I interviewed 21 advisory board members representing 15 organizations in
June 2009. Each conversation took 30-60 minutes. My full notes were sent to
the GNOME Board of Directors.
During these interviews, I was specifically asking for feedback. While most
of the people I talked to were positive abo
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:31 PM, john
palmieri wrote:
[snipping out parts of an well thought out response]
> To sum it all up - fools rush in. We really need to take a step back and
> really try to understand what we wish to accomplish in another co-located
> event given the grand experiment of
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
> So I guess there is no way back.
>
> Speaking clearly, I wonder what weight in people's opinions (in the
> polls and the board meembers) had the Qt branding in badge, towel,
> roll-up ad in the main entrance, etc. Many GNOME people said they
> di
On 08/12/2009 04:08 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
>
> Speaking clearly, I wonder what weight in people's opinions (in the
> polls and the board meembers) had the Qt branding in badge, towel,
> roll-up ad in the main entrance, etc. Many GNOME people said they
> didn't felt 'at home' in such context. But that
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
> Actually many GNOME people that was not enthusiastic about a second
> joint summit mentioned that one of the problems was that the agenda
> didn't help meeting peers with similar interests from the other side.
> Something that could be achieved wit
So I guess there is no way back.
Speaking clearly, I wonder what weight in people's opinions (in the
polls and the board meembers) had the Qt branding in badge, towel,
roll-up ad in the main entrance, etc. Many GNOME people said they
didn't felt 'at home' in such context. But that is something eas
On 08/12/2009 09:22 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
Maybe if the foundation's board would more clearly articulate why
exactly we can't do a co-located event*next* year, they'll convince the
community about their decision? Why didn't they?
My personal view as a board member:
Individual board member
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 17:05 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> >> It was a hard decision because, there is real interest in making KDE
> >> and GNOME work well together. While this is also an important goal,
> >> but we don't need to co-loca
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:05 AM, sankarshan wrote:
> [taking foundation-announce out of the cc: fields]
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Srinivasa Ragavan
> wrote:
>
> [snippet]
>
> > The main, and most important, reason for not wanting to co-locate
> > next year is because the GNOME commun
[taking foundation-announce out of the cc: fields]
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
[snippet]
> The main, and most important, reason for not wanting to co-locate
> next year is because the GNOME community needs to focus on GNOME 3.0,
> and next year's GUADEC will be t
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 10:36 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
>
> [CUT]
>
>> > You can see that in all configurations the majority want to co-locate
>> > next year. Even if it means not
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 10:36 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
[CUT]
> > You can see that in all configurations the majority want to co-locate
> > next year. Even if it means not having a profit.
> >
> > Can you elaborate why the board didn't
12 matches
Mail list logo
