[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       freedesktop-xdg
Subject:    Re: Bringing fdo.org to the next level
From:       Ely Levy <elylevy-xserver () cs ! huji ! ac ! il>
Date:       2005-04-15 13:31:14
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.56.0504151630380.22910 () wrath ! cs ! huji ! ac ! il
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Jasper Huijsmans wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 02:59:32PM +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 14:35 +0200, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> >
> > [CUT]
> >
> > > Yes, and then they all agree on something and make a powerpoint presentation
> > > to tell everyone else and then the discussion will start from the start again
> > > because everyone who wasn't involved finds flaws in the proposal, just
> > > doesn't like it, doesn't understand the reasoning for decissions and think
> > > it's all motivated by the hidden agenda of company BigFooBar.
> >
> > What about letting these discussions happen first. And then let the
> > people of such a board make decisions based on what can be learned from
> > the discussions?
> >
> > If a lot people disagree with the decision of the board, a new meeting
> > can be setup to make a new decision. Until it's proven that the board
> > members are incapable of producing a good proposal (and therefor should
> > be reelected) or until a consensus is reached.
> >
> > In stead of letting the board decide on a certain issue first, and then
> > let discussions start.
> >
> > That way, I'm guessing it would be more predictable what the reasons for
> > declining the decisions of the board will be.
> >
> >
> > > Not to mention the inability of a project like KDE to agree on which person(s)
> > > would be suitable to represent KDE, the unwilingness of those persons to
> > > commit to such a board position and the months of discussion that that
> > > process would take.
> >
> > Humble.. I didn't know that. Given the fact that the team of KDE
> > developers produce high quality software, I honestly thought that such
> > things within the KDE community are well organised.
> >
> >
> > ps. Persons who are unwilling to commit to such a board position,
> > shouldn't have been elected for it in the first place.
> >
> >
> > > So no, I don't think that's a good idea.
> >
> > Ok :)
> >
>
> Let me just add a 'me neither' here.
>
> If you want the board to improve communication, that's a social problem and I
> don't see how choosing a formal board would improve that. You still require
> input from the relevant GNOME and KDE developers for everything. Trying to get
> more people involved from all (read: both ;-) camps is a good cause, though.
>
> If you want to improve decission making, that is certainly not going to work
> with a board, since the only way to agree on a standard is by the major
> players to implement it and the decission is therefore made within these
> projects, not by any board.
>
> The only way to improve standardization efforts is to get more involvement
> from the developers of GNOME and KDE, that is get them interested and get them
> to help out with the design and implementation. I really don't know how to do
> that, but creating a board is certainly not the answer.
>
> 	Jasper
> _______________________________________________
> xdg mailing list

I have a better question,
what is the harm in trying?
It's like writing code if it works it works and if not
we move on to next idea.

Ely

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]