Author: Allan

I’m currently serving as a member of the GNOME Foundation Board of Directors, and am also a member of the Foundation’s Executive Committee. The last major GNOME Foundation update was back in October 2024, when we announced our budget for the current financial year, along with associated staffing changes. There have been some communications since then, particularly around events strategy and board membership changes, but it’s been a while since we provided a more complete general update.

This update is intended to fill that gap, with a summary of the GNOME Foundation’s activities over the past six months or so. You will hopefully see that, while the Foundation is currently operating under some challenging circumstances, we have been active in some significant areas, as well as keeping on top of essential tasks.

Board of Directors

The Board of Directors has been busy with its regular duties over the past six months. We continue to have regular monthly meetings, and have been dealing with high-level topics including ED hiring, finances, committee memberships, and more.

There have been a few membership changes on the board. We had an empty seat at the beginning of the board year, which we appointed Philip Chimento to fill. Philip is a previous board member with a lot of experience, and so was able to easily pick up the reins. We are very grateful to him for helping out.

In January, Michael Downey resigned from the board, and recently we filled his empty seat by appointing Cassidy Blaede. Members of the community will already be familiar with Cassidy’s contributions, and I think we can all agree that he will be a fantastic director.

Both of these seats are due for re-election in the summer, so the appointments are relatively short-term.

Michael was previously serving as treasurer, a position which we have been unable to fill from the existing pool of directors. We are currently in the process of speaking to a couple of candidates who have expressed an interest in taking on the position.

Executive Director Hiring

Most readers will know that we lost our previous Executive Director, Holly Million, back in July 2024. We were extremely fortunate to be able to appoint Richard Littauer as interim ED shortly afterwards, who has did an incredible amount for the Foundation on a part time basis last year. Richard continues to serve as our official ED and has been extremely generous in continuing to provide assistance on a voluntary basis. However, since his availability is limited, finding a new permanent ED has been a major focus for us since Holly’s resignation. We advertised for candidates back in September 2024, and since then the ED search committee has been busy reviewing and interviewing candidates. Thanks to this work, we hope to be able to announce a new Executive Director very shortly.

We are immensely grateful to the members of the ED search committee for their contributions: Deb Nicholson, Jonathan Blandford, Julian Sparber, Julian Hofer, Rob McQueen, and Rosanna Yuen. We also owe a huge debt of thanks to Richard.

Programs

“Programs” is the term that gets used for the impactful activities undertaking by non-profits (contrasted with activities like fundraising which are intended to support those programs). The GNOME Foundation has a number of these programs, some of which are established responsibilities, while others are fixed-term projects.

Sovereign Tech Fund

The Foundation has been hosting the ongoing Sovereign Tech Fund-ed development project which has been ongoing since 2023. The management of this work has been handled by the GNOME STF team, which has in recent times been managed by Tobias Bernard and Adrian Vovk. You can read their incredible report on this work, which was published only last week.

The Foundation’s role for this project is primarily as a fiscal host, which means that we are responsible for processing invoices and associated administration. Thibault Martin was working for us as a contractor to do much of this work. However, with STF ramping down, Thibault has passed his responsibilities on to other staff members. Many thanks for your efforts, Thibault!

While most of the STF funded work has now concluded, there is a small amount of remaining funding that is being used to keep one or two developers working.

Alongside the existing STF-funded program, we have also been working on a hosting agreement for a new STF proposal, which is being worked on by Adrian Vovk. This agreement is almost complete and we hope to be able to provide more details soon.

GIMP

The GNOME Foundation is the fiscal host for the GIMP project and this entails regular work for us, mostly around finances and payments. Recently we have been helping out with a grant program that the GIMP project has set up, allowing the GIMP project to make better use of the funds that the Foundation holds for them.

Digital Wellbeing

We are currently about three-quarters of the way through a two year development project focused on digital wellbeing and parental controls. This program has been funded by Endless and is being led by Philip Withnall. We have also been lucky to have assistance on the design side from Sam Hewitt. The new digital wellbeing features that arrived in GNOME 48 were a significant milestone for this project.

The Exec Committee has recently been doing some development planning with Philip for the final phase of this work, which we hope to include in GNOME 49.

Flathub

Flathub continues to be a significant area of interest for the GNOME Foundation. We are currently contracting Bart Piotrowski as the main Flathub sysadmin, thanks to ongoing generous support from Endless. Bart continues to enhance Flathub’s infrastructure as well as proving ongoing support for this hugely successful platform.

In December, we advertised for an additional short-term role to develop the Flathub organisation. Interviews for the role have been concluded and we have selected a candidate who will be starting work in the next few weeks, with the goal of getting the payments and fundraising systems online.

