[Dextrose] Sugar UI Dictator

[Martin Dengler]

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 05:55:14PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 at 09:32:53 +0000, Martin Dengler wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:06:56AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> >>P.S. - Later [...] we discovered a confusion about the mandate of
> >>the proposed committee; to wit:
> >>
> >>  Is the main purpose of the committee to act as a UI Maintainer (e.g., by
> >>  deciding which UI-related patches to merge) or is the main purpose of the
> >>  committee to make UI-related decisions on an as-requested basis?
> >
> >I think it is both act as maintainer and make UI-related decisions.
> 
> @Martin -- Choosing "both" seems like a bad idea to me because it:
> 
>   a) balloons the scope of the problem to be solved,
>   b) shrinks the population of qualified participants, and
>   c) seems likely to cause turf wars.
> 
> Instead, I would prefer to stay focused on the need for UI-decision-making that
> Bernie identified in his initial email.

I see your point.  Can we get Bernie to confirm the distinction?
Perhaps you or he could provide an example of a UI-related decision
that is not HIG-related[1]?

> >It seems we're re-invented the Design Team.  I spoke with Gary Martin and
> >Bernie and, despite having lost the logs of my conversation with Gary, my
> >hazy recollection is that that they also came to this conclusion.
> 
> "Re-invented" is a rather ambiguous term. If you mean "defined the scope of,
> winnowed the membership of, empowered, and sought concrete commitments from..."
> then perhaps we agree. If you mean something else, then perhaps you should be
> more explicit.

Sorry for being (in retrospect) a bit flippant.  I did not mean to be
dismissive of the additional clarity (and empowerment and
seeking-concrete-committments-ness) of your proposal.  By
"re-invented" I meant (keeping in mind I saw the committee as both UI
maintainer and UI arbiter, as well as HIG maintainer) "constructed a
group with similar goals and responsibilities".  I see now how your
proposal does indeed narrow the scope, membership, and committments
vis-a-vis the Design Team.  Do you think there is space for two
groups?  Would an active Design Team vitiate the need for an organised
group like the UI committee?[2]

> >With that in mind, I think we should just have more people actively
> >participate in the design team.
[...]
> >Michael, is there anything I've misunderstood/misremembered about your
> >proposal?  Would you want the Design Team to adopt your "what does the
> >committee do"[1] responsibilities?
> 
> I care about the substance, not the name: the UI committee that I'm describing
> has a fixed membership, offers a service-level agreement, and is answerable to
> the Oversight Board. In short, it is *designed* to meet Bernie's need for
> competent, respected, decisive, and dependable UI decision-making.  Does the
> Design Team that you, Gary, and Bernie are thinking of share these
> properties?

I think it does.

> Michael

Martin

Footnotes: 
[1]  Am I oversimplifying to see a continuum of code <--- UI ---> HIG
decision-making here, and your committee as designed to stay out of
the code (UI maintainer) and HIG areas, and focus on the middle ground
of "UI"?  If so, I'm trying to get a better understanding of the
boundary between not-UI and UI as you see it.

[2]  An academic point, I hear you saying, as we don't have one.  Just
trying to understand.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/dextrose/attachments/20101121/8c25bb84/attachment.pgp>