Gerald B. Cox wrote:
Rex requested that I start a separate thread on this if I believed
it
warranted further discussion. I believe it does. I believe that the
current voting proposal currently underway for the selection of default
browser does not align with the mission statement of the Fedora KDE SIG.
Below is the text of my previous message which was attached to the initial
voting results. I understand that some voting has yet to be completed -
but unless I am mistaken this isn't suppose to be a vote about browser
personal preference. It is suppose to be a vote about which browser
aligns with the published mission of the KDE SIG.
Since you are reposting your message, I am also going to repost my reply.
:-)
Thanks very much Rex for posting this so quickly. I would be
interested
in understanding the reason people voted the way they did. The issue IMO
is that normally, when selecting a default you have well defined criteria
for making the decision. This assists in making sure that everyone is on
the same page and is making an objective decision. For example, as I
mentioned before I'm a big proponent of all things Chrome - but even if
the Chromium that exists in the Fedora repository was in a state that
what I would consider stable (it's not, IMO) I would still choose
qupzilla in
this instance. It fits into what I believe would be the mission of the
KDE spin.
+1
Obviously, there is an extreme disconnect between what I believe the
mission to be, and the opinion of others. I believe the lack of clarity
is causing friction. There can be a big difference between personal
preference and adherence to a defined mission.
Indeed. I also get the feeling that some voters are insisting on Firefox
out of personal preference.
From the wiki:
"The KDE SIG (Special Interest Group) is a group of Fedora contributors
that maintain KDE <
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KDE> packages in
Fedora. Their mission is to provide high-quality, usable KDE software
packages to Fedora users and developers and to support one another in
maintaining those packages."
Granted, qupzilla is not an official KDE project, but it is definitely
using KDE based technologies. That tells me that all things considered,
if there is a browser that uses these technologies, and is functional -
that it should be favored over other contenders - unless there is a
complelling reason. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see that
"compelling reason". Personal preference does NOT outweigh a mission
statement.
I agree completely.
What am I missing here? From an outsider looking in, it appears
that
everyone is voting based upon different criteria and not adhering to the
mission statement. Voting members have a responsibility to be consistent
and objective.
Right. This is exactly why I requested justification in the meeting, but
the request was shot down.
Kevin Kofler