Re: Err..To Desktop Or Not To Desktop?

| Bowie J. Poag |
| Sand and grit in a concrete base.                            |

On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Frederick I Gleef wrote:

> Um, I dropped out of reading this list for a couple of weeks, for personal
> reasons.  I come back to it, and I see threads like this.  I am confused.


> The primary thing I am confused about is, when I stopped reading the list,
> we were discussing (heatedly, true) how to address important style-guide
> issues that were not addressed in the style guide.  Now, when I start up
> again, Mr. Poag is claiming to be writing "The GNOME Style Guide", and
> everyone is clammoring to look at a draft.  There is no mention of the
> fact that there is already a GNOME style guide (,
> being maintained, as far as I know, by Christopher Blizzard.

It was agreed upon, about a month ago, that the current Style Guide youre
referring to (v1.0) isn't going to cut it. I was asked by Federico
(Quartic) to head up the project to construct a second, more comprehensive
revision of the Style Guide (v2.0).

Thats why you're seeing my name alot on the mailing list.

> I have not seen Mr. Blizzard post recently.  Has he given up the job of
> maintainting the style guide?  If not, why do we care what Mr. Poag is not
> telling us, the opinions he voices are the only ones that matter. 
(Flare-up douced...Pour, stir, and pour again, just like Smokey says.)

We had someone come in out of the blue, having not read anything prior to
that days events, and began lobbing accusations that pretty clearly
indicated he didnt really didnt know what was going on; In doing so, 
confusing everyone else about what was going on, and de-railing everything
in the process.. The whole thing had to stop while he was brought up to
speed with the rest of us. 

Ferocious, roaring flame..

> The next question is why are we writing a new style guide.  Granted, the
> existing style guide is incomplete, and there are some points in it that
> people might not like, but it has many useful points in it.  I would argue
> that incremental updates are the way to go, rather than a complete
> rewrite.  If enough people want a rewrite, than that could work, but the
> text of the rewrite needs to be on the table (i.e. this mailing list) to
> discuss.

As I've just said, the folks heading up the show at GNOME have decided a
newer, more comprehensive style guide is in order.

And yes, incremental updates are the way to go--Not anarchy disguised as
"creative process".


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]