GNOME Project Support

General support for the GNOME project is a core part of the Foundation’s role, and is something which occupies a lot of the Foundation’s time. The activities in each of these areas deserve blog posts of their own, but here’s a quick summary:

• Infrastructure. We continue to support GNOME’s development infrastructure, primarily by paying for Bart’s work in this area. Plenty has been happening behind the scenes to keep our development systems working well. We are grateful for the past and ongoing support of Red Hat including Andrea Veri’s time and server hosting, as well as significant new support from AWS allowing us to move to a cloud-based infastructure.
• Travel. Unfortunately the budget for community travel has been limited this year due to the Foundation’s overall financial situation, but we continue to provide some funding, and GNOME Foundation staff have been working with the travel committee as we approach GUADEC.
• Events. Foundation staff continue to support our events. In December we had a successful GNOME.Asia in Bengaluru, India. Linux App Summit is happening next week in Tiriana, Albania, and preparations for GUADEC 2025 are ongoing. We additionally held a short community consultation around our events strategy back in October, and this is something that the board has had discussions about subsequently.
• Communications. Finally, despite reduced headcount, we continue to devote some staff time to operating GNOME’s social media accounts.

In addition to these ongoing areas of support, there have been additional one off support tasks which the Foundation has taken care of over the past six months. For example, we recently paid for the Google API keys used by Evolution Data Server to be certified.

Administration

Outside of programs, we have been busy with the usual background tasks that are necessary to keep the Foundation operating. That includes maintaining our books, filling in legal paperwork when it’s needed, keeping the board updated about the organisation’s finances, and talking to donors.

Conclusion

So much has been happening in the GNOME Foundation over the past six months, that it has been challenging to fit it all into a single post, and there are many items which I did not have the space to cover. Nevertheless, I hope that this summary provides a useful overview, and goes some way to showing how much has been going on behind the scenes. With no full-time ED and a reduced staff, it has been a challenging period for the Foundation. Nevertheless, I think we’ve managed to keep on top of our existing responsibilities and programs, and hopefully will have more capacity with the additional a new full-time Executive Director very soon.

It should be said that, since Richard reduced his hours at the end of 2024, much of the Foundation’s “executive” work above has fallen to a combination of existing staff and the Executive Committee. It is a large burden for a small team, and I think that it’s fair to say that the current setup is not easy to sustain, nor is it 100% reliable.

We are hopeful that appointing a new ED will help ease our resource pressures. However, we are also very interested in welcoming any additional volunteers who are willing to help. So, if participating in the kinds of activities that I’ve described appeals to you, please contact me. We can easily create new positions for those who think they might be able to have a role in the organisation, and would love to talk about what skills you might be able to bring.

One of the goals of the new GNOME project handbook is to provide effective guidelines for contributors. Most of the guidelines are based on recommendations that GNOME already had, which were then improved and updated. These improvements were based on input from others in the project, as well as by drawing on recommendations from elsewhere.

The best example of this effort was around issue management. Before the handbook, GNOME’s issue management guidelines were seriously out of date, and were incomplete in a number of areas. Now we have shiny new issue management guidelines which are full of good advice and wisdom!

The state of our issue trackers matters. An issue tracker with thousands of open issues is intimidating to a new contributor. Likewise, lots of issues without a clear status or resolution makes it difficult for potential contributors to know what to do. My hope is that, with effective issue management guidelines, GNOME can improve the overall state of its issue trackers.

So what magic sauce does the handbook recommend to turn an out of control and burdensome issue tracker into a source of calm and delight, I hear you ask? The formula is fairly simple:

• Review all incoming issues, and regularly conduct reviews of old issues, in order to weed out reports which are ambiguous, obsolete, duplicates, and so on
• Close issues which haven’t seen activity in over a year
• Apply the “needs design” and “needs info” labels as needed
• Close issues that have been labelled “need info” for 6 weeks
• Issues labelled “needs design” get closed after 1 year of inactivity, like any other
• Recruit contributors to help with issue management

To some readers this is probably controversial advice, and likely conflicts with their existing practice. However, there’s nothing new about these issue management procedures. The current incarnation has been in place since 2009, and some aspects of them are even older. Also, personally speaking, I’m of the view that effective issue management requires taking a strong line (being strong doesn’t mean being impolite, I should add – quite the opposite). From a project perspective, it is more important to keep the issue tracker focused than it is to maintain a database of every single tiny flaw in its software.

The guidelines definitely need some more work. There will undoubtedly be some cases where an issue needs to be kept open despite it being untouched for a year, for example, and we should figure out how to reflect that in the guidelines. I also feel that the existing guidelines could be simplified, to make them easier to read and consume.

