hi; On 5 February 2014 20:03, Alexander GS <[email protected]> wrote: > It's 2014 and not 1999.
this is pretty much the only thing that you and I agree on. sadly, from different angles. > GNOME desperately needs a new better way of doing things or they risk > becoming irrelevant in the technology industry and community. so your idea, which would reduce fragmentation by reincorporating other projects, is to go back at doing exactly what we were doing before? I hope you can see the cognitive dissonance hidden in this whole thing, especially the four basic issues that your idea does not take into consideration. in short: "let's go back doing what GNOME 2.x did (which does not take into consideration that doing so proved to be unsustainable to the point that the people that were doing it decided), and MATE and Cinnamon will cease to exist (which doesn't take into consideration the fact that both MATE and Cinnamon *want* to do something of their own while starting off from the GNOME code base, and that reintegration at this point would mean abandonment), and at the same time we can do experimentations (i.e. the current GNOME 3.x) on the side (which does not take into consideration the fact that the people that do work on GNOME already decided what to work on years ago)". on top of this, you're assuming that the Foundation can dictate the technological direction of the project, or that it can allocate resources — both assumptions being unfounded in reality. I'm sorry you don't like the direction of GNOME. this does not mean you get to decide where the project should go just because you don't like it. ciao, Emmanuele. -- W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi/ _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
