Re: GNOME Productivity release set

[Federico Mena Quintero <federico ximian com>]

On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 09:56 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:

> Yeah. This is not more inclusive, just bigger; there is a difference.
> We're still saying 'Open Office is not GNOME' in very stark terms,
> just like we did with firefox. Of course, I don't think either of
> those projects are part of GNOME, but we have to be able to meet them
> in some constructive middle, and as currently constructed, this plan
> doesn't help us do that.

If the GNOME Certification thing takes off, it will be very easy to say
whether things like OpenOffice integrate nicely with a GNOME desktop.

http://live.gnome.org/GnomeCertification

> As an aside, I'm fairly nervous about saying something is 'GNOME' when
> our translators can't translate it and our QA can't track it. Those
> are two of the key things that supposedly make something GNOME-y, and
> we're cutting them off.

Translation:  if a project is sufficiently interesting, translators will
find a way to contribute.  For purposes of certification, we can get as
anal as we like:  we can say that an app meets a certain level of
certification if it is translated to the top N languages which GNOME
supports.  [Still, is GNOME's current method of "download .po files from
CVS" the best we could have?  What about web-based translation
front-ends?  With one of those, it would be easy to set up proxies to
aid other projects...]

QA: I don't think you'll find a major, interesting project which doesn't
already have QA or bug tracking infrastructure on its own.  If anything,
we need to work on something to make it easier for other projects to
cross-reference to our own Bugzilla.  Distros especially would benefit
from this - remember Ubuntu's cool thing that was shown at GUADEC?  And
the reverse is also true - it would be nice to know from the GNOME side
if a distro has already patched a bug.

  Federico