Matthew gets that developers need good equipment.
Glade, Scaffolding (DevStudio), Scintilla & GtkSourceView, Devhelp, gnome-build and Anjuta also got it earlier.
I think with GNOME’s focus on this and a bit less on woman outreach programs; this year we could make a difference.
Luckily our code is that good that it can be reused for what is relevant today.
It’s all about what we focus on.
Can we please now go back at making software?
ps. I’ve been diving in Croatia. Trogir. It was fantastic. I have some new reserves in my mental system.
ps. Although we’re very different I have a lot of respect for your point of view, Matthew.
You do realize that OPW is about creating software, right?
“I think with GNOME’s focus on this and a bit less on woman outreach programs; this year we could make a difference.”
Why do you think those are two different things?
I think software developers in general will be more attracted to (working on) the GNOME platform when we have better development tools. That includes woman. I think focus, time and money is better spent on improving the tools than on outreach programs.
A focus on tools is a great idea in my opinion, but outreach programs (both OPW and GSOC) deliver the programmers that are needed to develop those tools. In my opinion the GNOME foundation still has to focus on getting people involved because GNOME needs that involvement ;).
Thank you for your constructive comment, Lennart.
I actually agree that the GNOME Foundation should focus on getting people involved. I don’t think this must have much to do with gender, or even age. Although attracting students (in general) to the GNOME platform is not a bad idea (it’s the youth of today that will build the world of tomorrow being the argument for giving a bias pro younger ages and students).
Note that I didn’t say anything about GSoC (and in the past I was mentor on the GSoC program a few years in a row). I know by now that several people are blogging that I did say something about GSoC, you can verify here on my own original blog that I didn’t (only use my own blog’s content to refer to my words and opinions).
I also think that a bit more focus, time and money on the development tools will get more results than any of these programs do indirectly. With time, focus and money I mean organizing and paying travel expenses (to students), hackfests and meetings so that developers can work together for two or three weeks. The GNOME Foundation used to do this more often than today.
OPW is just anonther way to get people involved, its like fishing in another pond and it should be treated like that. What people like Jimmac and Meg Ford are feeling is that you are picking on the program itself as being bad. I therefore agree with Nirbheek‘s view.
Lets get this discussion into a more constructive discussion then. I think that you don’t have something against the OPW itself but to the focus it has had, is that correct? And (as you state in the previous post) that you want the foundation to bring students (and general hackers) together more often?
Point being, this discussion blew up due to the (in my view wrong) allegations to OPW, can we talk about the actual point of this discussion, wheter GNOME’s outreach programs should focus more on tools?
disclaimer: I am absolutely pro OPW and GSoC, I am just trying to steer this dicussion in the right direction
I see your point and support it. I also think that is important for woman to have role in any area o knowledge. That said, I don’t see that kind of gender towarded initiave as productive. These days woman have even supassed man in years of formal education. So, if there isn’t many women in tech or science is mostly their choice and pointing some sexist beheaviors from men doesn’t change that fact.
Is also like to mention the need for universal, easy scripting that osx provides through automator and, in general, their incredibly powerful scripting framework applebridge.
I don’t think the people working on gnome realize how many professionals make use of that feature.
The other area that really needs addressing is battery life. Some of the issues are upstream, but careful automated testing can help find both those problems and intrinsic issues with gnome itself. Efficiency, in short, needs to be seen as a goal at the same level as usability.
Its easy to pick on the outreech program but look at gsoc proposals for a second.
I like banshee and all but what the hell is it doing making proposals under the gnome umbrella?
What does having the ability to sync music over bluetooth to banshee do to help improve gnome as a platform.
Or musicbrainz support for easytag.
I got a little annoyed myself whith all of the ruccus about the foundation running out of money but I don’t think its the outreech programs fault.
There have been people within gnome who have been very vocal about a push towards creating a cohesive platform with the three point x release cycle and it doesnt seem to translate across to the support structures and planning.
People involved seem to mistake an ecosystem for a platform. They are two seperate things. The web infrastructure is in bad need of updating, go to gnome.org and click on apps and the apps you see links to are not core apps, they show two music players which arent part of the default desktop.
And who is responsible for the web infrastructure these days anyway?
I am.
I’ll try to fix the page in question.
Banshee uses Gnome technologies, and is hosted (repo, tarballs, and bug tracker) under Gnome infrastructure, so I’m not sure why do you think it shouldn’t be under Gnome umbrella? (It brings money to the foundation too, let me remind you.)
Also, if you don’t like the projects being in selected for GSoC, you’re welcome to edit the ideas page to try to grab more attention from students to your ideas. If those projects were selected instead of others it’s because students chose them, and if Google gives X number of spots for Gnome on the program, we’re not going to throw them away just because you don’t like them.
