On Wednesday 04 August 2010 17:11:10 Bryen M. Yunashko wrote:
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 16:59 +0200, Martin Schlander wrote:
Onsdag den 4. august 2010 16:56:02 skrev Bryen M. Yunashko:
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 15:55 +0200, Will Stephenson wrote:
Secondly, the implementation and communication of 'default desktop selection' was as weak as humany possible (GNOME still first in the list, Zonker and news.o.o backpedalling while making the announcement) to minimise the hurt to our GNOME community while still respecting the strong demand expressed in the FATE feature. We executed this feature in such a half-hearted way, it's no surprise that it weakened the attraction of the *project* to those the selection was intended to appeal to.
But why does popularity have to be incumbent on making KDE the default? Why can't openSUSE's implementation of KDE be popular on its own merit? I don't see how the existence of GNOME in openSUSE lessens the ability of openSUSE-KDE to be the best implementation of KDE out there. Shouldn't the KDE Community be appreciative of the quality of KDE itself on openSUSE?
The reasons for making KDE the default were discussed endlessly at the time.
Look up the disucssions again in the archive if you can't remember. No reason to redo that whole thing now.
I don't need to look back at the discussion last year to ask a very simple no-brainer question. It defies logic to me that the only reason a contributor will come forth is simply because of whether there's a default or not. If that's the pivotal reason, then one would assume there are *no* contributors now in GNOME because GNOME isn't the default and thus everyone in openSUSE-GNOME quit.
A better strategy is not to make KDE the primary focus, but to make KDE the best it can be on openSUSE. Likewise, making GNOME, LXDE, and XFCE also the best it can be on openSUSE. Resources are not being shifted away from one to the other. We're not going to create a strategy that requires people participating on other desktops to switch.
Now you know my position on this strategy but this isn't completely right. Sometimes, the needs of desktops clash - and what do you choose in such cases? That's where an official focus helps. In Ubuntu, KDE always looses out because GNOME is the default; same with Fedora. Doesn't mean the KDE implementations on Fedora or Ubuntu suck but they're not as good as they could be (which anyone who has used them will agree with).
So what does this strategy proposal really gain us? Just words.
A base to make decisions on in SOME area's. Not all area's, which is one reason why it's not a good strategy. Another would be loosing a lot of good people, as was mentioned here before - the little response to the openSUSE release on planet GNOME sucks. It is of course a choice we as a community could make but I'm unsure if it's a good one. I'd much rather then focus on more integration, and in case of clashes - I'm a bit unsure as to what the right course of action is there. Maybe a choice can be made in a case-by-case basis (but in discussion between the Gnome and KDE team, not by either of those separately).
Bryen
grtz mr BryEn :D