Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On 13/11/2019 21:22, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 16:21, Jonas Ådahl wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 08:13:58PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: >> >> Hi, On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 16:12, Simon Ser > > wrote: > This document

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 9:14 PM Daniel Stone wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 16:12, Simon Ser wrote: > > This document governs the maintenance of wayland-protocols and serves to > > outline > > the broader process for standardization of protocol extensions in the > > Wayland > >

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 16:21, Jonas Ådahl wrote: On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 08:13:58PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: Hi, On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 16:12, Simon Ser > wrote: > This document governs the maintenance of wayland-protocols and serves to outline > the

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 08:13:58PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 16:12, Simon Ser wrote: > > This document governs the maintenance of wayland-protocols and serves to > > outline > > the broader process for standardization of protocol extensions in the > > Wayland

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

on Tue Nov 12, 2019 at 8:13 PM, Daniel Stone wrote: > I would suggest that we push the patch with the following initial > member projects and their points of contact defined, and finally > enable MRs: > * EFL/Enlightenment: Mike Blumenkrantz @zmike > * GTK/Mutter: Jonas Ådahl @jadahl > *

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

Hi, On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 16:12, Simon Ser wrote: > This document governs the maintenance of wayland-protocols and serves to > outline > the broader process for standardization of protocol extensions in the Wayland > ecosystem. OK, we're approaching the nine-month anniversary of this

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 4:35 PM, Mike Blumenkrantz wrote: > Hi, > > I've been following along on this thread, and I really appreciate that you've > reached out to me. > > The current document seems reasonable to me. It will be a positive for the > ecosystem to have a clearly-defined

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

; Roman Gilg ; wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org ; Drew DeVault ; Daniel Stone ; Jonas Ådahl ; Derek Foreman ; Carlos Garnacho ; Johan Helsing Subject: Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance Hi, I've been following along on this thread, and I really appreciate that you've reached out

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

Hi, I've been following along on this thread, and I really appreciate that you've reached out to me. The current document seems reasonable to me. It will be a positive for the ecosystem to have a clearly-defined method of proposing and stabilizing new protocols for adoption. I'm not quite as

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

[Cc'ing more people] > > Points of contact I had in mind: > > > > - KWin: Roman Gilg > > - Mutter: Jonas Ådahl > > - Weston: Pekka Paalanen , > > Daniel Stone > > - wlroots: Drew DeVault , Simon Ser > > > > I think it would make sense to include this initial list in a MEMBERS > > file in

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 20:04:43 + Simon Ser wrote: > > New members are proposed by current members but no initial members > > have been defined. I think we need that in a single sentence, > > otherwise how could the first members join? I would propose the > > initial members to be the

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

> Thank you all for the work you did on this document. In general I'm in > favor of the current draft. I have the following rather technical > concerns, but I guess they can be dealt with quickly: Thanks for chiming in! > New members are proposed by current members but no initial members > have

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 11:12 AM Simon Ser wrote: > > This is v5 of the proposal. > > Changes from v4 to v5: > - "at least one member" changed to "at least one other member" (Jonas, Pekka) > - Replace remaining occurences of "push" with "merge" (Jonas, Pekka) > - Add a clause defining

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

This is v5 of the proposal. Changes from v4 to v5: - "at least one member" changed to "at least one other member" (Jonas, Pekka) - Replace remaining occurences of "push" with "merge" (Jonas, Pekka) - Add a clause defining "open-source" as distributed with an OSI-approved license (Drew) Diff:

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

I propose adding a clause which explicitly states that "open source" is defined as "distributed under an OSI-approved license". With that change: Acked-by: Drew DeVault ___ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 00:21:43 + Simon Ser wrote: > This is v4 of the proposal. > > Changes from v3 to v4: relax implementation requirements for inclusion > in "xdg" and "wp" (Jonas, Drew). > > Diff: https://sr.ht/yw0R.txt > > * * * > > wayland-protocols

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 01:21, Simon Ser wrote: > This is v4 of the proposal. > > Changes from v3 to v4: relax implementation requirements for inclusion > in "xdg" and "wp" (Jonas, Drew). > > Diff: https://sr.ht/yw0R.txt Acked-by: Daniel Stone ___

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

This is v4 of the proposal. Changes from v3 to v4: relax implementation requirements for inclusion in "xdg" and "wp" (Jonas, Drew). Diff: https://sr.ht/yw0R.txt * * * wayland-protocols governance This document governs the maintenance of wayland-protocols and serves

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 11:57:45PM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote: > On Thu Sep 19, 2019 at 9:02 PM Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > I think that if there is a consensus that it's within the correct scope > > and no-one nacks it, there shouldn't need be any artifical bureaucratic > > road blocks in the way. > >

