Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
I'd be happy to help but I need to be added. Thanks, Stormy On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote: Le lundi 14 juillet 2008, à 13:00 +0200, Olav Vitters a écrit : On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:37:06PM +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Yeah, we discussed this with Stormy. Definitely something to do. Also, I think we can start some document for the community, and some FAQ. Maybe also some slides that people can re-use to explain things. Rough document is at: http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3. I want to add loads more stuff. The document is currently only readable by r-t members. I changed a few things here and there. I think we need some more work, though, because it's still a bit rough around the edges. Are there some people in the marketing team willing to help build the document? We'll add you to the acl so you can edit it. We might also want to start keeping track of the press articles talking about all this so we can know how people understand all this and adapt our communication. For example, I was quite pleased to read http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080714-gnome-3-0-officially-announced-and-explained.html Any volunteer wanting to help with that? Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
Luis: I hate to dump on well-meaning people like those of you on r-t, but this 3.0 plan is, hands-down, a terrible idea, on a lot of levels, and Dave's points here- why are we focusing on API? what are we signaling to users?- begin to highlight why. The fact that the very first sentence of http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3 is wrong: GNOME 3 is needed as GTK+ 3 will happen. is just not a good sign. (There are ways to educate developers about API/ABI change besides major version numbers of the desktop, so GTK3 need not force GNOME3.) I disagree. Since GTK3 is going to force us to make the GNOME stack parallel installable, this is a reasonable time for us to do a break with the past. This will likely involve removing deprecated libraries from the stack. We could still support them, but at least ensure that the official GNOME stack doesn't use them. This way distros can drop them if they want. Providing a cleaner, more powerful, and more stable development platform is a good thing. In short, I think you're letting minor technical considerations (and perhaps perceived pressure from KDE?) set out an agenda, rather than making the user and improvements for the user set the agenda, and I think that is exactly backwards, screwing us up with users, developers, and the media. I do agree with you. I think it would be a shame if GNOME 3.0 only provided developer Platform enhancements with no focus on the user experience or usability. I would hope that a part of GNOME 3.0 planning would include some discussion about what usability improvements should be a part of the release. I'd think we should be investing in doing things like usability studies and starting forum discussions to get a better handle on what we could/should be doing in this area. In more detail: First, from a user perspective: how am I supposed to understand what kind of change has gone on here? The change in major number is supposed to indicate radical change. That is what version numbers do. That is one aspect of what version numbers do. Version numbers also highlight information about interface stability. That said, it would be best, obviously, if GNOME 3.0 also included some real usability improvements as well. Since GTK3 won't be available for another year, and GNOME3 would likely lag another 6-12 months, I'd think we should have time to identify and implement some significant usability improvements. No? For example, why does the GNOME desktop have separate panel applets and things like gDesklets. Why can't I just drag the clock applet onto my desktop and get a gDesklet-like thing. I know this is the sort of improvement that Calum Benson has often talked about. Also, we could work to finish-up and polish composite and Clutter integration with the platform making 3.0 have the sort of new user-flash that would generate some excitement, I'd think. In short, I think there are things in the pipeline that could generate the sort of user-focused features you suggest. However, I'd think we would need to invest some energy working with our users to make sure it integrates with the appropriate polish to justify a 3.0 release. Second, from a developer perspective: I understand the need to indicate to developers that an API/ABI change has occurred, but if we need to, that is why we have a platform/desktop split- change the version number in the platform. Changing the desktop version without a clear vision/agenda, *especially* combined with new API/ABI + porting, is an invitation to architecture astronautics and unnecessary churn. It could make a lot of sense to make the GNOME Platform 3.0 and still leave the desktop at 2.0. However, this would mean that all desktop programs would need to continue to be backwards compatible with 2.0 moving forward. So desktop programs couldn't make use of any new GTK3-only interfaces until the desktop moves to 3.0. From the GTK3 plan, it doesn't sound like GTK3 will initially have many new features. So it might not be a problem if the desktop version were to get bumped a release or two after the platform. This would offer some additional time to make whatever changes to the desktop we feel are necessary to justify the 3.0 version bump for the desktop. In short, I think you are right that we need some further planning to make sure that a GNOME3 release is successful. Finally, from a media perspective: the reason GNOME 2.0 was a success in the Linux media, and the reason KDE 4.0 has been a failure, is that GNOME 2.0 had a clear, persuasive story around it: simplification and usability. I think another major factor is that the GNOME Platform is LGPL whereas KDE is GPL. Therefore GNOME is much more friendly to third-party ISV's. Brian -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
That is part of our problem and as far as i have understood other people also thought about how one could better link bug reports betwen distribution-gnome bugzilla. But I also think that GNOME does not get enough direct information from users. I think that let the distribution handle the user side does not really work out - this at least what I see today - if you look at GNOME you can see how some things got wrong because the GNOME developers and the users seemed to have gotten out of contact. Just a matter of fact, Launchpad has nice feedback feature to track different bug tracking systems. I think that would be killer feature for GNOME Bugzilla and nice way to track each issue and how it is handled within different distros. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
