Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 23:19 +0200, Seif Lotfy wrote: > > > Yet you think the solution to attracting new developers is to > wrap the > processes up in red tape and technical boards or design > boards? Surely > Free Software is supposed to be about meritocracy, not about > boards > dictating how an individual project should be run. > > > > Well currently there is a GNOME Shell meritocracy among the RH > employees. How is that meritocracy for the community. > Yes I think the solution is setting up boards. It is not a Meritocracy > as soon as sole responsibilities are given to a group of individuals > affiliated with the same corporation. > so, we complain that companies don't contribute enough upstream, and when a big team of developers from one company works on a new project, we don't like it? So what's the problem, that we want more non-RH people working on it? Since the development has been open for more than a year, I don't see anything preventing non-RH people to do so. As for giving responsibilities to a group of individuals, it is what happens in all GNOME modules. So, I don't see why we would need a board for gnome-shell and not for gnome-control-center, nautilus or others, or are you suggesting to add a huge bureaucracy for every non-trivial change/development that we do? ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
Dear Iain, On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Iain wrote: > > > >Bring up and fix issues with GNOME that are being ignored or shunned. > > > Can you list these? > > I will just be frank here... > > Translation shifting from upstream to downstream ? > > Development infrastructure limiting upstream contribution. > > Canonical's Unity development, what does it mean for GNOME ? > > Red Hat's control over GNOME Shell ? > > Meego being a competition or a GNOME sister project ? > > Smaller companies involvement into GNOME decisions > > How much of GNOME is community driven and how much is company driven > > Is the GNOME community forced to assimilate with decisions made by those > companies? > > > > > Work on letting GNOME shell be lead by the community. > > > Can you expand on what you want changed? > > Currently all GNOME Shell decisions are taken by Red Hat, thus limiting > the community's technical as well as design contribution. > > It seems to me that your underlying belief is that there is too much > (large) corporate influence in GNOME. Would you say that you might > have some conflict of interest here given that your project > (Zeitgeist) was ignored/shunned by the GNOME Shell developers? > I am not singling out any one party, my concern is just that there are larger parties who don't necessarily seem to be aligned in their technical approaches. Zeitgeist is doing well downstream and Canonical seem very happy with it, yet this is not my concern. My concern is for GNOME. I don't think it is reasonable to get into a Shell / Zeitgeist discussion here. Although there were some obstacles on the road we did manage to find common ground with McCann's new designs and Owen's technical review. But I won't deny that the experience was *also* a "motivating factor" for me. I will use GNOME Shell however as an example of a corporate driven project: • The community never intensively evaluated the development and the design. • The community had very little to say in the decisions of the aforementioned processes. Just allowing the community to contribute code does not make it a community project. Which also makes marketing GNOME 3 harder for the marketing team. > > > > > I stand for innovation in GNOME. > > > What is lacking now, and what do want to do when being part of the > board? > > Recently GNOME has not been attracting many new developers. It is because > its current development state doesn't allow any new innovation to settle in. > GNOME being run mostly by people representing > > bigger companies no risks are being taken and thinking out of the box is > usually categorized as such. > > Surely one could argue that GNOME Shell is quite innovative thinking > outside of the box, and that quite a large risk is being taken with > it, and most of the suggestions for it that come from the community > are of requests for uninnovative things; "I want a task bar", "I want > applets" > Or is there a potential conflict of interest here as well that > Zeitgeist has not gained much traction in the community? > > Again I decide not to get into GS vs ZG discussions here since its just brings up flame-wars, beside the fact that they are not comparable since one is a UI and the other is a service. But there is an impressive community uptake for Zeitgeist if its of interest for you. Sure GNOME Shell might be innovative in a a Usability perspective but it is the same old desktop. What I meant to say is innovative technologies such as for example semantic desktop technologies that allow new dimensions of User Experience are not being deployed. > > [Redhat or Ubuntu] could start off with a design board combining > selected and competent representatives from community and companies, whose > first objective is to rewrite the HIG. > ... > > I suggest starting a technical board with equal amounts of > representatives of companies as and community whose members are > significantly competent for the roles. > ... > > Recently GNOME has not been attracting many new developers. > > Yet you think the solution to attracting new developers is to wrap the > processes up in red tape and technical boards or