-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > During the Edgy > cycle we tried a more open, community approach to the artwork and it failed > miserably.
I see this pop up from time to time, and I would like once again to address it. First, some people push hard for changes and some wriggle like little devils against them. Agendas. Second, why did it fail? Did anyone actually stop and analyze that? This debacle is no better nor any worse. It has the _exact_ same point of failure. Third, by 'failing miserably' one might ask 'to whom'. How is our current result any different? Perspective is a relative thing. The failure of anything during that cycle was a direct byproduct of inattentive steering by the individual that matters most. I suppose that someone had unrealistic expectations for Edgy. Perhaps we all have unrealistic expectations for Ubuntu as a whole. I can see no better way for a community to prove itself (after all, who really should listen to a crop of people with nothing more than opinions and hot air behind their views) than to go out and create work. There are _many_ free software projects that are just dying for help and support on the art and design front. Maybe all of this 'furor' over the default wallpaper and the state of Ubuntu design would be better vented out by helping out the projects that so deeply desire the help? In doing so, perhaps we can all learn a little bit more about the extremely complex mechanics behind operating system evolutionary design. Sincerely, TJS -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG+LLWar0EasPEHjQRAik/AKCm1gHN6bYy2ZshXQiZl1qWhkAHMQCgq9s7 +zLLqQ2vH69pgZPlGoee3tU= =0zg+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
