Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Aug 2012 21:04 UTC, submitted by suka
Gnome In a recent interview with the Austrian newssite, GNOME designer Jon McCann talks about GNOME OS, the consequences of Canonical leaving GNOME behind, the purported removal of features and the future role of Linux distributions. "I think there was a time when GNOME had kind of a crisis, we didn't know where we wanted to go, we were lacking goals and vision - that was the end of the GNOME2 cycle. So we pulled together and formed a vision where we want to go - and actually did something about it. And now we have been marching on that plan for quite some time."
Thread beginning with comment 531820
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Not so fluffy at all
by mat69 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not so fluffy at all"
Member since:

The problem is the way of communicating things.
In the link I posted it is mentioned that it took quite a while with a lot of discussions, reviews etc. before the feature was taken in.
And I think this is a sensible way for introducing new stuff.

And now it is taken out without even discussing the issue with its author and even worse ignoring the author's and the other's questions, remarks etc.

"We hate it" is for sure the best attitute to improve something...

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Not so fluffy at all
by Hiev on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 19:39 in reply to "RE[4]: Not so fluffy at all"
Hiev Member since:

One of the links say:

> Design work requires conversation, closeness, and contact. You need to
> build a relationship with the problem, the users, the stakeholders,
> the developers, and ultimately with the product. These relationships
> must be durable.

I *absolutely* agree, and this is why I am concerned with the current

Saying that they don't care has no base at all, since the contrary is expressed in the same links you provided and also goes beyond explained the flaws of real time communication:

Let me be clear: real-time communication has a role. But it fails in
three key points:
* There is no record of the culture for newcomers and other members of
the community to consult (and no, I don't think logging IRC is
sufficient - can you imagine suggesting that someone read the IRC logs
for a month to get a feel for why certain decisions were made?)
* There is no clear way for a newcomer to contact the team, or to know
who the individuals in the team are (related to the lack of a record)
* If you're not in the room, you completely miss out on any opportunity
to influence the conversation

So, don't come here to tell me they don't care, one thing is not to agree and other not to care.

Now, about the "Staring into the abysm" article, that one is aready debunked with the topic of this thread and with the number of attendes in the lates GUADEC.

Edited 2012-08-22 19:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Not so fluffy at all
by mat69 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 20:02 in reply to "RE[5]: Not so fluffy at all"
mat69 Member since:

I fail to see what your reply has to do with my post.

The person who's feature got taken out is not a newcomer to gnome at least to his own account -- I am not familiar with the gnome devs.

I also did not say that none cares.
Obviously the person who wrote the blog entry I linked to cared, as well those who responded to his enquire. Though as far as I understood none involved in the decision to take the feature out answered.

Yet at least one of these persons still spreads in the public that the code was bad without any prove.

How does that fit together?

Edited 2012-08-22 20:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Not so fluffy at all
by _txf_ on Thu 23rd Aug 2012 08:02 in reply to "RE[5]: Not so fluffy at all"
_txf_ Member since:

So, don't come here to tell me they don't care, one thing is not to agree and other not to care.

It should be noted that the individual that made those points isn't one of the developers heavily involved with the "new gnome vision". He wrote that because the developers who *are* make decisions unilaterally, leave no records and don't accurately justify their reasoning to the wider community...

Reply Parent Score: 3