design boards? Surely > Free Software is supposed to be about meritocracy, not about boards > dictating how an individual project should be run. Well currently there is a GNOME Shell meritocracy among the RH employees. How is that meritocracy for the community. Yes I think the solution is setting up boards. It is not a Meritocracy as soon as sole responsibilities are given to a group of individuals affiliated with the same corporation. > iain > Cheers, Seif ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Johannes Schmid wrote: > Hi! > > > AFAIK there are quite a few standing issues with GNOME arabic > > support. > > > > http://wiki.arabeyes.org/Gnome > > http://wiki.arabeyes.org/%D8%AC%D9%86%D9%88%D9%85 > > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=420964 > > > > These are slightly out of date though. > > Hmm, the bugs seem mostly fixed and I don't see what this has to do with > upstream vs. downstream. > > > * Why do you think our infrastructure is limiting? > > > > > > The development happening on Launchpad (not bazaar) really beats what > > GNOME provides in several aspects, starting bug management, > > blueprinting and linking with branches. There are a lot of nice > > projects there that are not part of GNOME because of the GNOME > > Infrastructure: GNOME Do, Docky, Getting Things GNOME... These > > projects are in their own rights very successful and used by the > > community. And by allowing them to deploy per default with GNOME would > > just benefit the GNOME community... > > The Project leads don't care since they are being deployed downstream > > now which is more or less skipping the middle man which is GNOME, who > > seem to be conservative in some of these aspects. > > I am not saying we should switch to Lauchpad or so. But we need to > > study and make an effort into compromising. Having major projects work > > downstream will kill GNOME, and pointing fingers will not help. > > Well, I see your point while I disagree. > > > > * For the company statements IMHO despite I don't know > > anything about > > the Unity plans I think those arent' true. Could you explain? > > > > > > > > I am not saying its true but sooner or later RH will want to deploy > > GNOME Shell on the netbooks just like Unity will at some point put an > > eye on the desktop... Its naive to asssume both will not try to assume > > positions in the netbook and desktop market... > > It's getting off-topic but would it be wrong to say that one company is > working upstream while the other company is working downstream? Wouldn't > the point be to have everyone work upstream? Seems like the new board > should participate in this discussion regardless who is in the new > board. > I would love to have the whole community discuss this issue... please wait for my next mail > > Regards, > Johannes > > > Cheers Seif ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
Hi! > AFAIK there are quite a few standing issues with GNOME arabic > support. > > http://wiki.arabeyes.org/Gnome > http://wiki.arabeyes.org/%D8%AC%D9%86%D9%88%D9%85 > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=420964 > > These are slightly out of date though. Hmm, the bugs seem mostly fixed and I don't see what this has to do with upstream vs. downstream. > * Why do you think our infrastructure is limiting? > > > The development happening on Launchpad (not bazaar) really beats what > GNOME provides in several aspects, starting bug management, > blueprinting and linking with branches. There are a lot of nice > projects there that are not part of GNOME because of the GNOME > Infrastructure: GNOME Do, Docky, Getting Things GNOME... These > projects are in their own rights very successful and used by the > community. And by allowing them to deploy per default with GNOME would > just benefit the GNOME community... > The Project leads don't care since they are being deployed downstream > now which is more or less skipping the middle man which is GNOME, who > seem to be conservative in some of these aspects. > I am not saying we should switch to Lauchpad or so. But we need to > study and make an effort into compromising. Having major projects work > downstream will kill GNOME, and pointing fingers will not help. Well, I see your point while I disagree. > * For the company statements IMHO despite I don't know > anything about > the Unity plans I think those arent' true. Could you explain? > > > > I am not saying its true but sooner or later RH will want to deploy > GNOME Shell on the netbooks just like Unity will at some point put an > eye on the desktop... Its naive to asssume both will not try to assume > positions in the netbook and desktop market... It's getting off-topic but would it be wrong to say that one company is working upstream while the other company is working downstream? Wouldn't the point be to have everyone work upstream? Seems like the new board should participate in this discussion regardless who is in the new board. Regards, Johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
Hi, Le mardi 01 juin 2010, à 22:16 +0200, Seif Lotfy a écrit : > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Johannes Schmid wrote: > * Why do you think our infrastructure is limiting? > > The development happening on Launchpad (not bazaar) really beats what GNOME > provides in several aspects, starting bug management, blueprinting and > linking with branches. There are a lot of nice projects there that are not > part of GNOME because of the GNOME Infrastructure: GNOME Do, Docky, Getting > Things GNOME... These projects are in their own rights very successful and > used by the community. And by allowing them to deploy per default with GNOME > would just benefit the GNOME community... FWIW, there's an imminent announcement from the release team about moduleset reorganization that will have an impact on this. Hopefully, Lucas will send the mail tonight if I write this here ;-) > > * For the company statements IMHO despite I don't know anything about > > the Unity plans I think those arent' true. Could you explain? > > > > > I am not saying its true but sooner or later RH will want to deploy GNOME > Shell on the netbooks just like Unity will at some point put an eye on the > desktop... Its naive to asssume both will not try to assume positions in the > netbook and desktop market... I don't know if Red Hat will want to deploy GNOME Shell on netbooks, but GNOME will certainly want to have GNOME Shell work fine on netbooks. And as far as I know (and please correct me if I'm wrong) GNOME Shell is designed to have a UI that works for netbooks. FWIW, in your answers, you make it sound like GNOME Shell is just a Red Hat project. Red Hat is certainly a driving force behind it, contributing a lot, but it's a GNOME project, with many other contributors. Cheers, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Johannes Schmid wrote: > Hi! > > > I will just be frank here... > > • Translation shifting from upstream to downstream ? > > • Development infrastructure limiting upstream contribution. > > • Canonical's Unity development, what does it mean for GNOME ? > > • Red Hat's control over GNOME Shell ? > > • Meego being a competition or a GNOME sister project ? > > • Smaller companies involvement into GNOME decisions > > • How much of GNOME is community driven and how much is company driven > > • Is the GNOME community forced to assimilate with decisions made by > > those companies? > > • More... > > OK, you were asked to list them. Anyway, why do you think there are > true? > > * From my point of view as part of the gtp coordination team I think > translations are not shifting downstream, we rather solved most of these > problems and have high-quality upstream translations. > AFAIK there are quite a few standing issues with GNOME arabic support. http://wiki.arabeyes.org/Gnome http://wiki.arabeyes.org/%D8%AC%D9%86%D9%88%D9%85 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=420964 These are slightly out of date though. * Why do you think our infrastructure is limiting? > The development happening on Launchpad (not bazaar) really beats what GNOME provides in several aspects, starting bug management, blueprinting and linking with branches. There are a lot of nice projects there that are not part of GNOME because of the GNOME Infrastructure: GNOME Do, Docky, Getting Things GNOME... These projects are in their own rights very successful and used by the community. And by allowing them to deploy per default with GNOME would just benefit the GNOME community... The Project leads don't care since they are being deployed downstream now which is more or less skipping the middle man which is GNOME, who seem to be conservative in some of these aspects. I am not saying we should switch to Lauchpad or so. But we need to study and make an effort into compromising. Having major projects work downstream will kill GNOME, and pointing fingers will not help. > * For the company statements IMHO despite I don't know anything about > the Unity plans I think those arent' true. Could you explain? > > I am not saying its true but sooner or later RH will want to deploy GNOME Shell on the netbooks just like Unity will at some point put an eye on the desktop... Its naive to asssume both will not try to assume positions in the netbook and desktop market... > Thanks, > Johannes > > > -- This is me doing some advertisement for my blog http://seilo.geekyogre.com ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
Le mardi 01 juin 2010 à 22:37 +0300, Claudio Saavedra a écrit : > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 10:07 -0700, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > > On 6/1/10 9:49 AM, "Claudio Saavedra" wrote: > > > > > > I wouldn't > > > be happy to see this kind of sarcasm being used by people > > running the > > > Foundation, if they happen to disagree with other > > > members. > > > > Happily for everyone, I'm not one of the people "running the Foundation", > > I'm just another member. > > Fair enough. I had the wrong impression that you were running for the > Foundation board. Sorry for the mistake. The mistake was mine. I apologize for that. Xav ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 10:07 -0700, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > On 6/1/10 9:49 AM, "Claudio Saavedra" wrote: > > > > I wouldn't > > be happy to see this kind of sarcasm being used by people > running the > > Foundation, if they happen to disagree with other > > members. > > Happily for everyone, I'm not one of the people "running the Foundation", > I'm just another member. Fair enough. I had the wrong impression that you were running for the Foundation board. Sorry for the mistake. Claudio -- Claudio Saavedra ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 15:39 +0200, Seif Lotfy wrote: > > • Encourage more cooperation on design between RH and > Canonical. > > What do you mean concretely (design of what)? Why RH and > Canonical > specifically? > > > I left out Intel, Nokia, Novell and others because their main focus > now is on Meego which on a design level I do not consider a GNOME > project. I think that cooperation must be improved at all levels, not only at design. > Currently RH and Canonical both have started their own design & user > experience to improve the usability of GNOME. Both however seem to be > heading to the same goal but with different designs that could on a > shallow level end up leaving GNOME in an diverging state (Shell vs > Unity). Both should start cooperating on the design level. One could > start off with a design board combining selected and competent > representatives from community and companies, whose first objective is > to rewrite the HIG. gnome-shell is working upstream, _is_ a GNOME project, and Unity isn't. Moreover, I wasn't realised of their existence since very lately, and GNOME shell is been working from about a year. Sincerely, I have no idea of their motivation for this "fork". Reading a post from Tomeu Vizoso [1] I noticed that Ubuntu people doesn't have too much idea of GNOME GObject introspection. This sounds strange to me. Maybe they should have done better for been informed of this, but I'm sure we can do better too. What I want to mean is that we can problem like this at all levels, not only at design level. It seems that GNOME needs to improve the communication channels with downstreams (Red Hat, Canonical, Intel, Nokia, Novell, etc). We need active actions for this, it seems that transparency on GNOME project is not enough. And I know that we have the Advisory Board for that, but this model is not working neither. Maybe we need some periodical meetings with technical staff of downstream projects. Maybe we can organize this sort of meeting at GUADEC or we can organize hackfest for this. -- Juanjo marin [1] http://blog.tomeuvizoso.net/2010/05/ubuntu-and-gobject-introspection.html ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
On 06/01/2010 01:08 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > On 6/1/10 10:01 AM, "Xavier Bestel" wrote: >> >> Err .. nothing, except my extraordinary ability to mix their names ? :) > > You're displaying quite a host of "extraordinary abilities" this morning. Can we please stop this subthread now? behdad ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
On 6/1/10 10:01 AM, "Xavier Bestel" wrote: > > Err .. nothing, except my extraordinary ability to mix their names ? :) You're displaying quite a host of "extraordinary abilities" this morning. ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
On 6/1/10 9:49 AM, "Claudio Saavedra" wrote: > > I wouldn't > be happy to see this kind of sarcasm being used by people running the > Foundation, if they happen to disagree with other > members. Happily for everyone, I'm not one of the people "running the Foundation", I'm just another member. Are you happy to see irrelevant header checks being publicly performed in order to apparently attempt to invalidate, solely on that basis, the comments of other GNOME members? I'm not, as should be fairly clear. See, I have a this thing called a "job". My job involves video editing, among a variety of other things. I do my video editing in Final Cut Pro, which runs solely on OS X. The notion that I'm going to go and start up a completely different system in order to send my comments from a Linux (pardon me: _GNU_/Linux) box, using an approved, "free" email client, to satisfy the sensibilities of Xav and those like him, is rather absurd. I'm sorry, but in the world I live in, people learn to coexist with all sorts of things that might be less than ideal. I find the fact that there's no "free" equivalent for Final Cut Pro less than ideal, but there it is. I'm not about to stop editing video and wait around for some more "appropriate" program to arrive. And no, I wasn't "waiting" for this. I'm disturbed that we're continuing to play this childish game, frankly, and especially in this context. I simply sent an email message using the client I typically use on the system which I am currently using. Xav's suggestion that he was somehow "set up" is as absurd as his harping on message headers here. ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 09:38 -0700, Lefty (=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQFA2QBsoQg==?= ) wrote: > Xav apparently needs to examine the headers > first for evidence of lurking "shill"-hood or something of that sort. Sometimes the apparences are wrong. Evolution just shows me the mailer along with the From, To and Subject headers. I don't dig in headers of random people's mail. Your subject + mailer-agent just caught my eye. > Well played, Xav. Well played. Apparently you were waiting for it. I'm happy if I've been useful to you. You're welcome. Xav ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 09:38 -0700, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > > > The purity of the GNOME community is at risk! I'd call for the > immediate > institution of filters on the mailing list so as to dump any messages > which > someone might have had the temerity to send from an unapproved email > client, > or via an unapproved operating system right in the bit bucket so as to > spare > Xav, and others who feel similarly, any future agonies of this sort. I wouldn't be happy to see this kind of sarcasm being used by people running the Foundation, if they happen to disagree with other members. Claudio ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
