Re: Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 23rd August 2007
> Is there some background to this, or are you just having a bad email day? Both. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ "Debugging is at least twice as hard as programming. If your code is as clever as you can possibly make it, then by definition you're not smart enough to debug it." - Brian Kernighan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Can we improve things?
> We have no editorial control. Get over it :) We absolutely *do* have editorial control at the moment. The challenge I have at the moment is to continue that, while improving what people see to be the drawbacks of the current process (which can almost entirely be summarised as slow response particularly when I'm travelling). - Jeff -- Open Source in Mobile 2007: Madrid, Spain http://www.osimconference.com/ "The two [separate] UIs are both incredibly simple and don't even look like computer programs; they barely need menus. [When combined, they] suddenly look like software." - Havoc Pennington on 'software' design ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Can we improve things?
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 15:56 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > That's exactly like how NewAccounts [1] work. So, just use that process > for planet. Pros: NewAccounts is our current process, which means endless delays and a lot of screaming. Right now I don't care about the reasons why it is so; I've heard very lengthy explanations. It is a process which is just not working as we want. So this is not an option. Bugzilla and planet-on-svn is still a better plan. Federico ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Can we improve things?
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 17:19 +0200, Dave Neary wrote: > Some editorial control for planet is essential - there are already so > many feeds that the planet's become less useful - we're up to 50 or 60 > posts a day. > > The question is how to marry reactivity to requests and accountability > with that editorial control. We have no editorial control. Get over it :) There are people who seldom post about GNOME-related things, and their feeds nevertheless remain in Planet. I only know of once instance when someone was removed (voluntarily?) in the past. Federico ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Can we improve things?
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 14:50 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 14:05 -0400, Claudio Saavedra wrote: > > > Put another way, I would find it uncomfortable to say someone "sorry, > > you don't belong here", so these situations should be avoided. > > > > I think that adding a requirement for the applicant to have someone from > > the community to sponsor her/his request (similar to the approach used > > in the Foundation membership) would contribute to avoid these situations > > most of the times. > > Sure. So we say, > > "Create a bug under the Planet module. CC your sponsor, and in the > initial comment write, ", I want to be added to planet. > Can you please vouch for me?" > > The sponsor then goes and adds a comment, "this human has been working > on $cool_project and has been blogging about it (or other GNOME-related > activities); his blog should definitely be syndicated on Planet". That's exactly like how NewAccounts [1] work. So, just use that process for planet. Pros: 1. We already have a trusted team and process for it. The process is inferior to bugzilla some say, but we are fixing it. Someone can also hack mango such that adding to planet and the hackergotchi becomes like enabling @gnome.org address and updating SSH keys. In the future you should be able to change your feed or hackergotchi yourself, like the plan is for SSH keys and other stuff. Baris is working on it. 2. It's not public, like some have said is preferred. > Federico [1] http://live.gnome.org/NewAccounts -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Can we improve things?
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 14:05 -0400, Claudio Saavedra wrote: > Put another way, I would find it uncomfortable to say someone "sorry, > you don't belong here", so these situations should be avoided. > > I think that adding a requirement for the applicant to have someone from > the community to sponsor her/his request (similar to the approach used > in the Foundation membership) would contribute to avoid these situations > most of the times. Sure. So we say, "Create a bug under the Planet module. CC your sponsor, and in the initial comment write, ", I want to be added to planet. Can you please vouch for me?" The sponsor then goes and adds a comment, "this human has been working on $cool_project and has been blogging about it (or other GNOME-related activities); his blog should definitely be syndicated on Planet". Federico ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Can we improve things?
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 13:39 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > > > If you are feeling super-paranoid, we can have a "Planet" module on > > bugzilla, and we can point people to a page with instructions: > > > > 1. Get a bugzilla account. > > > > 2. File a bug under the Planet module. > > > > 3. A number of Trusted People(tm) get automatically CCed on the bug; > > this can be yourself and other old fogeys. > > > > 4. We debate to death on the bug itself, so that the requester can > be > > aware of why his blog is / is not appropriate. > > > > 5. The blog gets added to the SVN module. > > I like the bug approach. Me too, but one thing I dislike of this bug approach is that to reject a patch based on technical reasons is pretty different to reject someone's feed because she/he doesn't have the merits, or other non-technical and more social reasons. Put another way, I would find it uncomfortable to say someone "sorry, you don't belong here", so these situations should be avoided. I think that adding a requirement for the applicant to have someone from the community to sponsor her/his request (similar to the approach used in the Foundation membership) would contribute to avoid these situations most of the times. I personally didn't ask Jeff to include my feed until two or threes gnomie folks bugged me to do so, because I didn't want to feel rejected. If that had happened, I'd had asked these people to back me up. my 2 ¢ from a low profile contributor's POV. Claudio -- Claudio Saavedra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Día del Software Libre, Curicó http://curico.diadelsoftwarelibre.cl ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Can we improve things?
