On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 02:04:51PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Matthew Garrett <email@example.com> wrote:
> > If there are no desktop users running GNOME then there's no incentiveIf that's a conscious decision then it's fine, but it's an inevitable
> > 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.
consequence of the current focus. That should be made explicit.
There's nothing in the PRD to indicate that the working group will put
> > The PRD makes it pretty clear that, as far as the WG is concerned, it's
> > "ignore". That's not our current message.
> The word ignore is not in the PRD. Please choose a different word.
any effort into satisfying normal user requirements unless it happens as
a side effect of satisfying the requirements of the target audience. So,
We have four drafts of a PRD that's been written by the manager of the
> > Decisions *have* been made. They're not necessarily final, but offering
> > 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.
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 | firstname.lastname@example.org
desktop mailing list