On 6/1/10 9:18 AM, "Xavier Bestel" wrote: > User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205 > Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 08:41:19 -0700 > Subject: FW: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy > From: "Lefty (=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQFA2QBsoQg==?= )" > > I find it quite amusing that you're using a Microsoft client on an Apple > pc to defend your GNOME candidacy. > Kudos for your sense of humor (or is it just plain provocation ?). > > Xav > For my part, I find it quite funny (not "funny ha-ha", but "funny weird") the way that people subject others to pointless litmus tests, something we're unfortunately way to prone to do in this community. Rather than judge the content of an email message, Xav apparently needs to examine the headers first for evidence of lurking "shill"-hood or something of that sort. By doing so, we ensure that GNOME can become as insular and inwardly-looking as possible. After all, we certainly wouldn't want to let just _anyone_ into our little club here! They might use OS X on occasion or even _Windows_! They might have an iPhone, or be unable to run sed from the command line or something, and _then_ where would we be? The purity of the GNOME community is at risk! I'd call for the immediate institution of filters on the mailing list so as to dump any messages which someone might have had the temerity to send from an unapproved email client, or via an unapproved operating system right in the bit bucket so as to spare Xav, and others who feel similarly, any future agonies of this sort. Let me be very frank with you, Xav: this sort of behavior was definitely a contributing factor to ACCESS' leaving the Advisory Board this past January, and for our lack of sponsorship for GUADEC this year and last. It was a directly contributing factor to my rescinding my offer to provide media training for potential GNOME spokespeople at GUADEC this summer. Well played, Xav. Well played. ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
Hi! > I will just be frank here... > • Translation shifting from upstream to downstream ? > • Development infrastructure limiting upstream contribution. > • Canonical's Unity development, what does it mean for GNOME ? > • Red Hat's control over GNOME Shell ? > • Meego being a competition or a GNOME sister project ? > • Smaller companies involvement into GNOME decisions > • How much of GNOME is community driven and how much is company driven > • Is the GNOME community forced to assimilate with decisions made by > those companies? > • More... OK, you were asked to list them. Anyway, why do you think there are true? * From my point of view as part of the gtp coordination team I think translations are not shifting downstream, we rather solved most of these problems and have high-quality upstream translations. * Why do you think our infrastructure is limiting? * For the company statements IMHO despite I don't know anything about the Unity plans I think those arent' true. Could you explain? Thanks, Johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
> > >Bring up and fix issues with GNOME that are being ignored or shunned. > > Can you list these? > I will just be frank here... > Translation shifting from upstream to downstream ? > Development infrastructure limiting upstream contribution. > Canonical's Unity development, what does it mean for GNOME ? > Red Hat's control over GNOME Shell ? > Meego being a competition or a GNOME sister project ? > Smaller companies involvement into GNOME decisions > How much of GNOME is community driven and how much is company driven > Is the GNOME community forced to assimilate with decisions made by those > companies? > > > Work on letting GNOME shell be lead by the community. > > Can you expand on what you want changed? > Currently all GNOME Shell decisions are taken by Red Hat, thus limiting the > community's technical as well as design contribution. It seems to me that your underlying belief is that there is too much (large) corporate influence in GNOME. Would you say that you might have some conflict of interest here given that your project (Zeitgeist) was ignored/shunned by the GNOME Shell developers? > > > I stand for innovation in GNOME. > > What is lacking now, and what do want to do when being part of the board? > Recently GNOME has not been attracting many new developers. It is because its > current development state doesn't allow any new innovation to settle in. > GNOME being run mostly by people representing > bigger companies no risks are being taken and thinking out of the box is > usually categorized as such. Surely one could argue that GNOME Shell is quite innovative thinking outside of the box, and that quite a large risk is being taken with it, and most of the suggestions for it that come from the community are of requests for uninnovative things; "I want a task bar", "I want applets" Or is there a potential conflict of interest here as well that Zeitgeist has not gained much traction in the community? > [Redhat or Ubuntu] could start off with a design board combining selected > and competent representatives from community and companies, whose first > objective is to rewrite the HIG. ... > I suggest starting a technical board with equal amounts of representatives > of companies as and community whose members are significantly competent for > the roles. ... > Recently GNOME has not been attracting many new developers. Yet you think the solution to attracting new developers is to wrap the processes up in red tape and technical boards or design boards? Surely Free Software is supposed to be about meritocracy, not about boards dictating how an individual project should be run. iain ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