“Banshee uses Gnome technologies, and is hosted (repo, tarballs, and bug tracker) under Gnome infrastructure, so I’m not sure why do you think it shouldn’t be under Gnome umbrella? (It brings money to the foundation too, let me remind you.)”
Its not part of the gnome platform. The foundation should be focussing on the core(defining and improving upon a rich set of api’s for developers to take advantage of) not on third party applications which are built on top of the platform(api’s).
Don’t get me wrong I think it should be responsible for making it easier for users to donate to developers working on applications targeting the platform through gnome-software but it’s primary focus should strictly be on improving the core platform(which should be to the benefit of banshee as well as other third party applications built using gnome technologies).
The question you should ask is by targeting the gnome platform is a developer making use of api’s exposed by banshee.
The answer to that question is no and so it should be classed differently.
The foundation doesnt recognize any of the work done in the 3.x cycle in defining a core platform and thats a problem because people are obviously unaware of it. Looking at it from the foundations perspective nothing has changed, we are still just a group of reccomended packages to distribute and as a result we are losing mindshare to other more well defined platforms. If you cant hold onto the developers you already have how do you expect to capture development mindshare from other platfroms.
There are many music players which use gnome technologies which do not recieve funding from google or the foundation. Its unsustainable to say that all applications which utilize gnome technologies should be categorized under the “gnome umbrella” without any consideration for what gnome actually is or what we want it to be in the short and long term. I do think the foundation should provide infrastructure for developers to recieve and manage funds but the current situation doesnt scale.
It’s a self defeating attitude.
The scene graph was something which was discussed back in the gnome 2 days as one of the features which should be targeted for gnome 3 and we still arent there. There are posts to planet gnome about it in 2008 and the people who were proposing have since left the community.
The foundation is partly responsible for this.
To quote gnome.org’s explanation of the foundations repsonsibility
“While the many GNOME contributors develop code, smash bugs, write documentation, and help users, the Foundation acts as a guiding hand in the process and provides resources and infrastructure. It steers releases, determines what software is officially part of the Project, and acts as the official face of the GNOME Project to the outside world, though it delegates most of its authority to specialized teams.”
It has failed. Gnome umbrella is a dated concept from back when gnome wasnt trying to define a platform or get to the stage where we have stable modern abi. Its from a time when we didnt really expect the amount of applications that target the platform to ever exceed a few thousand.
Oh and look at the mono GSOC page – http://www.mono-project.com/StudentProjects Dont see multiple music players there. Maybe its because they are doing exactly what I am saying gnome and the foundation needs to do and focus on creating a base or platform on which to build off of.
Hi John, I’m allowing your comment but note that Banshee is ~ offtopic here.
Banshee was just an example, Im not attacking it.
I appreciate the project and hope it recieves funding for independant contributions.
I am not sure what the topic is then pvanhoof. I am talking about the foundation’s priorities which is what I thought you were talking about.
If you want to focus on software you need to be specific about what you are focussing on in order to be successfull and productive.
There are new development tools which are being designed around building software targeting the gnome platform (gnome-builder being a prime example, parasite integration into gtk being another).
The problem in my view is that its not highlighted enough. Right now if someone makes a donation to the gnome foundation they have no idea where that donation went.
Part of defining the platform is to get things moving quicker and to develop a modern core which will attract new developers. Clearly this is part of the discussion if you are worried about gnome’s future and how things are being managed.
Otherwise its just a rant about an outreech program which could be used to steer it in the right direction.
Hi John,
The priorities of the GNOME Foundation is indeed the topic I wanted to set.
I only wanted to make you aware that you’ve got multiple comments describing about Banshee what you think needs describing. I accept that you wanted to make an example and that you don’t want to attack the project itself. You made your example.
I agree that it’s important for donators to know transparently what their money will be invested in. I agree that is part of the discussion I tried to create and I agree that I am worried about gnome’s future and how things are managed.
>Oh and look at the mono GSOC page – http://www.mono-project.com/StudentProjects
>Dont see multiple music players there. Maybe its because they are doing exactly what I
>am saying gnome and the foundation needs to do and focus on creating a base or >platform on which to build off of.
They also accept students for F-Spot and others, which is not part of the Mono platform. (The reason of why F-Spot is under Mono’s umbrella with GSoC, but Banshee under Gnome, is just because of the mentor decision; i.e. F-Spot’s maintainers have moved the code from gnome’s git to github, which is an indicator for where things head to.)
> I agree that it’s important for donators to know transparently what their money will be
> invested in. I agree that is part of the discussion I tried to create and I agree that I am
> worried about gnome’s future and how things are managed.
Just in case it’s not clear for other readers, donations and GSoC are completely different things. In the case of GSoC, it’s actually Google the one who is donating. So if there are Gnome donors that only want their money to improve the Gnome Core platform, that wouldn’t have anything to do with what is chosen in GSoC to be performed.
