On Tue, 2009-09-01 at 18:39 +0200, Christian Jäger wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 30.08.2009, 14:26 -0500 schrieb Kevin "Yeaux" Dupuy:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Patrick Shanahan
wrote: We all want to move forward together, but certain people wish to make that 'together' only include KDE users, it seems. Which is not going to help the Project in any way. My thoughts exactly. The project now labors from the complete mess that was made of this decision.
The correct way to go about it for the KDE-guys would have been to make contact with our GNOME community via the GNOME-ML and talk this over; straighten out the perceptions of each other. Afterwards a discussion on this very ML about what sense there could be in having a default DE could have been set up with a chance of not degrading into a flame-war. .. Because having a default DE represents a MAJOR policy change.
Certainly it was dead-wrong to allow such a thing as a 'feature request' - unproper handling, mistake #1.
Afterwards it was wrong not to discuss 'default, yes or now', separately from 'which one to default, if a default is neccessary' - Mistake #2.
Then it was very wrong to make a top-down decision, like in the 'good old SUSE days'. Because it won't be appreciated, and this needn't wonder you as it seems to encourage what many felt to be a bullying behaviour. Mistake #3.
So, on top of all the other problems we now have a leadership problem. The role of the board has also appeared in a bad light. Did anyone who really really represents the project as a whole step in to play the role of mediator with a shred of credibility? No.
A LOT of repairwork needs to be done sometime soon to re-build the wreckage that once was a cross-distribution community.
Let's clear some things up. As Michl mentioned in his announcement, he did talk to the teams involved. In fact, what happened was that we, the Board, brought together representatives from each team to a meeting just before the decision was announced. The decision was already made by the time the announcement was made, and in hindsight that is regrettable. But, the focus of the meeting was specifically the intentions you have outlined. Both sides identified their perceptions and feelings and we opened up a great dialogue. This discussion is by no means completed and we intend to further this discussion at the openSUSE Conference coming up in Nuremberg this month. I believe from this meeting, we achieved greater understanding of each other. It was clear from everyone present that we all want to work together in a more harmonious way that supports the success of each Desktop Environment on openSUSE. I do not support the notion that the aftermath of this decision was truly destructive in the way you imply. Specifically, because it forced us all to look within ourselves and where we see ourselves within the project. We do have a long ways to go, but I do not believe the road has a steep incline and we will get there in the very near future. The decision has been made, and there is nothing presently that will reverse that decision. Our energy and focus must be on the future and how we can be true brothers and sisters in the Project. Spending our time ranting and criticizing the decision itself is no longer productive and is counterproductive to the long-term goals we all have of making openSUSE a success. Do I agree with the decision itself? No. Do I want to spend time criticizing it? No. I want to spend time rebuilding and making us stronger than ever. So let's move on. And if you're going to the openSUSE Conference, I look forward to your participation in this discussion. -- Bryen Yunashko openSUSE Board Member GNOME-A11y Team Member www.bryen.com (Personal Blog) www.planet-a11y.net (Feed aggregator of the Accessibility Community) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org