2008/7/18 Thilo Pfennig [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Luis Villa wrote: In short, I think you're letting minor technical considerations (and perhaps perceived pressure from KDE?) set out an agenda, rather than making the user and improvements for the user set the agenda, and I think that is exactly backwards, screwing us up with users, I was thinking about the same but hesitated to write that as I am used to having a non-majority view. I think one could also think about the KDE disaster as that they did a simlar thing: 4.0 was not really the new big thing for the users - but rather a quite stable new API. The difference in GNOME 3.0 would be that although the motivation to do a higher number comes from the ABI/API changes but it is expected to be MUCH more stable than KDE 4.0. KDE 4.0 should have been called KDE 4 developer release. Having stable API and core features is nice and stuff, but it really don't sell anything, if nothing works. But still thats one of the core problems that marketing follows function and not the other way around or at least on the same level. So marketing still is seen as a bunch of people who spread rhe word of new functionalities and versions. What GNOME should have is a good general strategy where it is heading. Right now there are only some random feature clusters like the Online Desktop or the mobility stuff. But thats not really an outlined idea or vision. Problem is that it is really hard to lay out any concrete version with such diverse community as GNOME. RedHat cares for Enterprise, Ubuntu cares for noncommercials/oems/home users, Novell cares for compatibility with Windows. What do you actually seek is concrete feature set, aka specification. However, again, within open source community, it is very hard to make concrete spec and fullfill it - and for obvious reasons - there are ever going lack of dev power, lot of stuff is boring to be coded (for example, everyone is ready to play around with Clutter, but Gnome Scan still lacks developer power. Needless to say wich I would like to working in first place), supporting and maintaining stuff is serious business. However, AFAIK, it is possible to define current spec - features, things we have for now - and track progress (or regress) from here. It is also can be used as compare base for next (aka 3.0) GNOME version. Do we have callendaring program for 3.0? Check. Do it has CalDAV support as now? Uncheck. Bug. Task. Processing :) It is needed, no matter how hard it is. Because it is next level - when we actually start to care what happens after code. Being proactive about features and problems about them is way forward. Dact is that GNOME was never build from a users perspective but from a developers perspective and also from the perspective of distributions. If it should take the users into account the users have to have a role in the development process - like having a users council which is involved when new releases are planned. I think to expect developers and distribution to takes the view of the user is maybe futile, because they will have their own view and interests. That is a long stretch - in fact, distributions listen to user input a lot (Ubuntu has UbuntuForums, Brainstorm page, cool bug system), and their work is pushed upstream. There maybe is huge problem how to coordinate upstream stuff, because lot of features are delayed for some unknown reasons. One could try to select a good mix of volunteers from different backrounds who are willing to test new features and give feedback - or who say a word about ideas that are floating around. and they could be heard by the Foundation board and maybe have one representative in that board. It would then be good if they have a setup which allows them to test new stuff without being technical experts. Testing should be done, yes, but again, nor GNOME nor distributions don't have such manpower. Afaik installing betas of next greatest distro version is enough. What is not enough is bug reporting (Only Ubuntu has made it with ease), commenting, submitting info. For example, Evolution doesn't work with some kind of strange POP3 servers. How get such information and debugging info from user? How to submit changes and then encourage user to test them? That is question should be asked. Of course, mainstream oriented distros should look for more casual testing (user groups and stuff), but it is up to them. As far as I see, GNOME has good foundations to be dominant free desktop environment. And it can be easily achieved building upon what we have already, doing incremental changes, making them more directed and planned, following spec. Just my two euro cents, Peter. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
Peteris Krisjanis schrieb: It is needed, no matter how hard it is. Because it is next level - when we actually start to care what happens after code. Being proactive about features and problems about them is way forward. That should be written in stone ;-) One could try to select a good mix of volunteers from different backrounds who are willing to test new features and give feedback Testing should be done, yes, but again, nor GNOME nor distributions don't have such manpower. I wrote volunteers. I think we should be able to find a handful of people willing to test. Maybe also we can give them something in return - and if its only public attention - maybe let them write blogs - so have some kind of userplanet.gnome.org and encourage them to write about what they experience. I know this is happening in the blog world already - but most GNOME users that write blog entries nobody really knows and nobody cares. And also nobody really knows what they are using. I think this even does need to meet high standards technically or scientifically - I just say give the users a seat in the front row and listen to them. You cant listen to all of them - its true that there are a lot of Bugzillas out there but that is not the same. For example I know a telephone company that works with Ubuntu/GNOME only for some years now - somebody there could report about their experience which could really be valuable for the business view. Of course, mainstream oriented distros should look for more casual testing (user groups and stuff), but it is up to them. That is part of our problem and as far as i have understood other people also thought about how one could better link bug reports betwen distribution-gnome bugzilla. But I also think that GNOME does not get enough direct information from users. I think that let the distribution handle the user side does not really work out - this at least what I see today - if you look at GNOME you can see how some things got wrong because the GNOME developers and the users seemed to have gotten out of contact. regards, Thilo -- Thilo Pfennig - PfennigSolutions IT-Beratung- Wiki-Systeme Sandkrug 28 - 24143 Kiel (Germany) http://www.pfennigsolutions.de/ XING: https://www.xing.com/profile/Thilo_Pfennig - LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tpfennig -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 06:39:57AM +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 18:53 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: PS. I'm still unclear about what opening the big tent means exactly - does it mean having a number of criteria, and any application meeting those criteria becomes part of GNOME? Does that imply abandoning the release sets? Yes, this is nothing really new. I heard Federico already thought about it for a while. The details are very hard, however, yeah.. it would abandon the release sets. [snip] I think certification is a good idea to try, if it's simple - just 2 or 3 levels. But abandoning the release sets would be a major mistake. I imagine it would be combined. Only a distinction between Platform and apps. Perhaps additional 'really core'. Almost no modules will actually meet all your certification levels. You need things to be in release sets so they get that regular pressure to keep up the standards and keep to the schedule, for every GNOME release. That was something we were discussing. More suggestions are very welcome. Also things like new deprecations: if something is newly deprecated, how to certify applications, or applications which were already certified. I think they should be certified/included until the next major. Basically we have ideas on how stuff should work, the details are just very difficult. Try extra stuff, but please don't abandon the release sets until something else is proven to be working. I also don't see how this needs to be part of a GNOME 3.0. The proposal is about changing stuff. Not about 3.0. The naming of 3.0 is just a small part. However, I combining this with a version change is nice, it shows a change in direction. -- Regards, Olav -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
Luis Villa wrote: In short, I think you're letting minor technical considerations (and perhaps perceived pressure from KDE?) set out an agenda, rather than making the user and improvements for the user set the agenda, and I think that is exactly backwards, screwing us up with users, I was thinking about the same but hesitated to write that as I am used to having a non-majority view. I think one could also think about the KDE disaster as that they did a simlar thing: 4.0 was not really the new big thing for the users - but rather a quite stable new API. The difference in GNOME 3.0 would be that although the motivation to do a higher number comes from the ABI/API changes but it is expected to be MUCH more stable than KDE 4.0. But still thats one of the core problems that marketing follows function and not the other way around or at least on the same level. So marketing still is seen as a bunch of people who spread rhe word of new functionalities and versions. What GNOME should have is a good general strategy where it is heading. Right now there are only some random feature clusters like the Online Desktop or the mobility stuff. But thats not really an outlined idea or vision. Dact is that GNOME was never build from a users perspective but from a developers perspective and also from the perspective of distributions. If it should take the users into account the users have to have a role in the development process - like having a users council which is involved when new releases are planned. I think to expect developers and distribution to takes the view of the user is maybe futile, because they will have their own view and interests. One could try to select a good mix of volunteers from different backrounds who are willing to test new features and give feedback - or who say a word about ideas that are floating around. and they could be heard by the Foundation board and maybe have one representative in that board. It would then be good if they have a setup which allows them to test new stuff without being technical experts. I have followed the plans, discussions and actions in GNOME for years and I think taht GNOME will never be for users as long as they are outside of the process. I think such a small group of users could give very valuable feedback, especially because it allows the developers to specifically communicate with these individualy in ordet to solve common problems. One thing that I think will be clear is that this would introduce a broader view of GNOME. So what does GNOME do with users who use software inside of GNOME and cant complete a task - but this task is not part of core GNOME but of Abiword or GIMP? Well that would mean that one has to take those applications into account also and help outside projects to get connected as well. So this would not mean that users decide anything - maybe it just helps developers ot the developer community to get better results as that is what they want. Or maybe not better but faster. Because the feedback they get then they only would get one year later, when the stuff is has arrived all distributions. But one year later means that the development also is laggung one year behind, which again costs one year, so the feedback for features that were written is getting to the developers two years late, sometimes. Only users who update often give feedback more often. Not sure how this could be implemented but I think is doable. Regards, Thilo -- Thilo Pfennig - PfennigSolutions IT-Beratung- Wiki-Systeme Sandkrug 28 - 24143 Kiel (Germany) http://www.pfennigsolutions.de/ XING: https://www.xing.com/profile/Thilo_Pfennig - LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tpfennig -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
Alex Hudson schrieb: But, here's the thing. I'm not sure 3.0 will come about if people just wait around for the 'big idea' to kick it off. Stuff like RedHat's online desktop and things are great, but I would compare that to the idea of time-based releases. Previously, people would release software when it was ready, and the problem ended up being that ready never came (or, indeed, it came and went without people realising). The problem is that GNOME seems to jump back and forth on GNOME 3.0 - first its introduced as Project Topaz - as the next big think (2005) and many ideas came floating in. Then at some point communication was: 3.0 is not going to happen - at least not for a long time - at all. Now it is back there with rather minor changes. So these are 3 different stories - there is not really a development of the Topaz story/idea from the first mention to now - they are not related to each other besides talking abut the same version number. So if today there is no big ideas of 3.0 thats only because discussion was stopped by purpose. Those years could have been used to organize discussions. Or to work on the page. The start was to have all kind of brainstorming ideas - they are still there on the scratchpad page - but are not linked to 3.0 any more - so the context is lost. And from working aith a wiki I would suggest that a 3.0 pages is not created and then moved around, stripped by all its content but continuously refactored so it always contains the status of 3.0. Wiki pages that say: Wait and do not edit dont make much sense. Only if you regard a wiki as a CMS where users mostly just stand in the way - and not as a tool to develop ideas (and where you can look in the history who added which ideas or who changed what to what). Regards, Thilo -- Thilo Pfennig - PfennigSolutions IT-Beratung- Wiki-Systeme Sandkrug 28 - 24143 Kiel (Germany) http://www.pfennigsolutions.de/ XING: https://www.xing.com/profile/Thilo_Pfennig - LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tpfennig -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