I’d be really interested to hear what changes people think are necessary. It is important for the guidelines to be something that maintainers feel that they can realistically implement. The guidelines are not set in stone.

That said, it would also be awesome if more maintainers were to put the current issue management guidelines into practice in their modules. I do think that they represent a good way to get control of an issue tracker, and this could be a really powerful way for us to make GNOME more approachable to new contributors.

I’m a firm believer in the importance of documentation for open source projects, particularly when it comes to onboarding new contributors. To attract and retain contributors, you need good docs.

Those docs aren’t just important for practical information on how to contribute (though that is important). They’re also important when it comes to understanding the more general aspects of a project, like how decisions are made, who the stakeholders are, what the history is, and so on. For new contributors, understanding these aspects of a project is essential to being able to participate. (They are also the aspects of a project that established contributors often take for granted.)

Of course, ensuring that you always have up to date project documentation isn’t easy. This is particularly true for large, long-running projects, where the tendency is for large amounts of documentation to get written and then eventually left to rot. As redundant and inaccurate docs accumulate, they increasingly misdirect and impede contributors.

This characterization has unfortunately has been true for GNOME for some time. For many years, the main source of project documentation has been the wiki and, for a long time, the vast majority of that wiki content has been either inaccurate or redundant. We can only assume that, with so much out of date information floating around, countless hours of have been lost, with existing contributors struggling to find the information they need, and new potential contributors being put off before they have even gotten started.

Enough with the preamble

The poor state of GNOME’s documentation has been something that I’ve wanted to tackle for some time, so it’s with great excitement that I’m happy to announce a new, completely rewritten documentation resource for the project: the GNOME Project Handbook (otherwise known as handbook.gnome.org).

The handbook is a new website whose goal is to provide accessible, well-maintained documentation about how to get stuff done within GNOME. It has a specific scope: it does not provide technical documentation for those using GNOME technologies, nor does it contain user documentation, nor does it attempt to provide public-facing home pages for apps and libraries. What it does contain is the information required to operate as a GNOME contributor.

The fact that handbook.gnome.org is able to have this relatively tight focus is thanks to a collection of other GNOME sites, each of which replaces a role previously played by the wiki. This includes apps.gnome.org, developer.gnome.org, and welcome.gnome.org. Thank you to the creators of those resources!

The handbook site itself is managed like any other GNOME project. There’s a repository that generates the site, issues can be reported, and changes can be proposed through merge requests. The hope is that this will avoid many of the maintenance issues that we previously had with the wiki.

Notable content

The handbook is composed of pages from the wiki, which have largely been rewritten, plus a decent amount of original content. There are some sections which I’m particularly excited about, and want to highlight.

Issue tracker guidelines

GNOME has had issue reporting and triage guidelines for almost two decades. However, it has been many years since they were actively maintained, and they were never updated when GNOME migrated from Bugzilla to GitLab. I think that a lot of contributors have forgotten that they even exist.

The handbook includes a fresh set of issue tracking guidelines, which have been updated for the modern era. They’re based on the old ones from many years ago, but have been substantially revised and expanded. The new guidelines cover how to report an issue, how to review issues for quality and relevance, and policies and best practices for maintainers. One exciting new aspect is guidelines for those who want to get started with issue review as a new contributor.

I’m hopeful that having clear processes and guidelines around issue tracking will have an enabling effect for contributors and maintainers, so they can be more forthright when it comes to issue management, and in so doing get our issues trackers into a better state.

Governance

The handbook has a page on governance! It describes how decisions are made in GNOME, the various roles in the project, who has authority, and how the project works. Us old hands tend to assume this stuff, but for new contributors it’s essential information, and we never documented it before.

How to submit a code change

Amazingly — incredibly! — until this day, GNOME has not documented how to submit a code change to the project. We just left people to figure it out by themselves. This is something that the handbook covers. If you’ve ever wanted to submit a change to GNOME and haven’t known how, give it a read over.

Infrastructure

The infrastructure pages aren’t new, but they were previously causing some confusion and so have been substantially rewritten. The new pages aim to make it really clear which services are available, how developer permissions are managed, and how to get access when you need it.

What next?

It’s still early days for the handbook. Most of the core content is in, but there will be issues and missing pieces. If you spot any problems, there’s an issue tracker. You can also submit merge requests or make suggestions (the project README has more information on this).

The plan is to retire the wiki. An exact time line for this has yet to be set (there will be an announcement when that happens). However, it’s encouraged to consult the handbook rather than the wiki from this point forward and, if you’re continuing to use the wiki for anything, to move that content elsewhere. There’s a migration guide with details about how to do this.

