On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 02:04:51PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Matthew Garrett
> If there are no desktop users running GNOME then there's no incentive
> for developers to target it. Targetting developers is going to change
> our marketing message, which is going to filter out as "Fedora isn't a
> good choice for an average end user". Users end up running Unity or
> Cinnamon or MATE or KDE instead, developers shift to targetting them and
> we end up with no suite of well integrated applications to ship.
If that happens, I would expect Workstation to look at this and say
GNOME isn't the correct fit. As Matthias said a while ago,
Workstation isn't GNOME. Sticking with something the broader group
you're targeting isn't using is pointless.
If that's a conscious decision then it's fine, but it's an inevitable
consequence of the current focus. That should be made explicit.
> The PRD makes it pretty clear that, as far as the WG is
> "ignore". That's not our current message.
The word ignore is not in the PRD. Please choose a different word.
There's nothing in the PRD to indicate that the working group will put
any effort into satisfying normal user requirements unless it happens as
a side effect of satisfying the requirements of the target audience. So,
> Decisions *have* been made. They're not necessarily final,
> alternatives isn't useful unless there's any desire to revisit them.
Can you point me to where any decision on anything has been made aside
from Governance? We have 4 drafts of a PRD that Christian has come up
with. The entire WG hasn't even commented on it, let alone voted. If
you're basing your statement on the implication that silence is
agreement, that's understandable but people need to realize that NOW
is the time to make alternative suggestions rather than assumptions
that this is done by fiat.
We have four drafts of a PRD that's been written by the manager of the
group that's going to be responsible for providing most of the
workstation development effort. If he's committed to providing a
developer-focused product then it seems likely that that'll be the
outcome. If that's not the case, I'm happy to work on an alternative
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org