Hi, Dave Neary wrote: 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!) 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 6-month cycle: As you were. Keeps platform apps stable and evolving. 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. ... So, release team, opinions? I understand that Luis's rant (sorry Luis) may have been deflating, but I'm giving a lightning presentation on the State of GNOME at OSCon next week, and the 3.0 thing is bound to come up - I'd *really* like to be able to say something along the lines of 2 years between major releases, 6 month between incremental releases, and we've started the first cycle of that already - the release team is working with maintainers community to plan the major arc of features for 3.0. Can I say that and not be telling a lie? Cheers, Dave. PS. I'm still unclear about what opening the big tent means exactly - does it mean having a number of criteria, and any application meeting those criteria becomes part of GNOME? Does that imply abandoning the release sets? -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
Hi, The PNG was too big for the mailing lists - resending with SVG attachment. Dave. Dave Neary wrote: Dave Neary wrote: 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!) 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 6-month cycle: As you were. Keeps platform apps stable and evolving. 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. Here's the graphic I threw together this afternoon to use as a slide. Nothing very spectacular. But it communicates the idea, I think... Cheers, Dave. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] inline: gnome release cycle.svg-- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
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
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
Hi, First reactions, on a quick read: Please don't put the technical justification API ABI break front center. Users don't care, and it will be a handicap the next time we want to bump major versions, even without an API break. Along the same lines, I'd remove the API/ABI FAQ. Better to be honest, and say GNOME evolves, and it's important to signal every couple of years that we have important new features. GNOME 2.30 will not be the same as GNOME 2.22, and GNOME 2.22 is nothing like GNOME 2.0 - GNOME version numbers don't matter to developers - GTK+ version numbers *might*, but they're a different kettle of fish. Version numbers matter to users, and to the press. Again a communication issue, but I'd invert Focus on the platform, and make it Be an inclusive gathering place for application developers. Focus on the platform sounds like remove focus from applications - not the message you want to send. I'd put front center: GNOME 3 is an evolution of GNOME 2.28, and will not be a complete rewrite of large chunks of platform or applications. Reassure people that we're not doing a GNOME 2/KDE 4. I'd also remove some of the Critical factors - specifically Libraries should be rewritten... is scary. Re-write as GNOME 2.x and GNOME 3.x libraries should be parallel installable. Remove the glib example altogether, it's just confusing. I'd also put more emphasis on what I considered the really interesting part of the proposal - planned major version number jumps every 2-3 years, with a major feature arc planned for this period, withing the framework of the 6 monthly releases. It also sounds like you're thinking of completely doing away with the Desktop, Admin and Developer release sets... is that the case? If it's not, then you might want to reword the what will I need to do to be a GNOME project? bits. Cheers, Dave. Vincent Untz wrote: Le mardi 15 juillet 2008, à 16:36 +0200, Dave Neary a écrit : Hi, Vincent Untz wrote: Le lundi 14 juillet 2008, à 13:00 +0200, Olav Vitters a écrit : Rough document is at: http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3. I want to add loads more stuff. The document is currently only readable by r-t members. I changed a few things here and there. I think we need some more work, though, because it's still a bit rough around the edges. Are there some people in the marketing team willing to help build the document? We'll add you to the acl so you can edit it. Please add me. I've done it a few minutes ago :-) We might also want to start keeping track of the press articles talking about all this so we can know how people understand all this and adapt our communication. For example, I was quite pleased to read http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080714-gnome-3-0-officially-announced-and-explained.html I don't want to recommend commercial software or anything, but del.icio.us is the bee's knees for this kind of thing. Just be consistent in your tags (say gnome3 article) and you can find all the articles you tag later. People who will do the stuff will choose how to do it. I know I won't be doing it and I have nothing better to propose than a wiki, which I agree is not really suitable, so... Vincent -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please don't put the technical justification API ABI break front center. Users don't care, and it will be a handicap the next time we want to bump major versions, even without an API break. Along the same lines, I'd remove the API/ABI FAQ. Better to be honest, and say GNOME evolves, and it's important to signal every couple of years that we have important new features. GNOME 2.30 will not be the same as GNOME 2.22, and GNOME 2.22 is nothing like GNOME 2.0 - GNOME version numbers don't matter to developers - GTK+ version numbers *might*, but they're a different kettle of fish. Version numbers matter to users, and to the press. I hate to dump on well-meaning people like those of you on r-t, but this 3.0 plan is, hands-down, a terrible idea, on a lot of levels, and Dave's points here- why are we focusing on API? what are we signaling to users?