"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johannbg(a)gmail.com) said:
On 09/18/2013 03:57 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>On the contrary, I think it's entirely appropriate to ask why, if we already
>have a desktop spin and corresponding SIG(ish) that is based on GNOME and
>contains a large number of upstream GNOME developers why we would have a
>second spin with 95% overlap, what it's trying to solve, and what the
>differences would be.
If you dont see the benefit in having this already then it's no
point in explaining it because you would not understand or have
already made up your mind how you see this.
...
They can if they want to as is with anything, nobody is forcing
anything upon anybody here nor am I asking or expecting anyone to do
any additional work here.
I suggest next time you guys go witch hunting you actually bother to
read the SIG description which should have answer at least some
question that was being asked here and I suggest as I have suggested
before that you take this discussion to the relevant mailing list if
you want to discuss this further.
That's nice.
I had come from looking at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/GNOME
which is 6 year old dead weight.
In any case, what I saw with this SIG creation was:
- someone who hasn't participated deeply in discussions in this corner a lot
previously
- someone who *specifically* said that the GNOME-centric focus was
detrimental to the project as a whole
creating a SIG to work on GNOME, without (AFAICT) consulting with the community
working on GNOME, or even having any of them as first members.
I mean, sure, your SIG page describes some stuff at a technical level as
release goals. But ffrom what you described, I'm left to assume either 1)
you feel that GNOME deserved a specific GNOME-branded thing outside of the
desktop, and perhaps the 'desktop' should go away or 2) you felt the
'Desktop' SIG/community wasn't properly serving either GNOME users or the
greater
Fedora community and should be reorganized and run in a different manner.
If those are the goals, then setting up, in essence, a fork without
discussing with those working on GNOME currently strikes me as an awfully
passive-agressive (and unlikely to succeed) way to accomplish those goals,
and so I'd ask why it should be done that way.
If those aren't the goals, and it's merely about doing some technical
experimentation, I'd ask why that *can't* be done in this context, and what
problems
prevent that - again, forking off a community to produce 95% the same thing
seems an awfully inefficient way to do that.
Hence, the 'why' question.
Bill