Re: gep-2, Desktop Theme Sets - process ...

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hi Bill,

On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 19:00, Bill Haneman wrote:
> gep-2, a proposal for "Desktop Theme Set" support, is now in GNOME cvs. 

	It's really great that you're using the GEP for this change; but I
think there are a few technicalities that it's really well worth getting
right in the first few of these - such that other people don't get
confused later.

	It seems to me the very best tenets of design revolve around first
accumulating design requirements, then evaluating solutions, [ then
writing a spec ].

	It strikes me that an 'Action' GEP is inappropriate for this change;
whereas it might be appropriate for say "Switch CVS to sourceforge" or
some ancient chestnut ;-)

	Indeed - I'm fairly firmly convinced that gep-2 is far, far too
concrete I'd like to see it dramatically updated; removing the vast
substance of implementation detail, esp. 'proposed screenshots' - and
substitute harder requirements such as:

	* must theme at least [5 vital things for a11y]
	* (optional) configures [ mozilla ... ]
	* must conform to HIG guide on instant apply
	* themes must be installable from local and remote sources

	And so on - thus we can dispasionately describe what we wish - and give
yardsticks as to how to evaluate solutions. As such I think it's
reasonable to have a short period to evaluate the requirements, and then
get on to the arguing about which button goes where later ;-)

	It also concerns me that section 4 is populated; this is tagged:

<p>Here the responsible maintainers write rationale for
approving/rejecting the 
proposal and respond to each issue raised.
</p>

	I believe this is intended to be done by all the responsible
maintainers, and that after their discussion / decision.

	Lastly - I think it's best to limit the list of responsible maintainers
to people that are existing maintainers of core Gnome modules, since
this will be a new module to add into the core; and those are the people
who have to deal with the result in perpetuity.

> If you have been placed in the interested/guilty parties list for this
> GEP, that's because I or someone else thinks you either are interested
> or were in the past... if you wish to be removed please email me.

	Of course - it's intended the discussion be public, so all interested
parties can be heard.

	Sorry if any of that was unclear; I'll update the templates.

	Regards,

		Michael.

-- 
 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot