Re: Getting GNOME page on gnome.org

[Olav Vitters <olav vitters nl>]

On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 03:10:35PM +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
> I'm sure that wasn't your intention, but you're coming across as
> rude & demanding here. The image of my son shouting "I don't want to
> take a bath" comes to mind.
>
> There may be good reasons to include or exclude Mageia from the list
> - and I'm sure that we can all work through those reasons without
> being too demanding.

I was the one who added Mageia to this page. I'm the one packaging most
of GNOME for Mageia. If the text for Mageia in this page is changed in a
way that results in a bad experience to get GNOME, I don't find it
unreasonable to highlight that.

If other people now take care of this page, I don't find it unreasonable
to give feedback. Being straightforward that just having Mageia in there
because it used to be in there isn't really an acceptable criteria is
really direct, but I can either send a really long message pretending
that I am not direct, or be direct.

The criteria given is straightforward: Mageia doesn't provide a good
GNOME experience by default, nor does it have a webpage explaining how
to get the full experience. Getting a new webpage for this in a good
place (and not just put somewhere @ Mageia to meet the criteria) is
something I don't involve myself with in Mageia. So for now it should
not be there. If something changes, of course I'll ask it to be
included again, but for now it is incorrect to have it.

-- 
Regards,
Olav