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 10:30 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 10:30 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > planet-web already exists, but making it a free-for-all isn't a useful > > solution. > > I re-read http://perkypants.org/blog/2005/06/10/1118362980/ and it > mentions the possibility of making the SVN module essentially a > free-for-all. > > .. And I quite like that possibility :) We can certainly have some > guidelines as to what a suitable blog is (though if we want to keep all > the current feeds, simply "is vaguely a contributor to GNOME and tends > to post in English" is about appropriate). For p.g.o I think it has > worked really well to *not* have strictly GNOME content; I'm sure many > people appreciate ocassional cool pictures from a music festival or sexy > recipes. > > If you are feeling super-paranoid, we can have a "Planet" module on > bugzilla, and we can point people to a page with instructions: > > 1. Get a bugzilla account. > > 2. File a bug under the Planet module. > > 3. A number of Trusted People(tm) get automatically CCed on the bug; > this can be yourself and other old fogeys. > > 4. We debate to death on the bug itself, so that the requester can be > aware of why his blog is / is not appropriate. > > 5. The blog gets added to the SVN module. I like the bug approach. > Though I prefer the first option: simply have some guidelines, and let > people figure things out by common sense / meritocracy / whatever. Problem is, most hackers do mildly abuse their commit access a couple times first when they get it. Mostly with no bad intention. It typically goes like "this patch of mine is so obviously fixing a bug, lets commit it", or "this is obviously broken, lets fix it". It takes a couple reverts to get it... So I expect we see quite a few "oh I have commit access now, my blog definitely belongs to p.g.o, lets commit it"... Jeff has already pointed that for example he has a strict rule on hackergotchis, and I think we all appreciate the uniform style of hackergotchis on p.g.o. Leave it to individuals and for example Zeenix will add one with a GObject shirt ;). > [I have a git-svn mirror of the planet-web module now, and my trigger > finger is getting twitchy ;) ] > > Federico -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 23rd Auguest 2007
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 09:52 +0200, Dave Neary wrote: > > I think it's a mistake not to have someone in Boston involved early in > the planning process. I asked someone last month if they'd be willing to > be involved, and they said yes. Has the board been in contact with them? Hi Dave, We most agree that having someone in Boston early on helps. That's why I asked on boston-social in June. No reply. Also pinged a few people directly, again no response/interest. Yes, we read that you found somebody willing to help, buy by that time Jeff was already negotiating, and Jonathan is in the loop already and looking after it too. So, boston-social residents, please step up earlier than later next time. Cheers behdad > Cheers, > Dave. > > PS. Congratulations to Rosanna & Jonathan! -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Can we improve things?
Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 10:30 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > >> planet-web already exists, but making it a free-for-all isn't a useful >> solution. >> > > I re-read http://perkypants.org/blog/2005/06/10/1118362980/ and it > mentions the possibility of making the SVN module essentially a > free-for-all. > > .. And I quite like that possibility :) We can certainly have some > guidelines as to what a suitable blog is (though if we want to keep all > the current feeds, simply "is vaguely a contributor to GNOME and tends > to post in English" is about appropriate). For p.g.o I think it has > worked really well to *not* have strictly GNOME content; I'm sure many > people appreciate ocassional cool pictures from a music festival or sexy > recipes. > > If you are feeling super-paranoid, we can have a "Planet" module on > bugzilla, and we can point people to a page with instructions: > > 1. Get a bugzilla account. > > 2. File a bug under the Planet module. > > 3. A number of Trusted People(tm) get automatically CCed on the bug; > this can be yourself and other old fogeys. > > 4. We debate to death on the bug itself, so that the requester can be > aware of why his blog is / is not appropriate. > > 5. The blog gets added to the SVN module. > > Though I prefer the first option: simply have some guidelines, and let > people figure things out by common sense / meritocracy / whatever. > > Here's an example of the bug ticket approach: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374113 D ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Can we improve things?
