<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 And to follow up about technology etc...   In my opinion the current activity reports are more about proving you've done a weeks worth of work, than providing a good summary of what's happened in a week.  I'd like to see the summary more like this: * x new bugs were opened, y were closed * We completed x items in the work tracker.  We are ahead of the trend line. * x packages were updated in natty. * The CD size grew by xMB to yMB. * The FooBar app is now 10x more awesome!  Thanks to the x for making this change. * Remmina has replaced tsclient on the CD, please try it an let us know if it is an improvement. * We are behind in updating GNOME, please have a look at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://people.canonical.com/~platform/desktop/versions.html">http://people.canonical.com/~platform/desktop/versions.html</a> and help out if you can * Compiz is delayed due to issues with the packaging, please have a look at the lp:~ubuntu-desktop/compiz/new_version branch for the current progress * Intel users may have some issues with the updated video driver, please report bugs to z. Note that some of this information can be automatically pulled from Launchpad etc. We discussed how to produce the manual information.  The options seem to be: - - The Wiki - - Etherpad - - status.net If people are interested in producing the high-detail reports we need to consider where/how to produce those, and then boil them down to a good summary. - --Robert > Today in the Eastern Edition of the Desktop meeting we discussed > the structure and purpose of the weekly Desktop meetings. I'll try > and summarise some of the points raised and propose some ideas. > > While the current meetings are working well, some of the > challenges raised were: * Participants being split across > timezones * Most participants work in different domains so > traditional meeting structure may not be appropriate * The team is > growing * How useful is the meeting summary? [1] > > I propose we more tightly define what the meeting purpose is, such > as: * The meeting scope is the Ubuntu Desktop product * The purpose > of the meeting is to share information about progress/issues * The > meetings are open to everyone in the community * The meetings > should not take significant time * There will be more than one > meeting so participants from around the world can join in * The > output of the meetings will be a wiki page summarising the weekly > progress: * Actions to be taken * New work completed * Issues > raised > > The summary should be useful to the following people: * Ubuntu > Desktop team members * Potential Desktop team members who want to > know what is going on / look for areas where they can contribute * > Media (e.g. OMG Ubuntu) who want an official record of what is > going on in the Desktop product > > We also discussed some technology, but I'll leave that to follow > up emails to keep this email short. > > --Robert > > [1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Meeting/2010-11-16">https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Meeting/2010-11-16</a> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://enigmail.mozdev.org/">http://enigmail.mozdev.org/</a> iEYEARECAAYFAkzkbx0ACgkQGOqhiQ98iC52ngCg1lyHnxVxPCN/mxQ33cZa1Ror YrcAn2MxmHgCd3FfI8CNx4l71LWeeG0G =d7yN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- </body> </html>