Re: Some notes on GNOME Shell

[Seif Lotfy <seif lotfy com>]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org> wrote:

Le jeudi 03 juin 2010, à 01:13 -0400, Sergey Panov a écrit :

> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 20:45 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Sergey Panov <sipan sipan org> wrote:
> > > I sense a suspicion from the outsiders (not RedHat employees) that
> > > project is not just manned by the RedHat employees, but controlled by
> > > the company
> >
> > It's controlled by the people doing the work, like any other project.
> >
> > What does it mean to be "controlled by the company"?  It sounds a bit
> > far-fetched.
>
> I was not speaking for myself, I still hope RedHat is an unusual
> company. But I can see how people can project their own experiences in
> the corporate environment on inner workings of RedHat. In other
> companies, the lead engineers are interacting with FOSS communities
> directly, but the "dark cardinals"(aka managers) control development
> behind the scene.

Let me try to address the suspicion you're highlighting here, with a few
examples we could have if we follow the same kind of rationale:

 - empathy is controlled by Collabora
 - gnome-panel is controlled by Novell
 - gobject-introspection is controlled by Litl. Or Red Hat now. Or both.
 - orca is/was controlled by Sun/Oracle.
 - etc.

It's just the way maintainership works. We can always assume there are
dark cardinals or whatever. Or we can see who are the people working on
those projects and see if we trust them based on what they achieved in
our community. I do trust Guillaume, Xavier, Johan, Colin, Willie and
many other people from various companies. (I kind of trust myself too
;-))

Now, why wouldn't we trust Owen and Jon for GNOME Shell?

We have to trust them there is no point in arguing here.

 

And don't get me wrong -- I happen to disagree with some stuff they're
doing from time to time. But it doesn't mean I should stop trusting
them.

But would't you like to have the points you disagree with be discussed or reevaluated?

I think this is the issue the community is facing. There is a difference between "We are going to do it like that because we think its right, and that is how it is gonna be" and "We are doing it like that because we think it is right, but we are open for discussion"

Right now the Shell developers are somewhere between both stand points. I know some developers who were able to cooperate with them. But I think more transparency around discussions and evaluations are missing.

 

Vincent

--
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
_______________________________________________

foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Cheers

Seif 

--
This is me doing some advertisement for my blog http://seilo.geekyogre.com