On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Alexander Jones <<a href="mailto:alex@weej.com">alex@weej.com</a>> wrote: <div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> It makes me wonder whether synchronised planning for a major cycle every 2 years would be a good idea to pitch. I tend to think (perhaps unfoundedly) that we have this problem where, rarely are more than a few parts of the platform truly stable and ready to receive ISV investment at any one time. With us regularly digging up parts of the platform that "aren't quite" cutting it and replacing them with entirely new components (Bonobo->D-Bus, HAL->DeviceKit, GNOME-VFS->GVFS, ...), we effect a hidden and immeasurable cost associated with keeping software in a buildable state throughout its own lifecycle. I have zero qualification for making this suggestion, though -- it's just my impression. Feel free to put me in my place. *humble* Alex </blockquote></div> Mark Shuttleworth has already proposed something along these lines. I can't find it at the moment, but it's in a post somewhere at <a href="http://markshuttleworth.com">markshuttleworth.com</a> I also think this would help significantly. Evan