Re: GNOME community survey
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 04:57 -0800, Germán Póo-Caamaño wrote: > FYI, > > A group of researchers leaded by Jim Herbsleb got in contact with GNOME > Foundation some months ago in order to research how communities works, > how a volunteer become an active contributor, among others. > > In the following days, developers (committers) will receive and > invitation to complete a survey that would not take more than 20 minutes > (or even less). However, the participation in the study is completely > voluntary. > > It worth to mention that the results will be shared with the community, > and we will insist on that. > > At last but not least, the original plan included a joint survey to help > set the Foundation goals, which will not be the case. However, we are > looking forward to receive help from this team of researchers in the > near future. I have received complains about specific questions, which only affect developers who have selected the option: "Most of my income comes from doing software development for a company." For some miscommunication problem, I was not aware that option would lead to extra questions related to the employer. Hence, I could not review them and I can not endorse them. The most problematic questions are employer's name and the 4 questions related to intentions of moving to another company/job. I apologize for any inconvenience this issue might have produced. -- Germán Póo-Caamaño http://www.gnome.org/~gpoo/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME community survey
Christopher Roy Bratusek schreef op vr 07-01-2011 om 23:00 [+0100]: > > By "others" he probably mean components not in "desktop"/"platform" etc. > > sets (marked as "Others" in bugzilla, git etc.) and therefore not part > > of GNOME (like banshee, vala, libgee etc.) > Exactly. Yet there is broad consensus those people should be considered part of the Gnome community. For a community wide research project, I think it would be very unrepresentative to only take people contributing to "Gnome, the code desktop stack but nothing else even if it is really really really closely related" into account. — Wouter signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME community survey
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 13:45 -0800, Germán Póo-Caamaño wrote: > > Since people from "Others" section also got the invitation (like > me), I > > wonder, whether the results of the questions regarding making GNOME > better and > > the effort taken into GNOME may become a bit inapropriate, as those > aren't > > actually doing that (their software is not shipped with GNOME). > > > > Or does GNOME in this case mean GNOME + software meant for > GNOME-using > > people? Just wondering. > > I do not know what do you mean by "Others", but if you got an email is > because you have contributed with GNOME (considering the software > under > gnome.org). > > By "others" he probably mean components not in "desktop"/"platform" etc. sets (marked as "Others" in bugzilla, git etc.) and therefore not part of GNOME (like banshee, vala, libgee etc.) Regards signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME community survey
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 22:34 +0100, Christopher Roy Bratusek wrote: > On Friday 07 January 2011 13:57:42 Germán Póo-Caamaño wrote: > > FYI, > > > > A group of researchers leaded by Jim Herbsleb got in contact with GNOME > > Foundation some months ago in order to research how communities works, > > how a volunteer become an active contributor, among others. > > > > In the following days, developers (committers) will receive and > > invitation to complete a survey that would not take more than 20 minutes > > (or even less). However, the participation in the study is completely > > voluntary. > > > > It worth to mention that the results will be shared with the community, > > and we will insist on that. > > > > At last but not least, the original plan included a joint survey to help > > set the Foundation goals, which will not be the case. However, we are > > looking forward to receive help from this team of researchers in the > > near future. > > Since people from "Others" section also got the invitation (like me), I > wonder, whether the results of the questions regarding making GNOME better > and > the effort taken into GNOME may become a bit inapropriate, as those aren't > actually doing that (their software is not shipped with GNOME). > > Or does GNOME in this case mean GNOME + software meant for GNOME-using > people? Just wondering. I do not know what do you mean by "Others", but if you got an email is because you have contributed with GNOME (considering the software under gnome.org). -- Germán Póo-Caamaño http://www.gnome.org/~gpoo/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Proposal: Moving d-d-l to moderated until after GNOME 3 release
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 18:37 +0100, Dave Neary wrote: > > In particular, note the following mailing lists: > > > > * gnome-annouce-list - all software announcements > > * gnome-list - discussions/questions about how to use GNOME Does gnome-list cover the design process of user experience? > > * foundation-list - discussions relating to the GNOME foundation > > * nautilus-list - Nautilus development > > To that list I would add Bugzilla and gnomesupport.org It would be nice to have 'what channel should I choose' page - it might increase signal-to-noise ratio for lists. For example an idea about gnome-shell & evolution integration should go to: - gnome-shell/evolution list crossposting - gnome-devel-list (it's about Gnome overall user experience) - gnome-list - bugzilla (which product?) - irc (which channel?) - ... Regards signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Proposal: Moving d-d-l to moderated until after GNOME 3 release
