Re: About GNOME 2.0 - The end of a dream

On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 10:15:57PM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com> writes: 
> > Summary: We simply got the deep impression that you are not interested in
> > changing anything, and that is why we started bonobo-config.
> > 
> So what you are saying is: you don't agree with me, so you wrote your
> own thing. Fair enough. I respect your right to write a thing.
> The issue is that we can't just agree to disagree, we have to mutually
> agree on the default database. Or at least, someone has to decide.

  I think we should learn from this example. There was a disagrement,
it was not mediated when found. Instead a new project was started, 
and it was not made obvious that the goal was to replace the initial
work in the gnome platform (problem would have been smaller it it was
intended as an app only development). But at the end we still need
to resolve the issue except it's far more difficult because people
have spent time to do the code in the meantime (and possibly rely
on it).

  I'm surprized Miguel went through a long mail about "we need more love"
but didn't answer to the rational way I suggested to make progresses
on this and avoid such problem on this issue. Sorry guys, if desagreements
are not handled early, if new project are lauched without some kind
of general agreement, this will never stop, this will increase as
we are growing ... if we grow.

  Now people have the right to think, I'm wrong and that we don't need
a process to handle addition to the Gnome platform (I'm not speaking about
apps, but for the core stuff which must be shared). I would like to
hear their rationale.


Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network
veillard redhat com  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit | Rpmfind RPM search engine
Sep 17-18 2001 Brussels Red Hat TechWorld

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