Re: Some notes on GNOME Shell
- From: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu tomeuvizoso net>
- To: Sergey Panov <sipan sipan org>
- Cc: foundation-list <foundation-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Some notes on GNOME Shell
- Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 10:48:13 +0200
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 07:13, Sergey Panov <sipan sipan org> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
In my experience working with RH employees in the Sugar project, there
weren't any "dark cardinals" and they behaved like any other
contributor, earning their respect through their own contributions. I
haven't followed closely GNOME Shell, but I would expect them to
behave in the same way.
I think that from the outside is easy to misjudge things. Is anybody
reading this thread that has *both* gotten involved in GNOME Shell
development and also feels that the project is being unfairly driven
by a single company?
>> > When design/architecture decisions are made within the
>> > company in most of the cases you get, at best, monstrosities like an
>> > OpenOffice.
>> The differences between gnome-shell's development and that of
>> OpenOffice are so staggeringly different that I'm not sure how to
>> respond to such a statement.
> You did not have to respond - it was not a statement. One of the
> candidates proposed a company-agnostic open venue to evaluate/discuss
> strategic design/architecture decision. I was trying to explain why it
> might be important.
>> I really don't see how any of the critical responses in this thread
>> are not already answered by Owen's original post.
> I am not sure what do you mean by "the critical responses in this
> thread" and I do not care much about that particular discussion (I guess
> I belong to the minority which views things like Gnome Shell or
> Zeitgeist as an icing on a cake, a cake with a serious problems I care
> - S.
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list gnome org
] [Thread Prev