- begin to highlight why. The fact that the very first sentence of http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3 is wrong: GNOME 3 is needed as GTK+ 3 will happen. is just not a good sign. (There are ways to educate developers about API/ABI change besides major version numbers of the desktop, so GTK3 need not force GNOME3.) In short, I think you're letting minor technical considerations (and perhaps perceived pressure from KDE?) set out an agenda, rather than making the user and improvements for the user set the agenda, and I think that is exactly backwards, screwing us up with users, developers, and the media. As Blizzard said in his talk, users must drive the agenda. Sitting back and saying 'we're just the platform' is a recipe to become less relevant, not more relevant. I realize it is frustrating to sit and wait for news user-focused agendas to materialize, and I applaud the idea of driving longer-term planning which might help drive creation of these agendas. But trying to force it by arbitrarily letting an API/ABI change (which users know nothing about and care nothing about) set an arbitrary date which may or may not have any good ideas is a bad idea. In more detail: First, from a user perspective: how am I supposed to understand what kind of change has gone on here? The change in major number is supposed to indicate radical change. That is what version numbers do. It is fair to say that GNOME 2.0 is very different from GNOME 3.0, but (1) users aren't going to come to it from GNOME 2.0 unless they've been living under a rock- they'll be coming to it from GNOME 2.2x, and they'll wonder what the big deal is and (2) at core the user experience is the same- same menus, same file manager. Users will expect major change and improvement from a GNOME 3.0, and they'll be confused and disappointed. With good reason. And never a good idea to confuse and disappoint users. (The counter-argument, that we need to go to 3.0 in order to show users that there has been change, is broken. *Features* are what show users that there has been change. If they haven't noticed the new features when we went from 2.0-2.2-...-2.28, why are they suddenly now going to notice these features now? Because we slapped a new number on them? Seriously?) Second, from a developer perspective: I understand the need to indicate to developers that an API/ABI change has occurred, but if we need to, that is why we have a platform/desktop split- change the version number in the platform. Changing the desktop version without a clear vision/agenda, *especially* combined with new API/ABI + porting, is an invitation to architecture astronautics and unnecessary churn. You're just begging for more tabs- hey, there is a new tab API! ;) 2.0 almost failed for this exact reason- before there was a clear vision about doing usability/simplicity-centered design, the new version number was a huge invitation to insert $VISION here, leading to all kinds of crack. (This, IMHO, was KDE4's problem- no user-focused vision, just technology churn.) A good 3.0 could be just the opposite- find a vision, evangelize it, and say 'here is the deadline', and all kinds of good stuff will happen. Instead it looks like the plan is to squander that opportunity; if anything, by stepping away from apps and letting a free-for-all happen there, it basically sounds like we're abandoning user-focused developer vision altogether. Finally, from a media perspective: the reason GNOME 2.0 was a success in the Linux media, and the reason KDE 4.0 has been a failure, is that GNOME 2.0 had a clear, persuasive story around it: simplification and usability. No one in the media cared that we had a new toolkit, except where it had specific features (mainly i18n) that had user benefits. Writers ate up our usability story- they could tell their readers the story we put out there, and it made sense to them. KDE 4 has no coherent user-focused story, so this incredible opportunity to reach out to the press has been squandered. Instead of the good press we got around 2.0, they've got stories
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
Or to put this in a tighter nutshell: firefox_developer we're going to rule (again) on mobile with a firefox product firefox_developer because we're all user-focused luis that was really my core critique of the GNOME 3.0 proposal luis it is '3.0 because gtk is 3.0' rather than '3.0 because of these kick-ass user features' firefox_developer a 3.0 that no one cares about firefox_developer ff 3 was called ff 3 because people can _tell_ it's a damn upgrade So, yeah. When we've figured out how to make people tell it's a damn upgrade, get back to me, until then, calling it 3.0 is a bad idea. Sorry again for the stop energy, but when I see things plunging off a cliff, and a huge opportunity wasted, I think it has to be said... Luis On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please don't put the technical justification API ABI break front center. Users don't care, and it will be a handicap the next time we want to bump major versions, even without an API break. Along the same lines, I'd remove the API/ABI FAQ. Better to be honest, and say GNOME evolves, and it's important to signal every couple of years that we have important new features. GNOME 2.30 will not be the same as GNOME 2.22, and GNOME 2.22 is nothing like GNOME 2.0 - GNOME version numbers don't matter to developers - GTK+ version numbers *might*, but they're a different kettle of fish. Version numbers matter to users, and to the press. I hate to dump on well-meaning people like those of you on r-t, but this 3.0 plan is, hands-down, a terrible idea, on a lot of levels, and Dave's points here- why are we focusing on API? what are we signaling to users?- begin to highlight why. The fact that the very first sentence of http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3 is wrong: GNOME 3 is needed as GTK+ 3 will happen. is just not a good sign. (There are ways to educate developers about API/ABI change besides major version numbers of the desktop, so GTK3 need not force GNOME3.) In short, I think you're letting minor technical considerations (and perhaps perceived pressure from KDE?) set out an agenda, rather than making the user and improvements for the user set the agenda, and I think that is exactly backwards, screwing us up with users, developers, and the media. As Blizzard said in his talk, users must drive the agenda. Sitting back and saying 'we're just the platform' is a recipe to become less relevant, not more relevant. I realize it is frustrating to sit and wait for news user-focused agendas to materialize, and I applaud the idea of driving longer-term planning which might help drive creation of these agendas. But trying to force it by arbitrarily letting an API/ABI change (which users know nothing about and care nothing about) set an arbitrary date which may or may not have any good ideas is a bad idea. In more detail: First, from a user perspective: how am I supposed to understand what kind of change has gone on here? The change in major number is supposed to indicate radical change. That is what version numbers do. It is fair to say that GNOME 2.0 is very different from GNOME 3.0, but (1) users aren't going to come to it from GNOME 2.0 unless they've been living under a rock- they'll be coming to it from GNOME 2.2x, and they'll wonder what the big deal is and (2) at core the user experience is the same- same menus, same file manager. Users will expect major change and improvement from a GNOME 3.0, and they'll be confused and disappointed. With good reason. And never a good idea to confuse and disappoint users. (The counter-argument, that we need to go to 3.0 in order to show users that there has been change, is broken. *Features* are what show users that there has been change. If they haven't noticed the new features when we went from 2.0-2.2-...-2.28, why are they suddenly now going to notice these features now? Because we slapped a new number on them? Seriously?) Second, from a developer perspective: I understand the need to indicate to developers that an API/ABI change has occurred, but if we need to, that is why we have a platform/desktop split- change the version number in the platform. Changing the desktop version without a clear vision/agenda, *especially* combined with new API/ABI + porting, is an invitation to architecture astronautics and unnecessary churn. You're just begging for more tabs- hey, there is a new tab API! ;) 2.0 almost failed for this exact reason- before there was a clear vision about doing usability/simplicity-centered design, the new version number was a huge invitation to insert $VISION here, leading to all kinds of crack. (This, IMHO, was KDE4's problem- no user-focused vision, just technology churn.) A good 3.0 could be just the opposite- find a vision, evangelize it, and say 'here is the deadline', and all kinds of good stuff will happen. Instead it looks like the
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or to put this in a tighter nutshell: firefox_developer we're going to rule (again) on mobile with a firefox product To be clear, 'rule' here was meant as 'kick ass', not 'have power'. Luis -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
Luis, Luis Villa wrote: So, yeah. When we've figured out how to make people tell it's a damn upgrade, get back to me, until then, calling it 3.0 is a bad idea. Sorry again for the stop energy, but when I see things plunging off a cliff, and a huge opportunity wasted, I think it has to be said... You know what, I totally agree with you, although I wasn't at GUADEC so didn't hear the plan myself. But, here's the thing. I'm not sure 3.0 will come about if people just wait around for the 'big idea' to kick it off. Stuff like RedHat's online desktop and things are great, but I would compare that to the idea of time-based releases. Previously, people would release software when it was ready, and the problem ended up being that ready never came (or, indeed, it came and went without people realising). Waiting for a new story for GNOME 3 isn't really going to work (and, imho, hasn't worked): people will argue over whether or not the story is new enough, or that it's different enough. Invariably, it won't be. So, I think you're right: a compelling, innovative and articulate vision for an improved desktop is needed. But I kind of have faith that it will come, to be honest. I think the biggest (and bravest) decision is saying that GNOME 3 will happen; deciding what it's going to be about will take time. Cheers, Alex. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
Hi, 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!) 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 6-month cycle: As you were. Keeps platform apps stable and evolving. 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. 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 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. So, Luis, I think you were being a little harsh - GNOME's been lethargic for so long, you're expecting to see us sprinting, when we're still at the stage of learning to walk again. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, Luis, I think you were being a little harsh - GNOME's been lethargic for so long, you're expecting to see us sprinting, when we're still at the stage of learning to walk again. I'm expecting us to walk and *then* talk about walking, instead of announcing a marathon while we're still toddling and have no idea where the course is. I think this is part of what burns me- announcing it when there was no buy-in and no plan was a terrible idea; doing a press release about it would only cement that further. Luis -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
Luis Villa wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, Luis, I think you were being a little harsh - GNOME's been lethargic for so long, you're expecting to see us sprinting, when we're still at the stage of learning to walk again. I'm expecting us to walk and *then* talk about walking, instead of announcing a marathon while we're still toddling and have no idea where the course is. I think this is part of what burns me- announcing it when there was no buy-in and no plan was a terrible idea; doing a press release about it would only cement that further. Well, to put this in context - this was announced to GNOME developers at the GNOME developers conference, and was a nice show of release team solidarity. The rest is details. I would like to be able to announce the start of that consultation period that I mentioned earlier, though... rather than the we will change version numbers! bit. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 08:33:08AM -0700, Luis Villa wrote: Or to put this in a tighter nutshell: firefox_developer we're going to rule (again) on mobile with a firefox product firefox_developer because we're all user-focused luis that was really my core critique of the GNOME 3.0 proposal luis it is '3.0 because gtk is 3.0' rather than '3.0 because of these kick-ass user features' This was at GUADEC! Of course we focus on gtk+ especially if we are right after the gtk+ presentation. firefox_developer a 3.0 that no one cares about firefox_developer ff 3 was called ff 3 because people can _tell_ it's a damn upgrade Firefox was so long to release that I had to resort to using nightlies. GNOME has a 6 months release cycle. Big difference. We could just as well not release as well for years, then call it a major change. So, yeah. When we've figured out how to make people tell it's a damn upgrade, get back to me, until then, calling it 3.0 is a bad idea. Sorry again for the stop energy, but when I see things plunging off a cliff, and a huge opportunity wasted, I think it has to be said... Yes, the stop energy is working. It is a *proposal* and I feel like doing something else. On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please don't put the technical justification API ABI break front center. Users don't care, and it will be a handicap the next time we want to bump major versions, even without an API break. Along the same lines, I'd remove the API/ABI FAQ. Better to be honest, and say GNOME evolves, and it's important to signal every couple of years that we have important new features. GNOME 2.30 will not be the same as GNOME 2.22, and GNOME 2.22 is nothing like GNOME 2.0 - GNOME version numbers don't matter to developers - GTK+ version numbers *might*, but they're a different kettle of fish. Version numbers matter to users, and to the press. I hate to dump on well-meaning people like those of you on r-t, but this 3.0 plan is, hands-down, a terrible idea, on a lot of levels, and Dave's points here- why are we focusing on API? what are we signaling to users?