Hi Olav, > Hello Seif, > > Reading your motivation I think I understand what you mean, but would > like to know for sure. As such, I'd appreciate if you could expand some > more on your motivation. Further, though I think I understand, I'm > purposely asking very open ended questions (to avoid suggestive ones). > > My goal is not to have a discussion on this with you or others, purely > to better understand your motivation. > > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:59:35AM +0200, Seif Lotfy wrote: > > Motivation: > > > > My reasons for running for GNOME board are as follows: > > > > • Encourage more cooperation on design between RH and Canonical. > > What do you mean concretely (design of what)? Why RH and Canonical > specifically? > I left out Intel, Nokia, Novell and others because their main focus now is on Meego which on a design level I do not consider a GNOME project. Currently RH and Canonical both have started their own design & user experience to improve the usability of GNOME. Both however seem to be heading to the same goal but with different designs that could on a shallow level end up leaving GNOME in an diverging state (Shell vs Unity). Both should start cooperating on the design level. One could start off with a design board combining selected and competent representatives from community and companies, whose first objective is to rewrite the HIG. > > > • Avoid fragmentation by helping to build consensus around a unified > > vision for GNOME's future to prevent a GNOME divergence into 2.30 -and > > GNOME 3 base. > > What do you think is lacking now? > What is lacking is a vision of what GNOME 3 should be. Where is it heading? Who is the target of the GNOME 3 desktop? How is the current GNOME accepted by the community. There seems to be some disagreements on several issues concerning design and technical aspects, which are leading to frictions between upstream and downstream development. > > > • Bring up and fix issues with GNOME that are being ignored or > > shunned. > > Can you list these? > I will just be frank here... • Translation shifting from upstream to downstream ? • Development infrastructure limiting upstream contribution. • Canonical's Unity development, what does it mean for GNOME ? • Red Hat's control over GNOME Shell ? • Meego being a competition or a GNOME sister project ? • Smaller companies involvement into GNOME decisions • How much of GNOME is community driven and how much is company driven • Is the GNOME community forced to assimilate with decisions made by those companies? • More... > > • Work on letting GNOME shell be lead by the community. > > Can you expand on what you want changed? > Currently all GNOME Shell decisions are taken by Red Hat, thus limiting the community's technical as well as design contribution. I suggest starting a technical board with equal amounts of representatives of companies as and community whose members are significantly competent for the roles. Those should drive the technical development of GNOME Shell forward. > > > • I stand for innovation in GNOME. > > What is lacking now, and what do want to do when being part of the > board? > Recently GNOME has not been attracting many new developers. It is because its current development state doesn't allow any new innovation to settle in. GNOME being run mostly by people representing bigger companies no risks are being taken and thinking out of the box is usually categorized as such. While understandable it leaves GNOME in a state where a lot of functionalities are desired but not deployable. Innovations are usually brought up by smaller companies such as Collabora, Codethink, Landeo, Igalia and others. We should allow them more responsibilities in decision taking when it comes to GNOME's emerging technologies. > > > Don't hesitate to ask me questions when the lines are open. > > done > Hope I answered your questions. > > -- > Regards, > Olav > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > > ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
Hello Seif, Reading your motivation I think I understand what you mean, but would like to know for sure. As such, I'd appreciate if you could expand some more on your motivation. Further, though I think I understand, I'm purposely asking very open ended questions (to avoid suggestive ones). My goal is not to have a discussion on this with you or others, purely to better understand your motivation. On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:59:35AM +0200, Seif Lotfy wrote: > Motivation: > > My reasons for running for GNOME board are as follows: > • Encourage more cooperation on design between RH and Canonical. What do you mean concretely (design of what)? Why RH and Canonical specifically? > • Avoid fragmentation by helping to build consensus around a unified > vision for GNOME's future to prevent a GNOME divergence into 2.30 -and > GNOME 3 base. What do you think is lacking now? > • Bring up and fix issues with GNOME that are being ignored or > shunned. Can you list these? > • Work on letting GNOME shell be lead by the community. Can you expand on what you want changed? > • I stand for innovation in GNOME. What is lacking now, and what do want to do when being part of the board? > Don't hesitate to ask me questions when the lines are open. done -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
