Re: Getting to Topaz (Was Re: getting on a longer release cycled)

[Maxim Udushlivy <maxim udushlivy gmail com>]

Maxim Udushlivy wrote:
> BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> > I think you are 100% right and that it is important for GNOME to
> > narrow its focus. For example, if GNOME limited its focus to computers
> > with 256 MB of RAM, then...
> I was proposing to narrow Gnome by ideology (implementation style), 
> Havok - by desktop tasks (implementation scope), you - by hardware 
> requirements (implementation details). What is more viable?
Additional point:
- narrowing by scope tells people *what* things to do: the freedom is 
sacrificed (impossible for Gnome?)
- narrowing by style tells people *how* to do things: people are 
educated (if the style is good)


> > And it is not just the memory requirements for GNOME that needs to be
> > decided. I agree that choosing a specific target niche would be very
> > useful. Problem is, how are you going to do it? GNOME doesn't have a
> > BFDL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFDL) so WHO would decide what the
> > target niche is? Many of the most successful free software projects
> > (Linux and Python for example) have a BFDL, that person has a clear
> > vision about how they want their product to be. Everyone else has just
> > to accept that vision or leave the project. GNOME is different in that
> > regard, different developers have different visions and when they
> > clash, big debates erupt on this mailing list.
> >
> > Debates that really doesn't solve the problems and doesn't find a
> > common ground...
> >
> >   
> There is an interesting observation on how laws are being developed in 
> the USA: they are formulations of common practices. I.e. those laws do 
> not try to change behavior of people, instead they enforce something 
> that already exists and works. That's why I propose with a pure 
> conscience a position of Gnome Moderator (who is not a Dictator but an 
> anti-crisis manager). It is very common for an on-line community to 
> have a moderator.
>
> With a moderator endless debates would be impossible since there will 
> be a man to whom you could prove that your practices (of vision of 
> practices of others)
Typo: ...(*or* vision of practices of others)...

> are efficient and deserves to become a law. Currently people just 
> express their opinions without any effect - a boiling water inside a 
> teapot that could otherwise become a steam engine.