As reported in a previous post I have requested the Ubuntu Community Council for the definition of a control process for non technical driven changes .
Today I have attended to the CC meeting and I would like to share my experience.
I was able to expose my concerns, I got a long feedback from Mark, and as I understood his position and because no one was able to identify actions that worth be taken, everything is fine with Ubuntu change management. If you need more information about changes the recommended process is just to ask Mark he will point you to the right person.
My feeling about the CC board per si, is that, except for Mark which had Canonical/himself all over his conversation, the Ubuntu community was properly represented.
However because the CC lacks any executive capacity, that meeting felt mostly like a social event to get the pulse of the Ubuntu community, not an event to have effective discussion of ideas.
Logs available at: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/03/01/%23ubuntu-meeting.html
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Free and Open Source Gaming Challenge Idea
Hello,
sometimes I find myself search for gamins at playdeb, for my friends, family kids or just for my own entertainment.
I believe that there is still a lack of awareness about Free and Open Source Games and we can do something to improve it.
The following idea is to run a FOS gaming challenge, unlike the traditional network based / score based competition this challenge would be about achieving a per game predefined objective for the largest possible number of FOS games. The primary goal is to reward gaming diversity, not expertise.
The idea is presented at:
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dnnmb2s_59f64pmhdv
If you like it and have a facebook account, check our facebook page:
If you want to get involved in the discussion and eventual organization of the event please subscribe to the mailing list:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fosgaming-challenge
Please share this idea with those that you believe would be interested in participating, if we can gather the resources and sufficient interest this is likely to be more than just an idea.
Thanks to the GetDeb team mates which helped refining the idea and building up the presentation.
sometimes I find myself search for gamins at playdeb, for my friends, family kids or just for my own entertainment.
I believe that there is still a lack of awareness about Free and Open Source Games and we can do something to improve it.
The following idea is to run a FOS gaming challenge, unlike the traditional network based / score based competition this challenge would be about achieving a per game predefined objective for the largest possible number of FOS games. The primary goal is to reward gaming diversity, not expertise.
The idea is presented at:
https://docs.google.com/
If you like it and have a facebook account, check our facebook page:
If you want to get involved in the discussion and eventual organization of the event please subscribe to the mailing list:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/
Please share this idea with those that you believe would be interested in participating, if we can gather the resources and sufficient interest this is likely to be more than just an idea.
Thanks to the GetDeb team mates which helped refining the idea and building up the presentation.
Non technical driven changes to upstream packages
Hello,
today I have sent this request to the Ubuntu Community Council which I believe to be in the interest of the Ubuntu community:
In light of the present Banshee default configuration change but also taking in account past events (bug 642839) I would like to request the definition and implementation of a control process for non technical driven changes.
As far as I understand such process is already in place for technical changes, and covers mostly stability, security and miscellaneous integration driven changes, with review/authorization being granted by the Ubuntu Technical Board when required.
In the absence of a similar review/authorization request process for non technical changes I am afraid there is an high risk of changes being introduced without proper assessment and communication.
This request does not seek in anyway to limit or condition Canonical's business authority for the Ubuntu trademark and product management, however such authority must be used in a way which is transparent to the Ubuntu community.
today I have sent this request to the Ubuntu Community Council which I believe to be in the interest of the Ubuntu community:
In light of the present Banshee default configuration change but also taking in account past events (bug 642839) I would like to request the definition and implementation of a control process for non technical driven changes.
As far as I understand such process is already in place for technical changes, and covers mostly stability, security and miscellaneous integration driven changes, with review/authorization being granted by the Ubuntu Technical Board when required.
In the absence of a similar review/authorization request process for non technical changes I am afraid there is an high risk of changes being introduced without proper assessment and communication.
This request does not seek in anyway to limit or condition Canonical's business authority for the Ubuntu trademark and product management, however such authority must be used in a way which is transparent to the Ubuntu community.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Software Center validating packages quality
Today I have found bug 712377, it seems that Software Center is going to check packages quality and refuse to install them.
This change is likely to affect many 3rd parties, does anyone know if it is planned to be enabled on Natty and where can we find the change specification/discussion ?
This change is likely to affect many 3rd parties, does anyone know if it is planned to be enabled on Natty and where can we find the change specification/discussion ?
GetDeb: New build server
The packages building server was moved to a new infrastructure, the resources increase decreased the build time significantly.
We have also developed a minimalist report with the name and logs of the packages recently build, you can check it at http://build.getdeb.net/ .
We have also developed a minimalist report with the name and logs of the packages recently build, you can check it at http://build.getdeb.net/ .
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Dear Ubuntu Community Manager
Jono,
could you please provide us some insightful information about what REALLY happened regarding the Banshee music stores default configuration ?
We were firstly informed that there was a negotiation attempt between Canonical and Banshee developers and which terminated with Caconical's terms being rejected.
Now we have your communication which attributes a mishandling responsibility to Cristian Parrino, however it does not provide a clear understanding on what happened.
Is this new a plan a proposal to the Banshee core developers ? Was it accepted by both parties ?
The perception that the Ubuntu community (which Canonical is part of) followed-up up a failed negotiations by communicating an unilateral plan with different terms provides a sense of questionable intentions.
The Free Software License of Banshee grants Canonical the right to manage the announced changes without involving the Banshee core developers, how was that right used ? Did Canonical trustfully considered to establish mutually accepted terms or was this just a mishandling by setting up a negotiation which was not intended ?
Thanks in advance.
could you please provide us some insightful information about what REALLY happened regarding the Banshee music stores default configuration ?
We were firstly informed that there was a negotiation attempt between Canonical and Banshee developers and which terminated with Caconical's terms being rejected.
Now we have your communication which attributes a mishandling responsibility to Cristian Parrino, however it does not provide a clear understanding on what happened.
Is this new a plan a proposal to the Banshee core developers ? Was it accepted by both parties ?
The perception that the Ubuntu community (which Canonical is part of) followed-up up a failed negotiations by communicating an unilateral plan with different terms provides a sense of questionable intentions.
The Free Software License of Banshee grants Canonical the right to manage the announced changes without involving the Banshee core developers, how was that right used ? Did Canonical trustfully considered to establish mutually accepted terms or was this just a mishandling by setting up a negotiation which was not intended ?
Thanks in advance.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Mono and the Open Source Cannibalism
The recent post from Miguel de Icaza demonstrates an incredible sense of business opportunity: Mono delivers what a mobile developer should care about, be everywhere.
Why now ? Has mono reached some significant technical milestone this week ?
Not really, but right now many mobile open source developers, supporters and business partners are concerned, let's remember them that Mono is here.
Who cares about the people involved in projects like Qt and Meego? They are just a bunch of losers, they are mobile developers so they should be using Mono anyway.
Why now ? Has mono reached some significant technical milestone this week ?
Not really, but right now many mobile open source developers, supporters and business partners are concerned, let's remember them that Mono is here.
Who cares about the people involved in projects like Qt and Meego? They are just a bunch of losers, they are mobile developers so they should be using Mono anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)