[Sugar-devel] Sugar UI Dictator

[Sameer Verma]

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Martin Dengler
> <martin at martindengler.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:06:56AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
>>> Martin and I talked for bit this evening and I believe that I managed to
>>> persuade him to support my [UI Dictator team] proposal.
>>
>> I do, for the reasons mentioned in Michael's "key arguments".
>>
>>> 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.
>> 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.
>>
>> With that in mind, I think we should just have more people actively
>> participate in the design team.  I'm interested, so have put my name
>> down on http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Design_Team/Contacts#Team_Members
>> .  I hope anyone else interested in being active, will do the same.
>> Michael Stone, Bernie Innocenti, I'm looking at you.
>>
>> Gary, can you add / correct anything from our conversation?
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> [1]  http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2010-November/028615.html
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sugar-devel mailing list
>> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>
>>
>
> I mostly kind of agree with this. But adding a bunch of developers to
> the design team will not help it accomplish its design goals. We need
> more designers involved. And we need to stay focused on Sugar's core
> design principles. One thing I do remember from your IRC discussion
> with Gary (I was on the edge of the conversation) is the need to bring
> the HIG up to date. While this may be considered tactical, I think it
> is strategic, in that sets the tone for all further actions. (For the
> same reason, I have been advocating for an architectural document from
> the Engineering perspective.)
>
> -walter
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
>

+1

Just as you wouldn't have a Plumber write code (unless she can),
design competency should lie with designers. Two points come to mind:

1) The person or committee should be open to external input
("Dictator" should be benevolent) and
2) the "Dictatorial regime" should always provide a "why" for a design
change. "Because I said so!" (as I tell my kid, sometimes) won't serve
the purpose.

HIG's role is indeed strategic. It serves as organizational memory
when members cycle through to other projects.

cheers,
Sameer
-- 
Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Information Systems
Director, Campus Business Solutions
San Francisco State University
http://verma.sfsu.edu/
http://opensource.sfsu.edu/
http://cbs.sfsu.edu/
http://is.sfsu.edu/