On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Ken Warner wrote:

> Your opinions need moderation and you need to be more inclusive rather than 
> exclusive.

This is our mailing list. It's not up to you to decide what needs
moderation here.

> The preferences of the developers should always be secondary to the
> preferences of the user community

No, and there's a 1000 page long argument for that "no" called "Atlas shrugged".

Besides you are (dis)missing the whole point of having a usability
architect in the project.

This is not about our preferences vs. user community's preferences. We
make decisions based on analysis of the needs by the target user
group. For that we study how they work, what they really need (which
is not always what they say they need) etc., write functional specs
and them implement them (time permitting).

So actually while we have the final saying, we happen to work for the
benefit of the target user group after all. Would you credit it? :)

Yes, you are free to question our approach. If you think that doing
whatever the community says is going to make an excellent product, I
personally encourage you to prove that by creating a more successful
rival image editor from scratch.

But so far telling people to bow down to wishes of non-contributors is
the worst encouragement ever.

> and where possible, compromise and optionality should be the operative 
> methodology.

GIMP is already packed with radio buttons and checkboxes. Fancy you
not having noticed that :)

> You are being stubborn.  That's unproductive.

If being decisive is called stubborn these days, then I _love_ being stubborn.

As for "unproductive", let's see you deliver a rival product first.
That's the only way of proving that your approach is more viable.
Everything else is just talking.

Alexandre Prokoudine
gimp-user-list mailing list

Reply via email to