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 10:30 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote: > planet-web already exists, but making it a free-for-all isn't a useful > solution. I re-read http://perkypants.org/blog/2005/06/10/1118362980/ and it mentions the possibility of making the SVN module essentially a free-for-all. .. And I quite like that possibility :) We can certainly have some guidelines as to what a suitable blog is (though if we want to keep all the current feeds, simply "is vaguely a contributor to GNOME and tends to post in English" is about appropriate). For p.g.o I think it has worked really well to *not* have strictly GNOME content; I'm sure many people appreciate ocassional cool pictures from a music festival or sexy recipes. If you are feeling super-paranoid, we can have a "Planet" module on bugzilla, and we can point people to a page with instructions: 1. Get a bugzilla account. 2. File a bug under the Planet module. 3. A number of Trusted People(tm) get automatically CCed on the bug; this can be yourself and other old fogeys. 4. We debate to death on the bug itself, so that the requester can be aware of why his blog is / is not appropriate. 5. The blog gets added to the SVN module. Though I prefer the first option: simply have some guidelines, and let people figure things out by common sense / meritocracy / whatever. [I have a git-svn mirror of the planet-web module now, and my trigger finger is getting twitchy ;) ] Federico ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Can we improve things?
Hi, David Bolter wrote: > I like this idea. I guess if we trust someone to commit code we should > trust them not to abuse the planet... errr at least not planet-gnome > anyways. Some editorial control for planet is essential - there are already so many feeds that the planet's become less useful - we're up to 50 or 60 posts a day. The question is how to marry reactivity to requests and accountability with that editorial control. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Can we improve things?
Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 21:56 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > >> I know Planet GNOME maintenance has been patchy -- I've been thinking about >> ways to alleviate that while keeping strong editorship in place. The Board >> has prompted me about this too, so I have plenty of incentive to resolve it >> without any of the poop flinging we've seen in this thread. >> > > Does this need to be any more complicated than having a "planet-gnome" > module on SVN, and a README that says "to add someone to the feed, put > him in people.xml"? Then anyone who has a SVN account can add someone > else to Planet. > > I like this idea. I guess if we trust someone to commit code we should trust them not to abuse the planet... errr at least not planet-gnome anyways. D ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 23rd August 2007
Ar Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 07:19:11PM +1000, ysgrifennodd Jeff Waugh: > > > > You don't have to take this as some kind of challenge to your authority, > > and get defensive about it. > > I'm objecting to your repeated griping-without-helping (and now in public), > Dave. It's not motivating *or* helpful, particularly following up to this. You know, for those of us on the outside, this seems a really weird little exchange. As far as I can see, Dave said something about "it would be best to have someone on the ground", which seems a unexceptional remark, and you're really laying into him. Is there some background to this, or are you just having a bad email day? Telsa ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 23rd Auguest 2007
> You don't have to take this as some kind of challenge to your authority, > and get defensive about it. I'm objecting to your repeated griping-without-helping (and now in public), Dave. It's not motivating *or* helpful, particularly following up to this. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ "The beanbag is a triumph of modern day eclectic colourism..." - Catie Flick ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 23rd Auguest 2007
Jeff Waugh wrote: > >> I didn't say it would have been. That's not the point. > > It appeared to be the catalyst for your complaint, but not relevant to the > issue at hand. If you point is to repeat your complaint without taking into > account the answer you've received previously, then great, but it's not very > helpful. The catalyst was the posting of the minutes, not the problem noted therein. The answer I got previously was "I'm organising it, it's under control". The minutes indicate a willingness to have help on the ground, just not yet (as of 3 weeks ago). That also doesn't tally with my recollection of previous discussions the board had about the Summit. So saying on foundation-list that I don't think it's appropriate to organise the summit without having someone in Boston involved from the beginning seems appropriate. You don't have to take this as some kind of challenge to your authority, and get defensive about it. Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 23rd Auguest 2007
> > > I think it's a mistake not to have someone in Boston involved early in > > > the planning process. > > > > This problem would not have been solved by having someone in Boston > > involved early in the planning process. It's just rotten luck. > > I didn't say it would have been. That's not the point. It appeared to be the catalyst for your complaint, but not relevant to the issue at hand. If you point is to repeat your complaint without taking into account the answer you've received previously, then great, but it's not very helpful. - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 What do you get when you cross a web server and a hen? Apoache. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 23rd Auguest 2007
