Hi, 2007/12/3, Lucas Rocha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi, > > > The questions: > > > > o. Given that the Foundation of GNOME has plenty of money, will you if > > elected vote to spend this money on important projects? > > > > Being mostly interested in mobile targets and GNOME Mobile, I could > > certainly come up with some projects that might both increase > > deployment of our GNOME technologies on mobile devices and increase > > the amount of contributors. > > > > Both reasons are, I think, part of the reason why our Foundation > > exists. > > > > - Development on language bindings, like a binding generator for > > for example Android and other mobile targets (plenty of our > > components don't require Gtk+ yet could run on this target) > > > > - Funding development on development tools (like the new Anjuta) > > > > - Development on a WinCE port of Gtk+ > > > > - Development on a P.I.P.S. (Symbian with POSIX) port of Gtk+ > > > > - Improve the existing Win32 target of Gtk+ > > > > - Employ a maintainer and/or additional developers for Gtk+'s > > development > > > > - Pay people to travel to schools and universities to educate > > students about GNOME (serious educating, not just doing cheap > > presentations) > > > > - ... (for making these decisions we need people who'll make real > > and hard decisions) > > First of all, the "plenty of money" that the GNOME Foundation > currently has is not enough to pay a lot of people to do many > different things. Second, I'm still not convinced that it's good, > safe, and healthy to have the GNOME Foundation paying certain people > from the community to develop software. Specially considering that > GNOME is heavily based on volunteer work. > > As I said before, the GNOME Foundation role is to make sure that the > community has the needed infrastructure for its daily work and to > support community activities as much as it can. > > > o. What is your opinion on an examination that could carry the title: > > "GNOME Mobile certified software developer exam" > > I don't like the general idea of certifications. I think the > contributions that one gives to a certain FLOSS project is more than > enough to prove its compentence on a certain software development > area. > > > o. How are you planning to help the GNOME community overcome the fact > > that we have relatively few technical leadership? > > > > - By waiting for the integration our softwares to turn into > > something that looks a lot like that O.S. called CHA-OS? > > ? > > > - By letting companies like Nokia, Novell, ... set our goals? > > I think this is what's happening right now. Might be fine imo. > > I don't really know what you mean here. Anyway, I disagree with the "I > think this is what's happening right now" part anyway. I don't really > see those companies setting our goals. IMO, GNOME is totally open for > volunteer and individual efforts which can have a lot of influence in > the project and hence setting our goals too. > > > Note that, however, our users sometimes get confused by this: > > > > o. People thinking that Miguel De Icaza, Novell and GNOME are one > > entity. (I love your work Miguel, don't get me wrong. A lot of > > GNOME people do) > > > > o. Too late announcing of GNOME developers joining the OOXML > > discussions (I think it's great that we are among the people. > > defining this, don't get me wrong. But our "technical > > leadership", the one that we lack, should have made our > > position clear to the audience (our users) before getting > > Slashdotted by the religious ones in the land of freesoftware. > > > > I think that we are having quite a handicap by this, and that we > > should do something about it. This year. > > > > How will you do that? What is your strategy? > > As I said before, IMO, there was a communication problem about the > participation on the ECMA TC45 (actually it was more about the > timing). There's no "strategy" needed here. It's more about having > clear and consistent communication. > > > Notes on my mind: > > > > o. Technical leadership != one person dictatorship, we can work with > > committees too. Let's be open minded in stead of the "I'm against > > everything" point of view. > > > > If the right people are in that committee, nobody will be against > > anything. > > > > o. I'm still hoping for GMAE/GNOME Mobile to be(come) that committee > > for mobile related components. Why not do ... > > > > o. one for the Desktop > > > > o. one for the translators and documentation writers > > > > o. one for that futuristic Online Desktop > > > > o. one for the language bindings and development tools > > > > o. On importance level: I think that without such technical leadership, > > GNOME will fragment into a huge amount of unconnected projects. > > > > I think this will eventually render most our components irrelevant. > > > > I don't want to end with panic-speech but I just did. I'll continue my > > philosophic text with ... passion > > > > We are a bunch of passionate people. I've met a lot of the other > > developers at conferences and my conclusion is that our average level of > > passion is high. > > > > With our combined passion, I think we can compete with any big player on > > this planet. I believe it has always been passion that made the final > > difference in technology > > > > It would be a waste to steer ourselves to irrelevance. I think we can be > > both passionate and successful. And if not, let's die trying. > > > > (now that's a good conclusion, no?) > > I don't feel like answering those comments. I guess you just want to > give your opinion about the project. Those are very > important/interesting topics but not in the context of Board > elections.
Just a clarification about this "not in the context of Board elections". What I mean here is that all this technical/development issues can/should be discussed, decided and achieved by the community. The Board would then help the community where the support is needed. --lucasr _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
