On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 02:06:11PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > 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 ;-) > > - we should reach the concerned upstreams at least one week before > UDS (earlier if possible) to let them the opportunity to comment
An invitation to UDS wouldn't be out of place in this case. > - what applications we are unhappy about, that's the "tricky" one. > > * 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 very much like this idea. It makes transitions less abrupt and surprising. > 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? Often when changing apps, the new apps needs some polish - bug fixes, documentation, triage work, missing features, customizations... Might be worthwhile to require having people to work on those things for a cycle as part of the decision. Like, look at how many bugs were filed against the app last cycle, figure out how many hours/week we think the app would take to get into shape, and then find people to supply that level of effort for the coming cycle. Bryce -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
