Re: Pre-release marketing and community management [Was: getting www.gnome3.org]

[Dave Neary <dneary gnome org>]

Hi,

Allan Day wrote:
> Sriram Ramkrishna wrote:
>> I think in this case, we want to be a buffer between devs and
>> enthusiasts.

Ah... I'm not a big fan of buffers. I prefer trying to quieten people
down when they're distracting. That means channelling the noise
elsewhere, and perhaps taking a slightly drastic measure of moderating
all posts to d-d-l for a few months.

>> In general, I want to address the frustration devs feel
>> with having to continually defend design decisions by people who fear
>> change.

Characterising any questions/queries/doubts/fears about GNOME 3 as
"people who fear change" is not going to win friends and influence
people. We need to start framing the way we talk about this issue
correctly, because the way we talk about it affects the way we think
about it, affects the way others perceive us.

>> But my motivation is really to get people off devs back so that they
>> can focus on getting the design done.

So - to summarise: the problems I've seen are:

* A lot of GNOME members (be it foundation members, translators, members
of teams not directly involved in the shell, even members of the release
team, but also those "shrill activists") do not have all of the
rationale & thought processes that have gone into GNOME Shell. Most
people have not been following the shell list or the release team
archives. So some major decisions are coming out piecemeal and are
presented as faits accomplis - "this is the way things are, live with
it". The shell team and release team have not been their own best friend
in this respect.

* There appears to be cognitive dissonance between the resources that
some GNOME people believe are there for maintenance and the resources
that are actually there - esp. related to fallback mode - panel +
applets + metacity.

* A lot of people (myself included) are worried whether we're going to
need hardware that a substantial proportion of our user base just don't
have.

And we can fix all these things by:

(To fill the knowledge gap:)
 - Documenting any major design decisions made in the shell and their
rationale, and presenting those in a nicer way
 - Ensure that the release team is also framing things in a nicer way,
and explaining the rationale behind things rather than just saying
"that's the why". Notably, I think the release team should say that
panel support is a question of manpower not policy, and it'd be nice if
Jon backed that up.
 - We need to start talking about all that's good in shell, what it
brings to the table, and why it's better than what went before. Videos,
success stories, interviews with happy users, all that kind of thing

(To be clear on what we want to see done but can't commit to, versus
what we definitely don't want to see done)
 - Help the release team and the shell team draft a "Here's stuff we're
against" list (with justifications) and "Here's stuff we'd like to see
in GNOME 3.0, but there's just no way we can commit to getting it done
with the resources we have" (things like Orca) - I'd also live to see
the GNOME project as a whole be clearer on who's involved in the actual
maintenance of core modules and what developer resources there actually
are - I'd estimate it at 40 to 50 full time developers, but I suspect
I'm on the high side there.

(To allay fears of hardware compat issues)
 - Draw up a list of graphics cards used in desktop hardware in the past
3 to 5 years, ordered by market share/volume of sales, and match that to
current compatibility of free software drivers for the hardware with the
3D requirements of Clutter. Ideally, someone with a GNOME 2.x desktop
should be able to run a command, get a chipset, and be able to tell
before he installs how well GNOME 3 will work.
 - Start publishing screenshots of fallback mode on chipsets that don't
support it & making sure it's still a nice experience.

> Personally speaking, I'd add a few other ambitions:
> 
>  * Ensuring that those from outside the project have a positive
> experience when they come into contact with GNOME. A bit more
> micromanagement here would help our public relations, I think.

This is a vast task, and I'm not sure how we can make a big dent in it
with limited volunteer resources - even doing basic communication of the
project goals and allaying concerns people have is probably more than we
can manage, but it is pretty much a minimum.

>  * Communicating and explaining the direction of the project. 3 dot oh
> involves some big changes and our community would benefit from some
> positive messages in that regard.

Absolutely agree.

> Do those sound useful? 
> 
> Also: GNOME 3 is going to be met with criticism. We don't know how much,
> but there's definitely going to be some. Sri made a really good point to
> me the other day - we need well-rehearsed and effective responses to
> those criticisms, and this kind of community management is an
> opportunity to identify and rehearse those arguments. Maybe we could
> work together to produce some kind of PR play sheet? Or would that be
> taking things too far?

A FAQ will help for the most predictable criticisms, and a list of
talking points (the "what's great about GNOME 3" list I mentioned above)
should help us frame the messaging around the release in March, and
everyone giving interviews or presentations should have these down pat.

That's a big list of stuff though... Who can give time, to do what, over
the next few weeks?

Cheers,
Dave.

-- 
Dave Neary
GNOME Foundation member
dneary gnome org