Re: About GNOME 2.0 - The end of a dream

Joe Shaw wrote:

> > *** Many people had opinions on a matter they did not know anything about ***
> >
> > Many people stated their position based on very slim evidence, very
> > slim understanding of the problem.
> Beyond that, though, there exists a larger problem: Who is maintaining
> some of these modules is unclear, and the plan and vision for GNOME 2 is
> neither well-communicated nor completely agreed upon among these
> maintainers.
> It is pretty clear that Michael is the libbonobo and libbonoboui
> maintainer, but who is in charge of libgnome and libgnomeui? Martin? If
> we were going to shift to bonobo-conf, why was it at least perceived as
> a major shift in the platform to everyone but Michael, Martin and
> Dietmar?

Because people are totally confused about what we want, and what we have done. And
maybe because we are working on that stuff, whereas others only talk about it.

> Why was, for example, Havoc not aware of it?

Havoc was aware of the existence of the "gconf:" moniker, and I also think he
knows that we write software in order to use it.

> I'm not suggesting that we have to do a big "design by committee", but I
> thought we had made pretty good progress and reached a reasonable
> compromise at GUADEC. While I trust the maintainers to do adequate code
> review, the platform won't work if *all* of them aren't on the same
> page. It might be nice if the people primarily working on the platform
> sent a quick status or even just a "heads up" mail to the lists (lets
> agree on a list: gnome-2-0-list) regularly so that this sort of thing
> doesn't happen again. And if there is some disagreement, let's try to
> make technical arguments both ways and arrive at a compromise.
> Joe

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