Hi. i've been thinking for the past few days about some ideas for our Grand Unified Desktop Environment. :-) Here they are, and they are just that, ideas. i would be very grateful if everyone interested would jump in.
To me, the underlying question is: should we implement Mechanism, or Policy ? IOW, i think there are two paths: 1. Mechanism: we agree on a clear set of standards under which contributions to our Unified Desktop are to be built. Everyone is welcome to contribute, and our community's role is to only determine that external contributions are compatible with the agreed upon standards. - Advantage: the current model does not change much, other than formalizing and defining our much-needed consistency. contributors are free to continue their current operating model, under the known premise that contributions incompatible with the Standard will "bring shame on all of us because we can't seem to get our act together". this is a very loosely-coupled, decentralized model, and it assumes all participants follow the "honor" model (i.e. we promise our contributions won't break BC, filesystem locations and so on). - Disadvantage: there is no guarantee of universal acceptance of, or adherence to, these standards, which would quickly lead us back to where we are now. 2. Policy: in addition to defining the standards, we also implement and enforce them. this would probably require the creation of a Debian/Ubuntu/SuSE-style project. - Advantages: we achieve the goal of consistency and compatibility, since everything is tightly controlled. this is a tightly-coupled, centralized model. - Disadvantages: it carries the perception of a less friendly approach, and it could prove socially difficult to put in practice, because it requires the willingness to compromise, and to acknowledge that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". these are just my thoughts. what do you think ? --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman stefan.teleman at gmail.com
