On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Michael Stone <mich...@laptop.org> wrote: > On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 at 09:32:53 +0000, Martin Dengler wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:06:56AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: >>> >>> P.S. - Later [...] we discovered a confusion about the mandate of >>> the proposed committee; to wit: >>> >>> Is the main purpose of the committee to act as a UI Maintainer (e.g., by >>> deciding which UI-related patches to merge) or is the main purpose of >>> the >>> committee to make UI-related decisions on an as-requested basis? >> >> I think it is both act as maintainer and make UI-related decisions. > > @Martin -- Choosing "both" seems like a bad idea to me because it: > > a) balloons the scope of the problem to be solved, > b) shrinks the population of qualified participants, and > c) seems likely to cause turf wars. > > Instead, I would prefer to stay focused on the need for UI-decision-making > that > Bernie identified in his initial email. > >> It seems we're re-invented the Design Team. I spoke with Gary Martin and >> Bernie and, despite having lost the logs of my conversation with Gary, my >> hazy recollection is that that they also came to this conclusion. > > "Re-invented" is a rather ambiguous term. If you mean "defined the scope of, > winnowed the membership of, empowered, and sought concrete commitments > from..." > then perhaps we agree. If you mean something else, then perhaps you should > be > more explicit. > >> With that in mind, I think we should just have more people actively >> participate in the design team. I'm interested, so have put my name >> down on http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Design_Team/Contacts#Team_Members >> I hope anyone else interested in being active, will do the same. >> Michael Stone, Bernie Innocenti, I'm looking at you. >> >> Gary, can you add / correct anything from our conversation? >> >> Michael, is there anything I've misunderstood/misremembered about your >> proposal? Would you want the Design Team to adopt your "what does the >> committee do"[1] responsibilities? > > I care about the substance, not the name: the UI committee that I'm > describing > has a fixed membership, offers a service-level agreement, and is answerable > to > the Oversight Board. In short, it is *designed* to meet Bernie's need for > competent, respected, decisive, and dependable UI decision-making. Does the > Design Team that you, Gary, and Bernie are thinking of share these > properties? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 at 08:42:42 -0500, Walter Bender wrote: >> >> I mostly kind of agree with this. > > @Walter -- I'm not sure what "this" refers to.
Martin's post that was directly above my comment. > >> But adding a bunch of developers to the design team will not help it >> accomplish its design goals. > > Two comments: > > 1. I don't see "a bunch of developers"; I see specific people (Gary, > Martin, > Eben, Christian, Bernie, ...) with specific talents, predispositions, > and > availabilities. Even on your short list, I see people who are not designers... there is a call to add more non-designers. Names are accumulating on http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Design_Team/Contacts > 2. Of the available choices, who would you be most comfortable empowering? The people on the list who have demonstrated that they have a deep understanding of the design goals of Sugar and who have the time to make a sustained commitment to this task. Probably that would be Gary, Martin, and me at this point. > >> We need more designers involved. > > What is your plan for getting them involved? I've been trying to recruit at universities. But also, I think great design attracts great designers. Another reason to keep our standards high. > > (My plan, such as it is, is: > > a) to make a place where they will want to come and Not sure how any suggestions in the above thread does that, but I may have overlooked something. > > b) to develop the pre-existing skills and sensibilities of the people we > already have) No argument from me except that I don't want to divert non-designers into making design decisions, which seems to have been the direction we were heading. > >> And we need to stay focused on Sugar's core design principles. One thing I >> do >> remember from your IRC discussion with Gary (I was on the edge of the >> conversation) is the need to bring the HIG up to date. While this may be >> considered tactical, I think it is strategic, in that sets the tone for >> all >> further actions. (For the same reason, I have been advocating for an >> architectural document from the Engineering perspective.) > > First, I completely agree with you that these are important tasks. > However, I don't see anyone willing to work on them at this time. > > Do you? No. But I am also actively recruiting in this area and trying to remove distractions from some people whom I think could contribute to this area. > If so, who did I miss? > If not, why is no one willing to do the work that many people agree is > important? I think it is easy to get sucked into the world of day-to-day maintenance at the expense of long-term planning. At least easy for me. > > Might they be unwilling because they don't see how the work can be completed > successfully in the prevailing organizational conditions? Perhaps. That certainly seems to be your perspective and you are one of the people whose skills I would want to tap into. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 at 09:38:57 -0500, Barbara Barry wrote: >> >> As an advocate for Sugar in the field in my work, I'm chiming in to >> support >> Walter's point. >> >> What might help Sugar is a designer who can articulate a strong design >> point >> of view by understanding the needs of the users and translating them, >> guided >> by the Sugar core design principles, into a plan for development. >> >> Design is not a set of isolated decisions about what features to add or >> take >> away but how to move consistently toward a goal, in Sugar's case an OS and >> computing environment that can help children as they learn. >> >> Designers have particular skills that are not obvious. Good ones are >> masters >> at modeling the needs of users in astonishing detail and accuracy, and it >> is >> their job to negotiate the terrain between the stated design goals of an >> organization, the user experience, and the implementation by developers. >> >> It's not only Apple that has a distinct design point of view but really >> any >> company that makes a product that works and grows. So Bernie, I think >> what >> you were asking for is not a Dictator, who suggests, approves or denies >> features, but someone to lead by articulating the user model and helping >> the >> community develop it in a coordinated effort. > > @Barbara -- this is a really nice description both of what design is and of > the > most positive aspects of life in 2006-2008 when OLPC and its partners were > really driving the evolution of Sugar. > In some ways, I too would like to return to those times. > However, both for better and for worse, it looks to me like we're now stuck > in > a world in which > * we can each give only a few hours per month, * there is no central > authority around which to organize effort, * we meet face-to-face for only > a few hours per year > > and in which many harsh words have been exchanged. (Including some by me. > :() > > Consequently, it also seems to me that we're not really presently capable of > achieving the kind of coordination you're describing... > > ..and worse, that we're only going to make things worse if we keep > pretending > otherwise. > Fortunately, though, we can still work on baby steps [1]. :) > > Thoughts? > > Michael > > [1]: Anyone else remember the "lava pit" and "duo-sit" coordination games > [2] > of ages past? I'm searching for their moral equivalents here. > > [2]: http://www.commonaction.org/gamesguide.pdf, p. 11, 14 > -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel