On 03/12/11 01:38, Jonathan Gartner wrote: > Disregarding any portion of the 20 million you > (claim) to have, for the promise of a theoretical 180 million seems to > me a be a very dangerous game to play for a fledgling company.
If you take a look at Sebastien's analysis of bug statistics, you'll see we've fixed 16 bugs for every 1 we've declined to fix. That's amazing. Given that it's well established that one cannot create a great product if you try to be all things to all people, don't you accept that there will be some suggestions and opinions we should not pursue? And would 1 in 16 be about right? Or is it too low? Or too high? On what basis would you make that assessment? If you agree that there should of necessity be some bugs we will not fix, who do you think should decide which of those suggestions or wishlist items should be in, and which should be out? Don't you think the underwriters, designers and developers of the project should have that right? That this will result in the best product? If it's not them, who should it be? Say it's 1 in 16. Accepting that we have 20 million users, many of whom are strongly opinionated about technical matters, would you expect to see a lot of traffic on those few issues which, for whatever reason, are wontfix? I would. In the light of all that, is the fact that there are a very few bugs which are wontfix, and which have a great deal of noise about them, so surprising? Is it really a sign of a poor community engagement? Would a poor community engagement not rather be hallmarked by a total silence from me and others? Instead, you have: * more activity on the public Ubuntu and Unity design lists than on any other free software project design * greater responsiveness on bugs (in the sense of participating in the discussion, not automatically saying yes) than elsewhere * participation by me, other designers, and senior engineers * a very high ratio of bugs fixed, relative to other free software projects Now, in that light, you are welcome to draw your own conclusions. My conclusion is that we have a dramatically open process, a healthy debate and discussion, and an equally healthy mechanism for making decisions and putting them into action, which is what the free software community needs. The tagline for the founding of Ubuntu was "Linux for Human Beings". That was startling at the time because it said precisely the opposite of what you are suggesting; it said that the average human being is more important to us than those who Linux has served in the past; those are the values that attracted the people who actually build Ubuntu - all of it, from Unity through the server release and Kubuntu and Edubuntu. You are welcome in this community, but not welcome to redefine its mission to suit your needs. Mark -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882274 Title: Community engagement is broken To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/882274/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