Hi, Glynn Foster wrote: > 2) Boston Summit > >In the process of confirming the venue. There is a minor development >where 2 groups are saying different things about the venue - one >saying that it's free, and the other (conferencing services) saying >it is not free. There's no current summit planning team on the ground, >but Jeff expects that to happen once the core summit details are worked >out. I think it's a mistake not to have someone in Boston involved early in the planning process. I asked someone last month if they'd be willing to be involved, and they said yes. Has the board been in contact with them? Cheers, Dave. PS. Congratulations to Rosanna & Jonathan! -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 23rd Auguest 2007
Hi, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > >> I think it's a mistake not to have someone in Boston involved early in the >> planning process. > > This problem would not have been solved by having someone in Boston involved > early in the planning process. It's just rotten luck. I didn't say it would have been. That's not the point. Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 23rd Auguest 2007
> I think it's a mistake not to have someone in Boston involved early in the > planning process. This problem would not have been solved by having someone in Boston involved early in the planning process. It's just rotten luck. - Jeff -- Open Source in Mobile 2007: Madrid, Spain http://www.osimconference.com/ "Free software never simply picks up its marbles and goes home." - Jonathan Corbet, LWN ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Creating new modules (was Re: Git vs SVN (was: Can we improve things?))
I often just sit in #commits on irc.gnome.org... Works pretty well for me :) Cheers, Kevin Kubasik On 9/11/07, Paolo Borelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Il giorno lun, 10/09/2007 alle 17.40 -0400, Claudio Saavedra ha scritto: > > On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 17:01 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote: > > > > > > Then the daily summary could be in the planet gnome feed, perhaps. > > > > > > I don't know, I'm sure there are better solutions, and it's academic > > > unless someone turns up who decides to try and code something. Just > > > throwing out ideas. > > > > I totally second the feeling that we are currently missing something > that allows to keep an eye on all the GNOME commits. > When we were on CVS I used to use bonsai go get a webpage with all > commits in the last 24 hours and skim through it to see if anything > interesting happened. > > > CIA.vc already provides some access to this information in a standard > > way. > > > > For instance, > > > > http://cia.vc/stats/project/gnome/.rss for all the commits going in > > > I am using this, but it's far from what I liked in the old setup: first > of all in bonsai I was just one click away from the actual patch, so > that I could see the real change in case something looked interesting. > Now I have to manually use viewcvs, which makes it way less frequent: > for instance it happened more than once that I spotted a bug or a typo > by reviewing committed diff in bonsai, this has not happened anymore > since I just go through the pain of looking at a diff in viewcvs only in > rare cases. > > Beside CIA feeds are not 100% reliable and they seem to drop commits > sometimes so I cannot use the feeds to see if something was committed to > my modules. > > Paolo > > > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > -- Cheers, Kevin Kubasik http://kubasik.net/blog ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Creating new modules (was Re: Git vs SVN (was: Can we improve things?))
Il giorno lun, 10/09/2007 alle 17.40 -0400, Claudio Saavedra ha scritto: > On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 17:01 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote: > > > > Then the daily summary could be in the planet gnome feed, perhaps. > > > > I don't know, I'm sure there are better solutions, and it's academic > > unless someone turns up who decides to try and code something. Just > > throwing out ideas. > I totally second the feeling that we are currently missing something that allows to keep an eye on all the GNOME commits. When we were on CVS I used to use bonsai go get a webpage with all commits in the last 24 hours and skim through it to see if anything interesting happened. > CIA.vc already provides some access to this information in a standard > way. > > For instance, > > http://cia.vc/stats/project/gnome/.rss for all the commits going in I am using this, but it's far from what I liked in the old setup: first of all in bonsai I was just one click away from the actual patch, so that I could see the real change in case something looked interesting. Now I have to manually use viewcvs, which makes it way less frequent: for instance it happened more than once that I spotted a bug or a typo by reviewing committed diff in bonsai, this has not happened anymore since I just go through the pain of looking at a diff in viewcvs only in rare cases. Beside CIA feeds are not 100% reliable and they seem to drop commits sometimes so I cannot use the feeds to see if something was committed to my modules. Paolo ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