Hi, Owen Taylor wrote: >> I'd like to propose that we move the list to strict moderation for the >> next couple of months - anything not to do with development (code, docs, >> i18n, continuous integration) related to GNOME 3 should be filtered out. >> Priority should be given to maintainers & developers and people doing >> release management. > > Not necessary in my opinion - if people have productive discussions and > just let any unproductive discussions die off on their own then the > situation will be OK. OK - if Owen & Miguel don't think so, then consider the request dropped. To understand where the request was coming from, I think the announcement that Orca was being dropped from the GNOME 3 core moduleset, without (apparently) the prior knowledge of the Orca maintainers, or any list of things which are needed for Orca to become "GNOME 3 ready" is evidence that communication between the release team, the shell team and module maintainers has failed at some point. My proposal was intended to help alleviate that. So let's try to keep to the d-d-l description for the next few months: >From http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list : > This is a development mailing list and, therefore, discussions > relating to the development of the Desktop and Developer Platform are > the only discussions on topic. > > Please consider whether your post may be appropriate to one of the many > other GNOME mailing lists before posting here. > > In particular, note the following mailing lists: > > * gnome-annouce-list - all software announcements > * gnome-list - discussions/questions about how to use GNOME > * foundation-list - discussions relating to the GNOME foundation > * nautilus-list - Nautilus development To that list I would add Bugzilla and gnomesupport.org Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Proposal: Moving d-d-l to moderated until after GNOME 3 release
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 11:16 +0100, Dave Neary wrote: > Hi, > > GNOME maintainers & developers need a place to co-ordinate efforts > running up to GNOME 3.0, co-ordinate which bugs are blockers, which > features & modules need work and who's working on them, etc. > > This (the desktop *devel* list) is the best place for that to happen, > but the list is far too noisy for that to be feasible. > > I'd like to propose that we move the list to strict moderation for the > next couple of months - anything not to do with development (code, docs, > i18n, continuous integration) related to GNOME 3 should be filtered out. > Priority should be given to maintainers & developers and people doing > release management. Not necessary in my opinion - if people have productive discussions and just let any unproductive discussions die off on their own then the situation will be OK. - Owen ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
GNOME community survey
FYI, A group of researchers leaded by Jim Herbsleb got in contact with GNOME Foundation some months ago in order to research how communities works, how a volunteer become an active contributor, among others. In the following days, developers (committers) will receive and invitation to complete a survey that would not take more than 20 minutes (or even less). However, the participation in the study is completely voluntary. It worth to mention that the results will be shared with the community, and we will insist on that. At last but not least, the original plan included a joint survey to help set the Foundation goals, which will not be the case. However, we are looking forward to receive help from this team of researchers in the near future. -- Germán Póo-Caamaño http://www.gnome.org/~gpoo/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Proposal: Moving d-d-l to moderated until after GNOME 3 release
Hi, GNOME maintainers & developers need a place to co-ordinate efforts running up to GNOME 3.0, co-ordinate which bugs are blockers, which features & modules need work and who's working on them, etc. This (the desktop *devel* list) is the best place for that to happen, but the list is far too noisy for that to be feasible. I'd like to propose that we move the list to strict moderation for the next couple of months - anything not to do with development (code, docs, i18n, continuous integration) related to GNOME 3 should be filtered out. Priority should be given to maintainers & developers and people doing release management. There are places to complain about design decisions that have already been made (gnomesupport.org, bugzilla, other mailing lists), but maintainers need a place to collaborate which is not drowned in noise, and this should be it. I don't expect the proposal to be popular, but I believe it to be necessary for a successful release. Olav, as list maintainer, what do you think? Do you need moderator volunteers to share the load, or is the current moderator team sufficient? Thanks, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode CLOSING THIS THREAD
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 01:23:39AM -0800, Baybal Ni wrote: > Now, tell me what you and Mr. Olav are trying to infer with this discussion? Suggest to read the thread. I'm totally not getting why you're involving me and some other person days after the thread is over. Note to all: I'm closing the thread. Multiple people already mentioned that no new points were being discussed. -- Regards, Olav PS: Private email. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: My thoughts on fallback mode
>> I cannot believe I am reading this on GNOME central mail list! > > [ snip ] > > I cannot believe this topic keeps coming up again and again :-( > > "Linux is not about choice": > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html Guys, I can't believe I'm readeing this again. If linux/OSS wasn't about choice, you wouldn't be here at a first place. I, as a user who never used necrosoft/novelll from my very long 20 years of computer experience just like to tell you. That the freedom of movement between all of opensource OS'es was the crucial factor that it was: Chosen for use in enterprise environment, where you your data worth money and you would like to preserve it between OS migration Chosen for use in global scale research projects, simply because no commercial solution would ever provide that level of standartisation that OSS have Chosen as a base level for most of advanced embedded electronics, for a simple fact that it has standards and no competing product is anything more that code blobs without documentation Now, tell me what you and Mr. Olav are trying to infer with this discussion? And lets come back to constructive discussion. If you suggest to deprecate old gnome 2 experience, you should provide something compatible, similiar or better. And what you have: Shell is not better, it's a clearly a degradation of user experience. It was targeted on downsized desktops, but doesn't fit here and we are simply left running desktop sized panel with scaled proportionately giantic icons. Shell simply doesn't have similiar user experience. At current stage it's nothing more than set of launcher icons on fixed panel that can't be even moved around. Imagine what a pain whould it be to work wiht it on 21:9 screen or xinerama? Besides this it simply doesn't work in xinerama configuration yet (Mutter hangs). Shell is simply not working as advertised yet (black windows bug, slow) Shell development is driven by a closed club of developers that has incepted the idea without taking anybodys opinion into consideration. It's clearly lacks ergonomics, design is poor, doesn't comfort user at all. Please fix it, and then come with your idea after it. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
