From kde-windows Mon Nov 08 11:27:02 2010 From: "Thomas Friedrichsmeier" Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 11:27:02 +0000 To: kde-windows Subject: Re: Rant: So you want help? Message-Id: <201011081227.06713.thomas.friedrichsmeier () ruhr-uni-bochum ! de> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-windows&m=128921566719061 MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--===============1450901351==" --===============1450901351== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1368814.QPMIqmfndg"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --nextPart1368814.QPMIqmfndg Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Friday 05 November 2010, Ralf Habacker wrote: > Am 5.11.2010 16:27, schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier: > >> The compiler discussion is old already, and it won't be solved any time > >> soon. So let's try to focus on the other problems first. > >=20 > > Yeah, I know, I'm late to the party. But BTW, if I'm not mistaken this = is > > another example of a discussion that should have been had on the list, > > instead of behind the scenes. >=20 > strong words - > http://dot.kde.org/2007/09/18/windows-developers-meet-berlin was the > place where this has been discussed - i did not see you there. Well, to elaborate a bit, I'll break this up into three sub-issues: 1) The timing. I wasn't even remotely connected to the KDE on Windows proje= ct=20 at that time. No matter how and where you would have discussed this, you wo= uld=20 not have seen me there. I *know* I am late to the party. And I can hardly=20 complain that you reached a decision at that time, and neither about which= =20 decision you reached, or why. I'm not trying to turn back time. 2) The "place" of discussion. Perhaps *at that time* the meeting in berlin= =20 really was a good place to decide on this. Perhaps it really allowed all=20 relevant people to be there, or at least to feel represented, there. I can'= t=20 comment on that. But I'll use strong wording again: In general, and for any= =20 community project, I find it presumptious to think that a physical meeting = is a=20 good place to reach a final decision on a core aspect like this (and one th= at=20 was not entirely uncontroversial, as far as I understand). Core strategical= =20 decisions may well be *discussed*, and *prepared* on a phyiscal meeting. A= =20 face-to-face meeting has obvious advantages for discussion. But attending a= =20 physical meeting means a large investment of time (and for most: money), an= d=20 for hobbyists with limited time, and those living far away, it is quite lik= ely=20 to be a prohibitively large investment. So if you want to allow these people to participate in decisions, then make= =20 sure the final words on core decisions are spoken in a forum that everybody= has=20 a real chance to participate in. The mailing list looks like an obvious=20 choice. Now, democracy is not the be all and end all in software development. For f= ree=20 software, in particular, "the ones who do the work are the ones to decide" = is=20 still a golden rule. Just keep in mind that clinging to this a little too=20 closely can easily end up in "the ones who decide are the only ones left=20 willing to do the work". Again, I am not trying to turn back the time. The decison has been made, an= d=20 perhaps *at that time* a physical meeting was an appropriate forum for that= =2E=20 But if you care about community partcipation, then please keep in mind that= =20 physical meetings (or IRC) may not always be the ideal forum for everything. 3) Documenting the decision. If it's a core strategical decision, and esp. = if=20 it keeps being brought up, then, by all means, make sure to document it=20 properly and visibly. I knew that the question of supporting multiple compilers in emerge was a n= on- negotiable issue - because I happen to have touched on that spike, earlier.= =20 And so I did not bring this up, again. I expected that the suggestion to release binaries for only one compiler wo= uld=20 be controversial. I did *not* know, or even expect that opinions are simila= rly=20 strong, and that the discussion is similarly dead on this topic. Well, eventually, I have been told. So I have attempted to document this at= =20 http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_on_Windows/FAQ#Multiple_compiler_suppo= rt=20 =2E Please take a look to make sure you are ok with the way I've tried to=20 summarize it. And so, whenever the next fool brings up this issue, and *as soon as* the n= ext=20 fool brings up the issue, you can point them to this FAQ, and save everybod= y=20 involved a whole lot of time and frustration. This fool, here, would have=20 appreciated being told about it on or around October, 12, for instance. Regards Thomas --nextPart1368814.QPMIqmfndg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkzX3ocACgkQEKRv+5DVNhg75ACePpEQTGjE2XQ4t58DYGDaacu6 ev8AoJKftTLZQv10ukQzz4BrpOUROtFi =Ftbp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1368814.QPMIqmfndg-- --===============1450901351== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Kde-windows mailing list Kde-windows@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-windows --===============1450901351==--