- begin to highlight why. The fact that the very first Your comparing GNOME to Firefox. IMO that is a bad sign. Our users are not the same. We want the GNOME platform to be used by developers. I don't see Firefox caring about their embedded platform (although I wasn't at their presentation). sentence of http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3 is wrong: GNOME 3 is needed as GTK+ 3 will happen. is just not a good sign. (There are ways to educate developers about API/ABI change besides major version numbers of the desktop, so GTK3 need not force GNOME3.) I think your confusing this page as it will be the press release or something. In short, I think you're letting minor technical considerations (and perhaps perceived pressure from KDE?) set out an agenda, rather than I don't give a damn about KDE. making the user and improvements for the user set the agenda, and I think that is exactly backwards, screwing us up with users, developers, and the media. As Blizzard said in his talk, users must drive the agenda. Sitting back and saying 'we're just the platform' is Your forgetting the most important part: We want to change what GNOME means, the platform part. *That* is the main intention. a recipe to become less relevant, not more relevant. I realize it is frustrating to sit and wait for news user-focused agendas to materialize, and I applaud the idea of driving longer-term planning which might help drive creation of these agendas. But trying to force it by arbitrarily letting an API/ABI change (which users know nothing about and care nothing about) set an arbitrary date which may or may not have any good ideas is a bad idea. In more detail: First, from a user perspective: how am I supposed to understand what kind of change has gone on here? The change in major number is supposed to indicate radical change. That is what version numbers do. It is fair to say that GNOME 2.0 is very different from GNOME 3.0, but (1) users aren't going to come to it from GNOME 2.0 unless they've been living under a rock- they'll be coming to it from GNOME 2.2x, and they'll wonder what the big deal is and (2) at core the user experience is the same- same menus, same file manager. Users will expect major change and improvement from a GNOME 3.0, and they'll be confused and disappointed. With good reason. And never a good idea to We don't want a radical change. Pushing for radical change will lead to a GNOME 2.0. confuse and disappoint users. (The counter-argument, that we need to go to 3.0 in order to show users that there has been change, is broken. *Features* are what show users that there has been change. If they haven't noticed the new features when we went from
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:22:31AM -0700, Luis Villa wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, Luis, I think you were being a little harsh - GNOME's been lethargic for so long, you're expecting to see us sprinting, when we're still at the stage of learning to walk again. I'm expecting us to walk and *then* talk about walking, instead of announcing a marathon while we're still toddling and have no idea where the course is. I think this is part of what burns me- announcing it when there was no buy-in and no plan was a terrible idea; doing a press release about it would only cement that further. It was NOT an announcement! It was a proposal. It clearly said so on the first slide. We do have a plan, it is just that you do not like it. -- Regards, Olav -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
Le lundi 14 juillet 2008, à 13:00 +0200, Olav Vitters a écrit : On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:37:06PM +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Yeah, we discussed this with Stormy. Definitely something to do. Also, I think we can start some document for the community, and some FAQ. Maybe also some slides that people can re-use to explain things. Rough document is at: http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3. I want to add loads more stuff. The document is currently only readable by r-t members. I changed a few things here and there. I think we need some more work, though, because it's still a bit rough around the edges. Are there some people in the marketing team willing to help build the document? We'll add you to the acl so you can edit it. We might also want to start keeping track of the press articles talking about all this so we can know how people understand all this and adapt our communication. For example, I was quite pleased to read http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080714-gnome-3-0-officially-announced-and-explained.html Any volunteer wanting to help with that? Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 08:26:47AM -0600, Stormy Peters wrote: On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Vincent Untz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I changed a few things here and there. I think we need some more work, though, because it's still a bit rough around the edges. Are there some people in the marketing team willing to help build the document? We'll add you to the acl so you can edit it. We might also want to start keeping track of the press articles talking about all this so we can know how people understand all this and adapt our communication. For example, I was quite pleased to read http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080714-gnome-3-0-officially-announced-and-explained.html Any volunteer wanting to help with that? I'd be happy to help but I need to be added. Suggest to put the current board on the acl (can't do it atm). Stormy: Please create a StormyPeters userid on live.gnome.org. -- Regards, Olav -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
Le mardi 15 juillet 2008, à 08:26 -0600, Stormy Peters a écrit : I'd be happy to help but I need to be added. Fixed. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
Hi, Vincent Untz wrote: Le lundi 14 juillet 2008, à 13:00 +0200, Olav Vitters a écrit : Rough document is at: http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3. I want to add loads more stuff. The document is currently only readable by r-t members. I changed a few things here and there. I think we need some more work, though, because it's still a bit rough around the edges. Are there some people in the marketing team willing to help build the document? We'll add you to the acl so you can edit it. Please add me. We might also want to start keeping track of the press articles talking about all this so we can know how people understand all this and adapt our communication. For example, I was quite pleased to read http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080714-gnome-3-0-officially-announced-and-explained.html I don't want to recommend commercial software or anything, but del.icio.us is the bee's knees for this kind of thing. Just be consistent in your tags (say gnome3 article) and you can find all the articles you tag later. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
