Re: Getting to Topaz (Was Re: getting on a longer release cycled)
- From: Maxim Udushlivy <maxim udushlivy gmail com>
- To: Maxim Udushlivy <maxim udushlivy gmail com>
- Cc: hp redhat com, desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Getting to Topaz (Was Re: getting on a longer release cycled)
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:55:52 +0400
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.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]