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Thu Sep 19, 2019 at 9:02 PM Jonas Ådahl wrote: > I think that if there is a consensus that it's within the correct scope > and no-one nacks it, there shouldn't need be any artifical bureaucratic > road blocks in the way. I mean, I'm not in any particular hurry to get any particular protocol

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 02:10:24PM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote: > On Tue Sep 17, 2019 at 7:53 PM Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > I think both for stable and unstable the same limitation can be > > as problematic. A protocol that fits in xdg/wp may still only be > > relevant for a single compositor and

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Tue Sep 17, 2019 at 7:53 PM Jonas Ådahl wrote: > I think both for stable and unstable the same limitation can be > as problematic. A protocol that fits in xdg/wp may still only be > relevant for a single compositor and multiple toolkits, or vice versa, > even when declared stable. Seems to me

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 05:46:49PM +, Simon Ser wrote: > On Friday, September 6, 2019 10:45 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > > > 2.2. Protocol inclusion requirements > > > > > > > > > a. All protocols found in the "xdg" and "wp" namespaces at the time of > > > writing > > >

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Friday, September 6, 2019 10:45 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > 2.2. Protocol inclusion requirements > > > > > > a. All protocols found in the "xdg" and "wp" namespaces at the time of > > writing > > are grandfathered into their respective namespace without further > >

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Thu Sep 5, 2019 at 9:34 PM Simon Ser wrote: > 2.1. Protocol namespaces > > a. Namespaces are implemented in practice by prefixing each interface name in > a >protocol definition (XML) with the namespace name, and an underscore (e.g. >"xdg_wm_base"). > b.

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 09:34:59PM +, Simon Ser wrote: > This is v3 of the proposal. > > Changes from v2 to v3: > - Use Jonas' definition of the "xdg" namespace (Jonas) > - Amendments to existing protocols require no minimum discussion period > (Jonas) > - Specify the requirements for

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

This is v3 of the proposal. Changes from v2 to v3: - Use Jonas' definition of the "xdg" namespace (Jonas) - Amendments to existing protocols require no minimum discussion period (Jonas) - Specify the requirements for declaring a protocol stable (Jonas) Diff: https://sr.ht/lIEx.patch I'm not

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

Hi Drew, Sorry for the long delay - has taken a while to catch up after holidays. Thanks for pushing this forward though. On Mon, 6 May 2019 at 01:41, Drew DeVault wrote: > I chose not to change the wording of the xdg namespace definition, > despite Daniel's objection. I couldn't come up with a

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 02:26:02PM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote: ... > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:52:32AM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote: > > > How does xdg-foreign fit into this definition? > > > > xdg-foreign is an edge case but IMHO it fits in the definition. > > xdg-shell deals with stacking

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

Followed-up off-list while fixing issues with my mail client, copying summary here for posterity: On Wed Jun 19, 2019 at 5:08 PM Jonas Ådahl wrote: > Lets not be childish; noone is trying to weasel anything here, and I > don't understand what you're trying to accomplish by implying that. I

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:52:32AM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote: > On Wed Jun 19, 2019 at 8:38 AM Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > > I'm okay with this definition, but I'll again mention that this wording > > > makes a clear case for the wlr toplevel management protocol: > > > > > >

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 07:31:47PM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote: > On Mon Jun 17, 2019 at 9:55 AM Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > > a. Namespaces are implemented in practice by prefixing each interface > > > name in a > > >protocol definition (XML) with the namespace name, and an underscore > > > (e.g.

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

> > 2. Protocols > > > > 2.1. Protocol namespaces > > > > a. Namespaces are implemented in practice by prefixing each interface name > > in a > >protocol definition (XML) with the namespace name, and an underscore > > (e.g. > >

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 08:41:27PM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote: > Here's an updated governance document for everyone to consider. Changes > from the first version: > > - Use wayland-devel instead of a dedicated mailing list > - Use Gitlab for reviewing new protocols > - Extend discussion period for

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Monday, May 6, 2019 7:26 PM, Emil Velikov wrote: > What exactly is the goal of having membership? > > At the end of the day if a project proposes a protocol and is willing > to tweak it based on community feedback - great. > If they don't well - not much one can do about it :-\ See 2.2 and

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

> Here's an updated governance document for everyone to consider. Changes > from the first version: > > - Use wayland-devel instead of a dedicated mailing list > - Use Gitlab for reviewing new protocols > - Extend discussion period for governance amendments from 30 days to 60 > - Permit either 1

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

Hi Drew, On Mon, 6 May 2019 at 01:41, Drew DeVault wrote: > > Here's an updated governance document for everyone to consider. Changes > from the first version: > > - Use wayland-devel instead of a dedicated mailing list > - Use Gitlab for reviewing new protocols > - Extend discussion period for

wayland-protocols scope and governance

Here's an updated governance document for everyone to consider. Changes from the first version: - Use wayland-devel instead of a dedicated mailing list - Use Gitlab for reviewing new protocols - Extend discussion period for governance amendments from 30 days to 60 - Permit either 1 or 2 points of

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 13:29:59 -0400 Drew DeVault wrote: > On 2019-04-18 11:19 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > Would be interesting to hear what you think after you've submitted 5 > > MRs to the same project, to be able to see past the first-time setup > > cost. > > Is it much different from

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Saturday, April 20, 2019 8:29 PM, Drew DeVault wrote: > > I find it somewhat strange that you advocate a mailing list workflow, > > but cannot or do not want to deal with that low average traffic as > > currently on wayland-devel@. What's the difference? > > I would be happier about using

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On 2019-04-18 11:19 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > Would be interesting to hear what you think after you've submitted 5 > MRs to the same project, to be able to see past the first-time setup > cost. Is it much different from Github? I've used Github extensively and I understand the Gitlab flow is

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 15:06:39 -0400 Drew DeVault wrote: > Sorry for the delay, catching up on my emails now. Responding to Daniel > as the other emails don't have much actionable stuff, but I read > everything on this thread. Thanks for the feedback! > > On 2019-04-08 6:18 PM, Daniel Stone

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 10:06 PM, Drew DeVault wrote: > > On the mailing list front, I think wayland-devel@ is probably quiet > > enough these days - and focused on common protocol-like stuff - that > > we could probably just reuse that list. > > -1, it's way too noisy imo. I'm fine with

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

Sorry for the delay, catching up on my emails now. Responding to Daniel as the other emails don't have much actionable stuff, but I read everything on this thread. Thanks for the feedback! On 2019-04-08 6:18 PM, Daniel Stone wrote: > On the members-only front, I think it's important for us to be

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 18:18:40 +0100 Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi Drew, > Thanks for writing this up! I think the broad concept is fine, but a > few things jump out at me: Hi, thank you Drew indeed, you have clearly put a lot of thought in this. It looks largely fine to me as well, and I pretty much

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 23:14:32 +1200 Scott Anderson wrote: > Do we want anything formal regarding the removal of protocols? > > The one comes to mind currently is xdg-shell-unstable-v5, which most (if > not all?) compositors have dropped support for. > > If something previously widespread falls

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

Hi, On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 01:03, Drew DeVault wrote: > On 2019-03-08 11:28 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: > > Under what he's describing, xdg_shell isn't miscategorised, because it > > _is_ the thing that everyone agrees on and uses. If we reserve xdg_* > > for uncontroversial/unvetoed things, then

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

Hi Drew, Thanks for writing this up! I think the broad concept is fine, but a few things jump out at me: On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 at 19:43, Drew DeVault wrote: > I've written up a governance document for us to bikeshed, which is > included at the end of this email. Some comments upfront. > >

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

Do we want anything formal regarding the removal of protocols? The one comes to mind currently is xdg-shell-unstable-v5, which most (if not all?) compositors have dropped support for. If something previously widespread falls out of usage and compositors remove their implementations, is there

wayland-protocols scope and governance

I've written up a governance document for us to bikeshed, which is included at the end of this email. Some comments upfront. Logistical notes: - We'll need a wayland-protocols mailing list. This should probably be members only, to reduce noise. - Members will be given push access to the

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

Hi Pekka, On 3/12/19 10:55 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > now that we have turned merge requests on for libwayland, I think we > have pretty much reached the state you wish for. > > When wayland-protocols gets its gitlab.fd.o repository, I expect most > of protocol development to happen there,

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On 2019-03-08 11:28 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: > > If we're establishing a table, it may make sense to give wlroots as a > > whole a seat at that table. wlroots is where the implementation lives, > > after all, for all of the compositors who use it. We already kind of do > > this with wlr-protocols.

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 21:12:14 +0100 Victor Berger wrote: > All this to say: I'd really appreciate if the discussions regarding > wayland-protocols specifically could be done in a medium to which it > would be possible to subscribe independently from weston/libwayland. Be > it a gitlab repo or a

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

Hi, As the maintainer of wayland-rs, Smithay's Client Toolkit and of the part of Smithay that deal with the Wayland protocol (all three projects can be found on the the Github Smithay org: https://github.com/Smithay ), I feel especially concerned by this question: On 2/21/19 6:11 PM, Jonas Ådahl

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Friday, March 8, 2019 3:28 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: > Another thing which would be really useful is for someone to take a > stab at the web page suggestion. You can just fork > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland.freedesktop.org into > your personal namespace, then edit

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

Hi, Just replying to Drew's mail since it's the most substantive. It seems like things have petered out a fair bit. Having someone write up a strawman CONTRIBUTING doc would be great. I'd love to do that myself, but have been travelling this week (& on holiday for the next few days), so not sure