Also, in regards again to the “example” of Banshee and GSoC, I would understand this if other GSoC proposals targetting Gnome’s Core were rejected in favour of non-Core (i.e. Banshee), but I guess you have not been involved in the selection process so you don’t know that this is not true. Main driver of what is done in GSoC is the decisions of the students, and then the mentors we act as a second layer of filtering, but not as a way to prioritize what we want to be done or what the Foundation wants to be done.
Also I think you’re hitting a grey area here, what is Core/Platform and what is not? Most people would say for example that Gnome Music is core, however, strictly speaking it’s in the same grey area as Banshee. In fact, even Gnome Music doesn’t use anymore the programming language that Gnome Foundation chose as a first-class citizen! (javascript vs python)
In the end, if we’re really talking about what GnomeFoundation should focus on, then in my opinion I think apps that use the platform are as important as the core. In a similar way that having an important and mainstream browser in the opensource space has benefitted freesoftware so much (Firefox), Gnome should help and foster mature apps that could one day become the mainstream open-source “face” alternative to other non-opensource big players (i.e. iTunes).
Gnome should definitely focus less on _all_ outreach programs, because Gnome isn’t a healthy place to do development.
Seriously– a downstream OS has to fix transparency for gnome-terminal? That’s unnecessary work on two poles:
1) the feature was poorly coded in the first place, so downstream was forced to code a workable implementation instead, and
2) because a Gnome dev declared by fiat that background transparency for the terminal isn’t useful to anyone, devs must maintain this feature downstream, forever.
So I wouldn’t get too anxious about women storming your castle. Gnome has an unique kind of magnetism– one which repels participation from all directions.
Though I am somehow familiar with the development of GTK-based applications I am not a GNOME developer and thus I see the GNOME platform from an external perspective. I strongly agree with you that GNOME should be more focused on creating a pleasant environment not only for users but also for developers. And I also agree with you that programs like OPW are a distraction from that goal. If you have scarce ressources you should spend them on things which have a direct benefit for your project (e.g. sponsor conferences or hackfests). Of course GNOME should be open for both women and men but that doesn’t require feministic outreach programs with gender based privileges and financial benefits – especially not if those programs create risks for the GNOME foundation’s finances.
People here who are deriding the Outreach Program for Women don’t really seem to understand the program. The GNOME Foundation is just one sponsor of it, but handles the bulk of the administration of it. We collect fees from other OPW participating organizations to perform that administrative work. Yes, the program grew to a size that overwhelmed our administrative staff person, and that did create financial issues for the foundation, but those administrative issues are going to be resolved so that they don’t persist in the future.
Moreover, the GNOME Foundation doesn’t set the technical direction for the GNOME project. If you think that the GNOME Project should focus more on developer tools and resources, then your beef should be with GNOME developers, contributors, documentation writers, etc., and not with the GNOME Foundation.
I was actually aware of OPW’s organizational setup. Sure – the GNOME foundation doesn’t sponsor all participants in the program. Nevertheless the decision to take the administrative burdens of others is a decision about the priorities of the GNOME foundation.
For sure you will find a way to resolve your problems and handle the cash flow better in future. But should managing the OPW really be a permanent task for the GNOME foundation? I must confess that I personally dislike programs like OPW as I see them as inherently discriminating programs. But even if you disagree it should be clear that a women-only program to increase the percentage of female contributors to GNOME should end if the target percentage (whatever it is and whoever has defined it) has been reached. So it is perfectly legitimate to ask the GNOME foundation to spend less on OPW in the upcoming future.
Absolutely. The OPW programs gives GNOME prestige for starting and running the program. It gives GNOME recognition in areas that we usually are not talked about. Today, OPW is being discussed in a wide variety of conferences, interns in OPW are also giving talks as well. Every time it is talked about GNOME is part of the conversation.
We could have spin off the program as its own entity, but we should continue to manage it and take advantage of the prestige that comes with it. We deserve it.
I think gnome should copy what qt did years ago: provide a complete sdk with one ide that makes it easy and streamlined to create gnome apps. Their approach with qtcreator worked. That would be a nice starting poing.
@Jim
“Moreover, the GNOME Foundation doesn’t set the technical direction for the GNOME project. If you think that the GNOME Project should focus more on developer tools and resources, then your beef should be with GNOME developers, contributors, documentation writers, etc., and not with the GNOME Foundation.”
This is an extract from gnome.org
“While the many GNOME contributors develop code, smash bugs, write documentation, and help users, the Foundation acts as a guiding hand in the process and provides resources and infrastructure. It steers releases, determines what software is officially part of the Project, and acts as the official face of the GNOME Project to the outside world, though it delegates most of its authority to specialized teams.
