> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:14:38 +0200 > From: Gregory Pittman <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [CREATE] Libre Graphics Whatever - charter prototype > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 06/01/2010 12:36 PM, Jos? Cruz wrote: > > Hi! I'm agree with Jon about the differents classes of membership. We > are a > > small company (just two persons) in the graphic design world, using > only libre > > software, and I think it is interesting to bring more professionals > (wich are > > intensive users) to FLOSS. > > In the vein of discussions about either insufficient or excessive > "power" that might come about from various schemes of membership, we > can > consider that there can be some kind of whole-cloth membership for all > those interested as individuals, then we can have the association also > consist inside as a number of Sections, each of which could pertain to > a > subgroup, eg, artists/designers, as opposed to another section of > developers, and others. > > The reason for suggesting this is to find a way around simply > recreating > within the organization the same thing we have in the outside world, > where non-programmer users complain that the developers won't listen to > their needs/requests, and developers complain that users don't > understand the constraints of the development process. > > This isn't to suggest that a User Section could not have within it some > developers or that a Developer Section could not have users -- if > nothing else, there are those who could legitimately claim both kinds > of > activities, as we saw at this year's LGM. Furthermore, one might be a > member of more than one section. > > A section of users might discuss among themselves various feature > requests or user operability issues so that the best, most coherent > final requests might be presented to the Developer Section and > projects. > Developers might discuss the feedback from users and the direction > individual projects are taking to propose improved interoperability, > then solicit feedback from the User Section to see if these seem worth > pursuing. >
So you propose, in order to avoid misunderstandings between users and developers, to keep them in their separate subgroups / sections? I think that goes against the purpose of what we want to achieve with LGM. As a developer I enjoy direct contact with users when they have feature requests. It's also good to have a developer on board when discussing new features: non-programmers might ask for things which just aren't possible or - more often - ask for things that could be much simpler done if they dared to ask for it (eg. ask for a better hyphenation dialog when a direct canvas-based hyphenation tool might work even better). > This might also enhance future LGMs by naturally leading to some > planned > BOF-like meetings for individual sections, so that fewer things take > place in such an ad hoc way. Don't over-organize BoF's; they have to fall the way the wind blows them. Just my €.02 /Andreas _______________________________________________ CREATE mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create