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

subject of the thread is > "wayland-protocols scope and GOVERNANCE"? > > Or, perhaps you are a non-native English speaker, and the word "governance" > has some unconventional connotation for you? > > Or, maybe "wayland-devel" is not yet ready for introspectio

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On 2/21/19 12:10 PM, Simon Ser wrote: > Sorry, these comments feel a bit off-topic here. I'd appreciate if we > could stay focused. Thanks! And, what topic would that be, then, given that the subject of the thread is "wayland-protocols scope and GOVERNANCE"? Or, perhaps you

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 18:11:46 +0100 Jonas Ådahl wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 04:50:27PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'd like to open up a discussion on enlarging wayland-protocols to a > > wider audience, with a better definition of what it contains. > > My second suggestion

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On 2019-02-21 4:00 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > Let's forget about the prefixes or namespaces indicating anything about > endorsement or acceptance. I don't think using prefixes/namespaces for acceptance/blessedness is going to be a good idea, but I do think defining some namespaces and a scope

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On 2019-02-21 6:11 PM, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > IMHO we should choose one or the other, not some combination where > Gitlab sends E-mails to the mailing list for merge requests, as this > would mean we'd end up with multiple diverging versions of the same > discussion thread. fwiw I think a mailing

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Thursday, February 21, 2019 7:36 PM, James Feeney wrote: > As an outside observer, and still cheering for Wayland, I've often > felt inclined to rant about the focus and management of the "Wayland > Project", or perhaps, its lack thereof. […] Sorry, these comments feel a bit off-topic here.

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On 2/21/19 8:47 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: > But why should Weston cripple itself in order to create this negative > space for wlroots or Mutter or Smithay or whatever? I'm happy to clean > up the README to reflect reality. One of the side effects of creating > this protocol documentation site really

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On 2019-02-21 3:47 PM, Daniel Stone wrote: > Glibly, I'd probably just categorise the sway* clients in under the > Sway/wlroots project, unless they had separate governance, opinions, > roadmaps, etc? Similarly, I'm not sure there's much reason for us to > separate the toytoolkit and simple-*

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:47:13AM -0500, Mike Blumenkrantz wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:47 AM Daniel Stone wrote: > > > > > One of Weston's goals is to be a reference compositor. As an active > > implementation, it serves as a useful neutral ground for the rest of > > the

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 04:50:27PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi all, > I'd like to open up a discussion on enlarging wayland-protocols to a > wider audience, with a better definition of what it contains. > > Currently, wayland-protocols is a relatively small set of protocols > which were

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

Hello, On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:47 AM Daniel Stone wrote: > > One of Weston's goals is to be a reference compositor. As an active > implementation, it serves as a useful neutral ground for the rest of > the ecosystem: we try to be exhaustively correct in what we do > implement, and gets used

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

Hi, On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 18:36, Drew DeVault wrote: > On 2019-02-19 4:50 PM, Daniel Stone wrote: > > - other clients: Chromium (client), Firefox, Mesa (EGL/Vulkan) > > This might start getting out of hand, I think. Here's an incomplete list > of clients which use wlr protocols: > > - [...]

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On 2019-02-21 2:53 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > the list seems purely informative. Is it actually bad if it ends up > containing hundreds of entries? If someone actually wants their > individual apps listed, why not? You're right, I retract my concerns about the list being unwieldy. I was

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 16:50:27 + Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi all, > I'd like to open up a discussion on enlarging wayland-protocols to a > wider audience, with a better definition of what it contains. > > Currently, wayland-protocols is a relatively small set of protocols > which were either

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:36:51 -0500 Drew DeVault wrote: > This is a great plan, Daniel, thank you for taking the time to write it > up and help push this problem towards a solution. > > On 2019-02-19 4:50 PM, Daniel Stone wrote: > > My first, hopefully uncontroversial, suggestion: introduce a

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:50 PM Daniel Stone wrote: > > Hi all, > I'd like to open up a discussion on enlarging wayland-protocols to a > wider audience, with a better definition of what it contains. Hi Daniel, thanks for moving forward this discussion. To me your suggestions overall sound very

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

This is a great plan, Daniel, thank you for taking the time to write it up and help push this problem towards a solution. On 2019-02-19 4:50 PM, Daniel Stone wrote: > My first, hopefully uncontroversial, suggestion: introduce a list of > compositors / compositor frameworks, as well as clients /

Re: wayland-protocols scope and governance

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 5:50 PM, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi all, > I'd like to open up a discussion on enlarging wayland-protocols to a > wider audience, with a better definition of what it contains. First of all, thanks a lot for bringing this up and taking the time to write a proposal! >

wayland-protocols scope and governance

Hi all, I'd like to open up a discussion on enlarging wayland-protocols to a wider audience, with a better definition of what it contains. Currently, wayland-protocols is a relatively small set of protocols which were either grandfathered in from Weston, or a semi-opinionated set of protocols