On 2/16/06, Danilo Šegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Vincent, > > Today at 8:24, Vincent Untz wrote: > > > We'll be trying something new for new modules in 2.16. I think most of > > us agree that it didn't turn out well for this cycle. > > Like: lets remove all desktop modules, and reevaluate them again? > > Not that it would bring any concrete results, but I'd love the > flamefest (d-d-l is seriously lacking these days :) > > Now, seriously, can you at least give us a hint of what you have in > mind? And who is "we" dammit? :)
There are a couple of ideas floating around, so there's no concrete change to propose yet. But you'll note that we have sucked at new module decisions in all release cycles for the past who-knows-how-long. I personally think part of the problem is that the end date for new module proposals coincides with the date for the final decision. The "discuss it" period is also way too wide open making it hard to keep on top of. One of the suggestions is to have the cut-off date for new module proposals be sooner, have a focused and relatively short (a week or so?) discussion period after that (though still allowing the open ended discussion period that currently exists, just making it in some sense less official than the focused one), and then followed by an actual date by which decisions need to be made. I brought this up at a recent release-team meeting and other ideas were also brought up that were somewhat similar in nature (read: I don't remember the details). We didn't have anything concrete and were running out of time, and besides, 2.14 is taking precedence right now. So we agreed to discuss more later and get some community input maybe near or after 2.14 is out. But now that it has come up... Anyone else have any ideas on making us not suck at getting module decisions done two months before the release as specified on the schedule as opposed to one month like we usually achieve? For completeness, I should also note that there are two other big problems involved which I don't know how to solve on a short timescale (e.g. before 2.16): - Havoc's recent points about identifying our target audience is important in many ways; in relation to this email, it's hard to judge what should be part of the desktop when we don't have a defined target audience (some who are working on Gnome have a defined target audience, but I don't think all of those who do agree) - David's recent point in this thread about the desktop release set not being so important also rings true to me. It's a binary in-or-out yet there are lots of really rocking "Gnome" programs that are well integrated but aren't in the set. We've talked about franchising the release process and blurring the in-or-out line, but don't yet really know how to do that and haven't gotten any traction on the problem. Cheers, Elijah
_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