Le mardi 15 juillet 2008, à 16:36 +0200, Dave Neary a écrit : Hi, Vincent Untz wrote: Le lundi 14 juillet 2008, à 13:00 +0200, Olav Vitters a écrit : Rough document is at: http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3. I want to add loads more stuff. The document is currently only readable by r-t members. I changed a few things here and there. I think we need some more work, though, because it's still a bit rough around the edges. Are there some people in the marketing team willing to help build the document? We'll add you to the acl so you can edit it. Please add me. I've done it a few minutes ago :-) We might also want to start keeping track of the press articles talking about all this so we can know how people understand all this and adapt our communication. For example, I was quite pleased to read http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080714-gnome-3-0-officially-announced-and-explained.html I don't want to recommend commercial software or anything, but del.icio.us is the bee's knees for this kind of thing. Just be consistent in your tags (say gnome3 article) and you can find all the articles you tag later. People who will do the stuff will choose how to do it. I know I won't be doing it and I have nothing better to propose than a wiki, which I agree is not really suitable, so... Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 01:27:52AM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:37:06PM +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Yeah, we discussed this with Stormy. Definitely something to do. Also, I think we can start some document for the community, and some FAQ. Maybe also some slides that people can re-use to explain things. I won't have a lot of time next week, but I'll do my best to at least help clear the mystery for people who didn't attend GUADEC -- I'll have more time the week after. I'm planning to make a wiki page which explains GNOME 3 in steps. First a short overview for lazy people, then a more detailed explanation, then a FAQ. I'll limit it to release-team (and interested people) to prevent it from containing wrong info (meaning more: document not being what all r-t members agree upon). Vincent: Please send the presentation to me as a reminder. -- Regards, Olav -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:37:06PM +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Yeah, we discussed this with Stormy. Definitely something to do. Also, I think we can start some document for the community, and some FAQ. Maybe also some slides that people can re-use to explain things. Rough document is at: http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3. I want to add loads more stuff. The document is currently only readable by r-t members. release-team: Please subscribe. Note that I still want to change wording, add more details, more FAQ items, etc. It should NOT contain the presentation. Those short words would give a wrong impression. I do want to link to the presentation by Kris. Also glib changes required libraries to be '...'. I forgot the term. Hopefully I can finish all my additions by latest tonight. -- Regards, Olav -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
Am Montag, den 14.07.2008, 13:00 +0200 schrieb Olav Vitters: Rough document is at: http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3. I want to add loads more stuff. The document is currently only readable by r-t members. There's also http://live.gnome.org/3.0 that redirects to http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero which provides a contradictive message (There are no plans for a GNOME 3.0 release at this time). Should we redirect both pages to http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3 ? andre -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | failed http://www.iomc.de/ | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 01:32:50PM +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: Am Montag, den 14.07.2008, 13:00 +0200 schrieb Olav Vitters: Rough document is at: http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3. I want to add loads more stuff. The document is currently only readable by r-t members. There's also http://live.gnome.org/3.0 that redirects to http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero which provides a contradictive message (There are no plans for a GNOME 3.0 release at this time). Should we redirect both pages to http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3 ? Just wait a while. Suggest to update those pages and say more information will be available shortly. IMO we should link the final document from or perhaps place it on www.gnome.org. Note: Seems I am able to subscribe others (new moinmoin feature I guess). So everyone is subscribed now. -- Regards, Olav -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
Hi, I've already started to see a lot of bullshit about the GNOME 3.0 announcement and I think it would be useful for a GNOME release team press release announcing our plans for the 3.0 release (date, goals, over-riding plan) to explain that this is an incremental approach similar to Ubuntu's (2 - 3 year major arcs, with regular 6 month releases) and, above all, that this represents an evolution of existing GNOME, and not a massive re-write or re-design of the desktop. Thoughts? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
Le samedi 12 juillet 2008, à 22:28 +0200, Dave Neary a écrit : Hi, I've already started to see a lot of bullshit about the GNOME 3.0 announcement and I think it would be useful for a GNOME release team press release announcing our plans for the 3.0 release (date, goals, over-riding plan) to explain that this is an incremental approach similar to Ubuntu's (2 - 3 year major arcs, with regular 6 month releases) and, above all, that this represents an evolution of existing GNOME, and not a massive re-write or re-design of the desktop. Thoughts? Yeah, we discussed this with Stormy. Definitely something to do. Also, I think we can start some document for the community, and some FAQ. Maybe also some slides that people can re-use to explain things. I won't have a lot of time next week, but I'll do my best to at least help clear the mystery for people who didn't attend GUADEC -- I'll have more time the week after. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:37:06PM +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Yeah, we discussed this with Stormy. Definitely something to do. Also, I think we can start some document for the community, and some FAQ. Maybe also some slides that people can re-use to explain things. I won't have a lot of time next week, but I'll do my best to at least help clear the mystery for people who didn't attend GUADEC -- I'll have more time the week after. I'm planning to make a wiki page which explains GNOME 3 in steps. First a short overview for lazy people, then a more detailed explanation, then a FAQ. I'll limit it to release-team (and interested people) to prevent it from containing wrong info (meaning more: document not being what all r-t members agree upon). -- Regards, Olav -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
