On 2010-08-16 14:23, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
Well, the first improvement to do is to actually revert 80% of the UI
to the way v1.23's one was working, especially getting rid of that
moronic side bar is its modal tools which impair productivity and
user-friendliness... The question is: will LL finally admit that the
viewer 2 UI is a failure and widely rejected by 80% of its regular user
base, and accept a move in the way of "going back" (actually repairing)
UI-wise ?...

I've said this before, and I'll repeat it again here:

Don't waste everyones time suggesting that we throw away Viewer 2, or that we revert the UI to Viewer 1. It is absolutely not going to happen, and any suggestion to that effect will be ignored.

That does not mean that we don't recognize that some choices in V2 were not optimal, and that some probably need to be revisited, and we're open to doing that. But we will do it in the context of calm discussions of what problems exist and creative ideas for how to solve them. We are not moving backwards, we are moving forwards.

Think about it for a minute - there are an infinite number of possible solutions for how to build a UI for a virtual world viewer - what are the odds that the first or second attempt produced the best possible UI? We need new and creative ideas focused on specific problem descriptions.
How Snowstorm Works

Viewer development has moved to a single open source model
There are no longer internal ‘private’ and external ‘public’ versions.
Viewer source (with the exception of one wrapper library we cannot
legally release), is now in public Mercurial source repositories. All
viewer integration is happening in the Development repository at
‘http://hg.secondlife.com/viewer-development’. It is used by all Linden
Lab viewer development teams, and open source developers are encouraged
to pull from that repository and submit changes for integration to it.
How the submission will be done ? Commits to the repository, or some
filtering process where LL will have the final word about what goes in
or stays out ?...

That is all described on our process documentation pages on the wiki, but I'll hit the high points here:

   * Submissions are done by creating a public repo base on and synced
     to viewer-development, and requesting that a change be pulled from
     it to viewer-development

   * Linden Lab will absolutely have the final word about what goes
     into the viewer.

   We're a multi-million dollar business with hundreds of thousands of
   customers, and we need to deploy a coherent and reliable software
   product to them.  If anyone thinks they can do that without some
   kind of product management and quality control, they are welcome to
   go build a business the size and complexity of ours and demonstrate it.

Code in the Development repository is now released under version 2 of
the GNU LGPL. This allows community developers greater freedom to use
the viewer code, including incorporating it into products that also
include closed source.
Does it mean we don't need anymore the privacy-threatening "contribution
agreement" form ?... I do hope so, unless you want to keep segregating
developers like myself, who value more their privacy than helping LL to
make a better viewer.

Again, this is described in the public documentation...

The Contribution Agreement is unchanged and still required.

Note: if we did not have the CA, we would not have been able to make this license change.

Will try to come, hoping it's not going to be one of those voice meetings
where non-English people like me can't speak well enough neither understand
what is being said...

This meeting will include voice because it's so time consuming to do everything in chat. We will have someone putting the important points into chat as much as possible, and will certainly respond to questions in chat.

For anyone who wants to have a separate chat-only meeting at another time, I'll be glad to set that up.

Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges

Reply via email to