Emmanuele Bassi <eba...@gmail.com> wrote: ... >> This approach isn't new, and you can read more detail here: >> https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeOnlineAccounts/Goals >> > > I know the rationale. I never particularly agreed with it, because it felt > like an ex post rationalisation about not having third party modules, and > getting people to commit functionality upstream. ...
I don't think that was the reason. At least, it's not what's been on my mind, and I don't remember others putting that view forward. The main factor has always been about how we handle identity. If we give online accounts access to 3rd party apps, we're giving them access to the GNOME keys. They appear as "GNOME" to online providers and their access is bundled up with our own. As a result, we lose the ability to ensure that the GNOME keys are being used in accordance with providers' terms and conditions. >From a design perspective that's never been something we've wanted to do, both from a branding and identity perspective, as well as from a "oh shit we can't access Google any more, because some random app did something they didn't like". > What I'm objecting to is the wishy-washy approach of telling people: "Sure, > you can keep working on Documents, it's just not going to be installed any > more" without telling the whole story. > > If Documents is removed, then all the Documents integration within GNOME is > also removed, which means that the project *in its current incarnation* > should just be archived. People should be encouraged to fork it, if they find > it useful, and implement that integration inside Documents itself. This gives > the proper context and communicates the proper expectations to people willing > to maintain the Documents code base. If you think something can be done better, just suggest how it can be done better. Allan _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