But that face, like the face of GNOME itself, is made by you. The GNOME Foundation membership is open to all GNOME contributors, and every member of the Board of Directors is a contributing member of the GNOME community. Becoming a member of the Foundation strengthens your voice in the Project and gives you an opportunity to vote on goals that will steer the GNOME Project into the future.”
Here is an extract from the foundations charter
“To achieve our goals in a timely manner, the project will need more focus than the current structure can offer. When GNOME was a smaller project, Miguel was able to make most of the key decisions. Today, there is a need for a forum that can provide GNOME, and the projects that make up GNOME, with the structure and support they will need to continue to grow. We need a more structured environment to smoothly integrate new citizens into the community. The GNOME Foundation will provide this support. The Foundation will also provide a place to resolve the inevitable conflicts that arise in a diverse community. Equally important, the Foundation can voice the decisions and positions of the GNOME project, and, therefore, can act as a liaison with the press and corporations who want to be involved with GNOME.
Most importantly, the GNOME Foundation will provide transparency and representation. Whereas decisions in the past have often been made in an ad-hoc fashion and in private conversations between a small number of people, the foundation will provide a forum that is elected by the GNOME community, that is accountable to that community, and that will conduct its affairs in the open. “
It is unfortunate that you had to drag in OPW into this, it is bound to derail the whole discussion…
The lack of proper tooling is a real and critical issue and it should be addressed. Unfortunately I do not see that happening in the gnome community. There is a strong sense of superiority of its hackers that look down on people not using vim for their hacking! That goes so far that real hackers do not even consider to try an IDE, because “it has no proper vi mode”, so their “muscle memory” becomes useless and they will loose “productivity”. Of course an IDE is a great to for beginners, but not for leet hackers as found in our community!
Even the people in gnome that are involved in IDE development use a normal text editor to do so. One guy actually told me that his IDE needs limited functionality only since “it will be used by beginners only”.
How can you expect any convincing product to come from such a mindset? Seriously, the whole gnome community seems hostile to the idea of having good tools available! I guess that is why there is no real IDE for gnome, just a couple of text editor with regexp-based syntax highlighting and maybe some bolted on tools (anjuta and co.).
The Qt/KDE guys are way ahead here. They have two real IDEs with proper code models with Qt Creator and KDevelop. It would be so cool if some gnome devs would give those a try for a while so that they at least understand what gnome is missing out on! Maybe with one or two of the more prominent Gnome Devs admitting to using an IDE we could get the mindset changed. Without such a fundamental shift in perception I do not see how we can get good tooling for gnome!
How about you spending a couple of weeks with a proper IDE, pvanhoof? A couple of blog posts on gnome planet could help get that change in perception going…
@Karl: This OPW is useless and politically boring. We have never seen a FOSS project rejecting any contributions: codes, patches, tutorials, traduction, money or refusing any intership because of his/her gender and sexual orientation. And if it never happened what is the puprose then of OPW?
All of this is really pissing a lot of people off and like many “lobbying” action of that kind, it’s completely counter-productive for the “cause” itself and impact everyone.
Now, all this discussion was not the goal of Philippe’s post but he has the right to speak his mind about a FOSS project having some kind of weird/nonsense priorities.
Respect to Philippe for his courage.
See? That is what I meant with mentioning the OPW will derail the discussion.
I mentioned it in one sentence at the top of a long post and that is the only thing you comment about…
For the record: Women are having a hard time in our communities! Talk to any women at a conference and she will be able to report harassment at a conference or in communication on the net. That is not acceptable and OPW will help with fixing this (I hope).
Having first read the “people ask to kick PVanHoof off the planet” and the several fulsome descriptions of the good things the OPW is doing, I was expecting some real pop-corn worthy bile-ridden rant from Philip; I sought it out if only for the entertainment value, and was profoundly disappointed; or perhaps I missed it … is it really just this one line ?
“I think with GNOME’s focus on this and a bit less on woman outreach programs; this year we could … “
That (to me incredibly mild) articulated thought questioning priorities / focus that caused the angst ? surely there is something more somewhere ? this is not worthy of a van-hoof spat ! Personally I can’t get excited about standing up for free speech when it’s so incredibly anodyne =) or does this sort of thing somehow look risque in the modern world ?
Hi Michael,
I guess I’m a bit more grown up now; I decided to let the angst speak for itself rather than helping to turn things into a pop-corn worthy spectacle like what often happened with me ;-). Apologizes for not providing much entertainment value.
It’s really just that one line (plus what I wrote here in the comments). I think how much fantasy and speculation people have about what I said, think or wanted to say was pop-corn worthy entertainment too.
ps. I really miss the debates we had in the evening after a great conference day.
Hey – come to a LibreOffice conference ! =) or better a hack-fest; one in Paris in a few weeks: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Hackfest/Paris2014 it’d be great to catch up.
Not a bad idea..