Note that initially this was discussed at UDS. I am not sure where I speak for the whole release team (GUADEC) or just a few. You might get a few corrections.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 06:55:53PM +0200, Dave Neary wrote: > Luis Villa wrote: > > I'm sorry to be so negative, but this is a lousy idea and I think that > > needs to be said. Do not repeat the mistakes of early 2.0 (before we > > got our act together) and KDE 4.0. Be patient; just because Topaz is > > unlikely to happen (I agree) is no reason to rush out and slap 3.0 on > > something. > > I think we need to wrap this up as like this, and no more: > > We're moving to a 6 month/2 year time-based cycle. Our first 2-year > cycle started in March (that means we're now behind schedule! Ouch!) We were thinking of 2.5 years. This would make x.10 equal to x+1.0. Yes, stupid reasoning, but it was easy to agree upon. > 2 year cycle: Identify big overriding theme - current low-hanging fruit > would be web integration, presence, geo-positioning, IM - the platform > for these exists, all that is needed is to turn that into real > user-available features - for each application or group of applications, > do the specification work (eg. Rhythmbox with an "Upcoming concerts from > this artist (and similar artists) in your area" - information all > available from Last.fm and geoclue - would rock). We're not going to get > all this done in one cycle, but it creates a goal, something to aim for > & push people towards That is the idea yes, basically starting from GNOME 3.0 onwards (setting a goal for 4.0). For 3.0, it is more a put the finishing touches on 2.x. E.g. the work done to remove bonobo, have gio/gvfs everywhere, etc. It could use some other small goal as well, but due to the intensive changes needed to port everything I think the goal should be small -- it is hard enough. As from 3.0, then there should be a goal setting at GUADEC (the 2.5 year bites us a bit.. wouldn't match.. but IMO 2 years a bit short). > 6-month cycle: As you were. Keeps platform & apps stable and evolving. Yeah, only loads more apps. > For the moment, we've decided to move to the cycle. Now we need to have > a process which arrives at a finality - realistic user-targetted goals > which will benefit users, and not have us drowning in a massive rewrite. The idea was to do that at GUADEC (we sort of expected such a discussion to happen after the proposal). > That process is the big challenge. > > Like I said, there are a number of low-hanging fruit out there with > Soylent/Telepathy, Geoclue, EDS (and hey, if the libs are hard to use, > we can give feedback & get them fixed), the Online Desktop stuff which > looked really interesting... we just need to turn these from > technical-facing "stuff" to user-facing Actions and Projects. We're > currently buried under our stuff, and we need more projects! > > Whatever process we (you?) choose, it must have a finality. I'm Make sure to give out the right impression though: Release team doesn't dictate, just gathers ideas and guides the process. (first bit on http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning). > extremely happy to see the release team stepping up & taking ownership > of the future of GNOME. In my ideal world, you guys would now open a > consulting period for ideas & brainstorming, and at the Boston Summit > (or before), announce what the theme for GNOME 3.0 will be, with a long > list of features to be co-ordinated across the desktop. Perhaps yes. I still like GUADEC though -- way more people. -- Regards, Olav -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list