Re: Greatest Common Factor [Was: GNOME Nirvana]

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 10:18, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Luis Villa">
> 
> > 'greatest common factor' is supposed to be a sound-bite sized way of
> > describing 'what we are aiming at.' But I for one couldn't tell you
> > exactly what it means, and it seems clear from this thread that others
> > can't tell you or are confused as well.
> > 
> > Basically, if the goal of 'what should be in the desktop' can't be
> > explained in one simple sentence, it probably (though not definitely)
> > needs re-thinking. I don't think GCF can stand on that- each of those
> > three words needs a sentence on it's own, as far I can see :) If I'm wrong
> > about that, please let me know; I do want /some/ simple goal and standard
> > that I can easily explain to everyone.
> 
> Yes, it is a shorthand way of describing the point. There has to be further
> explanation, that's only natural. Read your own GEP 10, and my modules
> analysis page for more about what GCF means. Perhaps the concept needs its
> own page,

If it is so complex it needs it's own page, I fear that we're doing
something very wrong.

>  but it's been discussed before, and largely accepted / agreed on.

My reading of that thread was that it was mainly "agreed" to because no
one understood it well enough to seriously object, and (at least to me)
it seemed harmless at the time. There were definitely more important
battles to fight. :)

> Three words aren't going to acceptably describe any large, amorphous concept
> adequately. :-)

I don't think it should be large or amorphous. And I gave you one
sentence, not three words. :) Hell, I'll even give three bullet points.
But as far as I can currently see, it can't be described as a simple,
quick mission statement/goal, and that makes me very uncomfortable.

Really, though, this is side-tracking; I'd like people to focus on the
more concrete proposal than what exactly Greatest Common Factor means.
If we can define things more concretely in terms of groups of programs
that there is great agreement we need, how the desktop defines itself
becomes much less relevant.

Luis