Re: Apologies to gnome-gui if I ever said you guys were flamers...

[Scott Goehring <scott poverty bloomington in us>]

"John" == John R Sheets <dusk@smsi-roman.com> writes:

John> This is a meritocracy, plain and simple.  The weight of your
John> opinions are directly proportional to the concrete work you've
John> put into the project.

Concrete _and useful_ work.  Useless work, no matter how concrete,
doesn't help build a reputation (except perhaps as a pest).

John> Don't just keep pumping out proposal after proposal, trying to
John> get each one of them adopted into GNOME.  Take the time to
John> research & develop them properly, perhaps learning how to lay
John> them out in an ultra-simple program.  That alone would do more
John> for your proposals than trying to forcibly convince the list
John> members how great _all_ your ideas are.

Another good idea would be to run proposals by a couple of actual
programmers for feasibility review first.  (No, I am not volunteering;
I don't have the time.)

The problem Dan has is he can't satisfactorily answer the question,
"Why should I spend time to listen to you?"  I spent almost an hour
last night explaining why his "minbar" idea is effectively
unimplementable (as proposed) in X.  His response was "Well, maybe we
can get people to patch X so it works".  Why should I listen to
someone who wants to redesign an industry standard in order to support
some idea that I don't even think is all that good?