Le 30/03/2012 12:00, Iain Lane a écrit :
Hi there,
Hey Iain,
Thanks for writing that email, I had that on my list as well, making
sure we don't have another of those "default application selection"
session like previous UDS ;-)
Hopefully others have thoughts about how this can work better. The main
issue I think is to allow all stakeholders ample opportunity to make
their representations, but the issue around how the decision is actually
finally made is also worthwhile IMHO.
Ok, I did some thinking over that and that's what ideas I come with (in
random order):
- we should make a public call for changes to discuss early and froze
the list of topics at two weeks before UDS
- we should reach the concerned upstreams at least one week before UDS
(earlier if possible) to let them the opportunity to comment
- we want to avoid the session to turn into a "list all the things I
don't like about $software", we don't aim at stop energy but at
improving things
Those are basically what I could "base rules", I hope everybody agree
with those in principle (delay etc might need to be tweaked)
So what I think we should discuss:
- what new application we might want to get in, basically the world
change and we need re-evaluate what we ship to match that. Let's take an
example and say everybody owns an ebook nowadays, we might consider
getting a software allowing you to load books on a device in the default
install. Those discussions should be easy enough to keep on track
- what application we might want to drop from the CD, not because of
bugs or quality but because the world changed and we think that's not
useful anymore (i.e do we still need something to record audio CDs
installed by default in a world where less and less people use CDs).
That should also be an non troll-material discussion
- what applications we are unhappy about, that's the "tricky" one.
I would suggest for those to:
* not start with a "let's drop", or "let's replace" $foo, but rather
"how can we improve ..."
* not go on the "list specific bugs or issues" into that discussion,
that's often non constructive, quite the contrary
* not suggest changes for the coming cycle but rather do it over 2
cycle: "how can we improve what we have next cycle" and "what do we do
if next cycle we are still unhappy about what we got", that should lead
to constructive discussions over what we,upstream can do over next cycle
without blocking us too much
I would rather like to see the session being focussed on the Ubuntu
weaknesses and how we work toward resolving those rather than on
pointing what doesn't work.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Sebastien Bacher
--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