Many thanks to those who have helped with this project, including but not limited to: Jakub Steiner, Andrea Veri, Emmanuele Bassi, Michael Catanzaro, Brage Fuglseth, Florian Muellner, Alexandre Franke, Sebastian Wick, and Kolja Lampe.

The GNOME 46 development cycle started around October last year, and it has been a busy one for my GNOME user experience design work (as they all are). I wanted to share some details of what I’ve been working on, both to provide some insight into what I get up to day to day, and because some of the design work might be interesting to the wider community. This is by no means everything that I’ve been involved with, but rather covers the bigger chunks of work that I’ve spent time on.

Videos

GNOME’s video player has yet to port to GTK 4, and it’s been a long time since it’s received major UX attention. This development cycle I worked on a set of designs for what a refreshed default GNOME video player might look like. These built on previous work from Tobias Bernard and myself.

The new Videos designs don’t have a particular development effort in mind, and are instead intended to provide inspiration and guidance for anyone who might want to work on modernising GNOME’s video playback experience.

The designs themselves aim to be clean and unobtrusive, while retaining the essential features you need from a video player. There’s a familial resemblance to GNOME’s new image viewer and camera apps, particularly with regards to the minimal window chrome.

One feature of the design that I’m particularly happy with is how it manages to scale to different form factors. On a large display the playback controls are constrained, which avoids long pointer travel on super wide displays. When the window size is reduced, the layout updates to optimize for the smaller space. That this is possible is of course thanks to the amazing break points work in libadwaita last cycle.

These designs aren’t 100% complete and we’d need to talk through some issues as part of the development process, but they provide enough guidance for development work to begin.

System Monitor

Another app modernisation effort that I’ve been working on this cycle is for GNOME’s System Monitor app. This was recently ported to GTK 4, which meant that it was a good time to think about where to take the user experience next.

It’s true that there are other resource monitoring apps out there, like Usage, Mission Center, or Resources. However, I thought that it was important for the existing core app to have input from the design team. I also thought that it was important to put time into considering what a modern GNOME resource monitor might look like from a design perspective.

While the designs were created in conversation with the system monitor developers (thank you Robert and Harry!) and I’d love to take them forward in that context, the ideas in the mockups are free for anyone to use and it would be great if any of the other available apps wanted to pick them up.

One of the tricky aspects of the system monitor design is how to accommodate different types of usage. Many users just need a simple way to track down and stop runaway apps and processes. At the same time, the system monitor can also be used by developers in very specific or nuanced ways, such as to look in close detail at a particular process, or to examine multithreading behaviour.

Rather than designing several different apps, the design attempts to reconcile these differing requirements by using disclosure. It starts of simply by default, with a series of small graphs give a high-level overview and allows quickly drilling down to a problem app. However, if you want more fine-grained information, it isn’t hard to get to. For example, to keep a close eye on a particular type of resource, you can expand its chart to get a big view with more detail, or to see how multi-threading is working in a particular process, you can switch to the process view.

Settings

If my work on Videos and System Monitor has largely been speculative, my time on Settings has been anything but. As Felipe recently reported, there has been a lot of great activity around Settings recently, and I’ve been kept busy supporting that work from the design side. A lot of that has involved reviewing merge requests and responding to design questions from developers. However, I’ve also been active in developing and updating various settings designs. This has included:

• Keyboard settings:
  • Updated the add input source design (#574)
  • Finished off the new custom shortcut designs for some (ongoing modernisation work)
  • Various polish fixes (like #2814)
• Region and language settings:
  • Updated the panel mockups
  • Modernised language dialog design (#202)
• Apps settings:
  • Designed banners for when an app isn’t sandboxed (done)
  • Reorganised some of the list rows (#2829)
  • Designs for how to handle the flatpak-spawn permission (!949)
• Mouse & touchpad settings:
  • New click areas setting (done)
  • Updated designs for the test area (almost done)
• Power
  • Updated the style of the charge history chart (#1419)
  • Reorganised the battery charge theshold setting (#2553)
  • Prettier battery level display (#2707)

Another settings area where I particularly concentrated this cycle was location services. This was prompted by a collection of issues that I discovered where people experience their location being determined incorrectly. I was also keen to ensure that location discovery is a good fit for devices that don’t have many ways to detect the location (say if it’s a desktop machine with no Wi-Fi).

This led to a round of design which proposed various things, such as adding a location preview to the panel (#2815) and portal dialog (#115), and some other polish fixes (#2816, #2817). As part of these changes, we’re also moving to rename “Location Services” to “Automatic Device Location”. I’d be interested to hear if anyone has any opinions on that, one way or another.

