Re: GNOME 2.22 module inclusion discussions heat up.

[Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>]

Hi my favorite brazilian dude,

Just some more comments, in addition to the already great reply Elijah
made...

Le samedi 05 janvier 2008, à 00:05 -0300, Lucas Rocha a écrit :
> Hi guys,
> 
> FYI: Unfortunately, I couldn't properly comment on each proposed
> because the discussions heatup started right in the beginning of my
> vacation.
> 
> I just wanted to make two "meta-comments". I plan to write about those
> concerns in more detail as soon as I come back from vacation.
> 
> 1. It's not very realistic/eficient to expect the discussions about
> the proposed modules to "heat up" at this time of the year (very close
> to new year and christmas). Because of that, most of the proposed
> modules were poorly discussed. Maybe this should be taken into account
> for next year's schedule?

Actually, I think the timing was better than in the past:

 + we had some discussion when modules were first proposed back in
   October

 + we tried to get more input from the community before the Christmas
   break, and not during or just after it.

We didn't get many replies, though but I don't think it's because of the
timing. It could be because what matters is not what is shipped with
GNOME, but what is integrated with GNOME. Eg, just having the cheese
module in won't change anything for people (bad example if we integrate
it well, okay...), but having empathy can change many things.  And thus,
in most cases, the decision is not that important. Or maybe it's
something else...

> 2. There are some problems in the current decision making process
> around modules.
> 2.1 Currently, there's this "consensus-based" process which takes
> place through an open discussion around each proposed module. Nowadays
> there's quite a lot of noise in those discussions and consequently the
> release team often needs to decide based on very poor input from
> community.

No comment, Elijah was perfect :-)

> 2.2 Lack of a sense of direction around those module decisions.
> There's no "big picture" to back the decisions of accepting or denying
> modules. Modules are discussed almost as isolated components. If it
> improves the usability of the desktop in some sane way and covers a
> basic set of requirements, it will be probably in. So, we're basically
> adding "stuff" to the desktop on each major stable release.
> 2.3 The current decision making process doesn't work at all for
> deciding about polemic and fundamental changes in our desktop (and
> we're in a moment which demands from us to change important parts of
> our UI). One of the reasons for that is 2.1 (there are others of
> course). The presence of 2.2 makes things even harder. For example,
> deciding about gimmie, gnome-main-menu, awn, and others, is not just
> about accepting or not a new module, it's about discussing the UI we
> want to provide to our users.

My point of view is that the fix here is the roadmap. We didn't put
enough effort in the roadmap, IMHO. At least, I know I wanted to do much
more but I haven't had time to do anything useful, so... I'll be glad to
talk about this with you :-)

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.