On Thursday 09 July 2009, Sanel Zukan wrote: > > * if we do take into account other projects, who are already involved > > here such as XFCE/LXDE/Enlightenment, then we probably need to find a way > > to weight things so it's still representative (similar to how it's common > > to have a House of Representatives where each state/province/canton gets > > a # of seats relative to population size). how it should be weighted is > > probably a pretty lengthy discussion, and still doesn't take into > > consideration future changes. in any case, it could be as simple as > > saying that "XFCE, LXDE, Enlightenment, etc." represent one bloc in > > equality to KDE and GNOME, and a spec needs 2/3 blocs with no bloc > > registering an objection. regardless of the actual weighting, the > > measuring is easy as long as we document acceptance in a machine-readable > > format. so the weighing would be light weight as a process, but coming up > > with how to weigh will not be. > > IMHO this sucks. E.g. if XFCE, LXDE, Enlightenment and XYDesktop comes > with needed (and pretty cool, at least for them) spec, KDE says "maybe" > and GNOME says "no" (due policy or something else), then spec does down.
How about assigning a number of weight - or call it votes if you want - to each desktop (e.g. KDE/GNOME have a weight of 2, other desktops are 1), and instead of requiring a majority you just require a certain total weight (e.g. 4) to be reached. Examples: KDE+GNOME = 2+2 = 4 = pass GNOME+XFCE = 2+1 = 3 = not yet pass GNOME+XFCE+Enlightenment = 2+1+1 = 4 = pass XFCE+LXDE+Enlightenment+XYDesktop = 4*1 = 4 = pass That's still a significant hurdle for niche-desktop-only specs, but if four niche desktops agree on something then there must be something to it either. _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