Conclusion

I hope this post has provided some insight into the kind of work that happens in GNOME design. It needs to be stressed that many of the designs that I’ve shared here are not being actively worked on, and may even never be implemented. That is part of what we do in GNOME design – we chart potential directions which the community may or may not decide to travel down. However, if you would like to help make any of these designs a reality, get in touch – I’d love to talk to you!

At this year’s GUADEC, I made a proposal: that the GNOME project should migrate its documentation from wiki.gnome.org to other locations, and then disable its wiki. This blog post describes the proposal in more detail, in order to receive feedback from the wider community.

Background

For many years, the GNOME wiki (a MoinMoin instance) has been the main source of internal project documentation. It contains key project information, including guidance for newcomers, the release schedule, pages for the various teams, and much more.

Today, much of the content on the wiki is out of date, and a large portion of it isn’t actively updated. Many activities have moved from the wiki to other platforms (particularly Gitlab), leaving the related wiki content to rot. There have also been problems with spam, which have meant that edit rights have to be manually granted.

This situation inevitably causes issues, particularly for new contributors who are trying to learn how to get involved.

The proposal

The proposal is for us to replace the wiki with a combination of alternative platforms. The main alternatives would be:

• gnome.org, for small amounts of important high-level information
• developer.gnome.org, for technical documentation
• apps.gnome.org, for application home pages
• In-tree documentation, for individual project docs
• Gitlab issues in special-purpose projects, for more transient documentation
• A new project handbook site, for general project documentation (contribution guide, code of conduct, governance, release process, and so on)

The new handbook site would be hosted using Gitlab pages and generated with Sphinx. We already do this for developer.gnome.org and the HIG, so the new site would not be unique in GNOME.

To see what the new handbook site might look like, you can visit a prototype that I’ve quickly created, by copying content from the wiki to a new Sphinx project.

About Sphinx

We started using Sphinx for docs in GNOME after evaluating a variety of alternative solutions. It’s not the newest or trendiest docs tool, but it has some key features which made it a good choice for us:

• It’s a drop in tool which is both mature and well-maintained
• It generates static HTML, which makes deployment and hosting easy with CI and Gitlab pages
• Docs content is written using a light weight markup language
• We can easily restyle the docs sites to match GNOME branding

Our experience so far has been positive: Sphnix-based sites are easy to set up, deploy, host and edit.

Sphinx’s primary markup language is restructured text, which leads to the obvious question: can’t we use Markdown? Markdown is supported, so we could decide to use that. However, with the HIG, we found that restructured text gave a better experience overall ¹, and was light weight enough to not be burdensome ².

In terms of editing experience, you can make quick changes using Gitlab’s web-based editing tools or, for a richer experience, VS Code will give you live previews and error checking.

Transition process

My suggestion for retiring the wiki would be to have a managed transition, which would look something like this:

1. Create a migration guide for how and where to move existing wiki content
2. Announce the transition period (including an end date)
3. Transition! I’d finish the handbook, and other teams and individuals would be responsible for migrating their own content
4. Finish the transition: archive the wiki, and update any links to point to the new docs locations

Archiving the wiki could take various forms depending on what is most practical. We could put it in read-only mode and add a banner, like we did with Bugzilla, or we could create a static archive and take it offline completely. I’ll leave that question to our sysadmins.

Pros and cons

I’m definitely not suggesting that this proposal is perfect. Nor am I suggesting that there aren’t other alternatives to consider (it would be great to hear any other ideas)! So, in the interests of transparency, here are the main pros and cons of the proposal.

Advantages of the new handbook site:

• It’s a nice website with good styling, clear navigation, and search
• Having a clear scope and purpose as the “GNOME Project Handbook” is very helpful for both documentation users and authors
• Having the content be maintained would (hopefully) result in higher overall quality
• The site would use a contribution workflow that is consistent with other GNOME Gitlab projects

And the disadvantages of the general proposal:

• There is more overhead required to make changes to docs stored in Git, compared to a wiki
• Making changes via Git requires more technical knowledge (though we can potentially minimize this with the Gitlab web IDE and good documentation)
• The new handbook site would run into problems if it were to become unmaintained
• Docs that aren’t hosted on the handbook site could be fragmented and hard to find

Feedback wanted!

This proposal is just that: a proposal. We can and should consider alternatives. It also needs to be elaborated to cover all the requirements GNOME has today. If you have any concerns, suggestions, or uncertainties, please let me know.

Thanks!

¹ With restructured text, you get more powerful linking features, as well as internal link validation.

² All you really need to know is the format for an internal and external link, and you’re good to go.