On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Rex Dieter <rdieter@unl.edu> wrote:
OK, we voted per
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2016-08-09/kde-sig.2016-08-09-15.05.html
 


but the results are not yet conclusive due to several members not being
present to vote: danofsatx, jreznik, heliocastro, mbriza, than

Proposal:  We have 3 choices:  firefox (current default), qupzilla, and
chromium, each kde-sig member can cast a range vote of 0-2 for each.

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.  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.  From the
wiki:  

"The KDE SIG (Special Interest Group) is a group of Fedora contributors that maintain 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 outweigh a mission statement.

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.