Re: Random thoughts on this elections (was Re: Candidacy (Michael Meeks))

[Alan Cox <alan lxorguk ukuu org uk>]

>  I am afraid you are wrong. Board will be eventually forced to make
> technical decisions, as there will be some disagreements on direction
> and standards.

Then there will soon be multiple gnomes. Which would be sad. The board isnt
something that carries with it the right to make such decisions nor in general
does a board have enough respect. 

> The first few issues on the list are:
> 1) Standard installer/updater (from Eazel | Helix | RedHat )

<Linux specific hat on for the moment>

Not needed. The Linux Standard Base defines the proposed standard file format
based on RPMv3 (at the moment). They don't define any installer, they don't 
define any updater, they don't define any specific tool

Why ? Because they are people who understand what a standard is about and
what is bad standardisation. Standardising an installer makes no sense. Its one
thing everyone will do their own way. You think Slackware or Debian will change
to a different installer, you think distributions will choose to use a special
installer only for gnome code.

A good standards body sets minimal standards, you define the data format or
the protocol you NEVER NEVER define the implementation. 

So the LSB says 'the file looks like this', it doesn't care if you alien it and use deb tools on it, it doesnt care if you use rpm, or if you write your own 
tool for the job. It doesnt care if it came over the net by Helix Update or
you bought it on a CD in a shop. It doesnt have to.

> 2) What should stay in gnome-lib and what should go to gtk+

The gnome foundation does not represent the Gtk project

> 3) Eazel and Helix (and, at some point, RedHat and Sun) might
>    have different and contradicting views/requirements with
>    respect to design of some common parts (Bonobo, Gconf, OAF,
>    gnome-print, ...)
>  
> Some of those problems exist today and are being resolved in cooperative
> mode, but there were signs of potential conflicts. The board should
> be qualified to resolve those issues to prevent fighting and forking.

If you qualify the board to do this you will cause resentment, if they attempt
to use the power they will tear the project into pieces. So its much better to
leave the status quo. At most mandate the Gnome Foundation as having a job
in 'convening open accountable meetings and discussions where it is in the
interest of the gnome project to discuss contradictory views on the solution
of a problem'

Problems should be solved by the people who care about them

Alan