Re: GNOME OS Goals

[William Jon McCann <william jon mccann gmail com>]

Hey Stormy,

More good questions. I'll try to be brief because I think a longer reply would need to go to the foundation list. My view is that this list is primarily for tactics.

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Stormy Peters <stormy gnome org> wrote:

Your description makes it sound like more of a "how we work" where when people talk about it, they seem to think it's a product goal. So maybe these questions make sense on this list and maybe they don't.

I think it is about both how we work and what we produce. I think it has to be and that is one key to how we differ.

The values of free and open source software and an open and transparent process are well known by now. The value of a level playing field devoid of walled gardens and single corporation control I'll also assume is self evident. As are probably most of the other bits of "how". However, as I think anyone who was discussed the "how" out in the world knows, there is more we need to do. The perception is that open source is confusing, messy, and ugly. And the perception isn't far off. So, what differentiates us from the rest? What do we need now that the world has been convinced of the benefits of our methodology?

Coherence. Beauty. Excellence.

The way you bridge the how and the what is through focus.

I'm wondering. 

1) When GNOME OS (or our current roadmap) is done, who will be our primary "customers". Not our end users but who will get us to market. Will it still be Red Hat, Canonical, ...?

There are a lot of answers to this. I think our first task is to make life substantially better for ourselves. If we aren't able to maximize our effectiveness and if we're struggling to get things done how can we imagine anyone else would want to help us?

The next phase is to address the needs of application developers. We can't do it without them. The OS is nothing without them. As we focus the OS the diversity should move into the application space. We can't do one without the other. This is critical.

These two things will offer dramatic improvements to our existing downstreams. Reducing their costs by upstreaming duplicated effort. Freeing them from the mundane. Would art have flourished in civilization without freeing each of us from constant attention to basic needs?

That's where our story would typically end. But I think if we move assertively to increase efficiency we can do much more.

We can reach out to build new relationships with hardware partners. Allowing them to focus on their core competency.

We can build new relationships with software partners. Those who don't wish to play second fiddle to or put their future in the hands of another corporation. I'm fairly certain that the great folks at Igalia, for one, can testify to this.

A more direct (unmediated) and meaningful relationship with users is critical. It is necessary to be sustainable. This relates to what we call "The Reader to Leader" framework for participation. The only thing standing between a loving user and a future leader should be *desire*.

I believe, with determination and focus, we can offer a better experience to users than anyone else can.

My view is that GNOME OS is a win-win for all parties.
 

2) Who will be our primary competitor? (Competition is good as it helps define the space.)

I don't think there is anyone even trying to occupy this space right now. There are a many options for great experiences in the proprietary world. There are some decent options in the semi-open world. There are a few options in the open source / second-fiddle world. I think we would stand alone as the alternative. The only other project that is even close is Firefox OS, I suppose. But it seems to have a different target to me. Maybe you can shed some light on that? :)
 

3) How will differentiate ourselves from the competition?

There is no simple answer for this, of course. Some of this will emerge as we move forward. I don't think we can ignore the importance of our core beliefs and values. They are a huge differentiator. Being coherent and beautiful is enough to differentiate from the rest of free software.

A sustainable, focused, beautiful, open, level playing field, with decisions based on merit, guided by a non-profit entity, with a vibrant application ecosystem, and a new economy of partners is something I don't think exists today. And it is something I think the world needs.

Jon