymaking entity. We
can express a vision (as I did in my message and blog post, for example)
and communicate with teams (ex: the release team) & individuals to
encourage the adoption of that vision, but apart from, say, sponsoring
hackfests for competent parties interested in making it happen, the
board can't do much. And even if it _was_ part of its mission to oversee
technical direction, as things stand it wouldn't happen because there's
already way too many legal/financial/etc. tasks in the backlog that the
board needs to solve before getting down to technical matters.

Your vision of "managers" is one that would work in a corporate setting
with project/team managers that get to decide what people do on a day to
day basis. It doesn't work that way in a community, we're not people's
bosses. Allocating (financial) resources beyond supporting events
doesn't magically solve things. Unless we had a multi-million dollars
budget to hire full-time hackers like the "Linux Foundation", that is ;)