Re: gnome 2.9

[seth vidal <skvidal phy duke edu>]

On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 20:48 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 20:33 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> > 
> > I know this is not the most functional example - but big projects like
> > distributions and other large projects do have some established
> > hierarchy - and sometimes they have a process for making those
> > decisions.
> 
> Yeah. I'm a little reluctant to get into which projects I think have
> good structures and which ones I think suck, since I have this fear of
> ending up on Slashdot or something ;-) plus I may just be ignorant of
> many of them.

I don't want to discuss what projects have good structures either. I
think it is more valuable to discuss this projects structure :)


> I do think we need some structure, don't get me wrong. And I'd like to
> see it defined. I was also sufficiently involved in defining the GNOME
> structure to know whether or not I have time to be in charge of defining
> this one ;-)

So where do we go? How do we make aspects of the structure more
transparent - even one-way glass so users can see in would be okay.


> At the same time I think structure is partly overrated, it does come
> down to the individual people and how they get along. If you're taking a
> lot of votes it's a bad sign...


I agree. too much voting is silly, but maybe hearing more from the
steering and technical committee that already exist is not silly.

what do you think?

-sv