Rex requested that I start a separate thread on this if I believed it warranted further discussion. I believe it does. I believe that the current voting proposal currently underway for the selection of default browser does not align with the mission statement of the Fedora KDE SIG.
Below is the text of my previous message which was attached to the initial voting results. I understand that some voting has yet to be completed - but unless I am mistaken this isn't suppose to be a vote about browser personal preference. It is suppose to be a vote about which browser aligns with the published mission of the KDE SIG.
=========================================
Thanks very much Rex for posting this so quickly. I would be interested in understanding
the reason people voted the way they did. The issue IMO is that normally, when selecting
a default you have well defined criteria for making the decision. This assists in making sure
that everyone is on the same page and is making an objective decision. For example, as I
mentioned before I'm a big proponent of all things Chrome - but even if the Chromium that
exists in the Fedora repository was in a state that what I would consider stable (it's not, IMO)
I would still choose qupzilla in this instance. It fits into what I believe would be the mission
of the KDE spin. Obviously, there is an extreme disconnect between what I believe the mission
to be, and the opinion of others. I believe the lack of clarity is causing friction. There can be
a big difference between personal preference and adherence to a defined mission. From the
wiki:
"The KDE SIG (Special Interest Group) is a group of Fedora contributors that maintain KDE packages in Fedora.
Their mission is to provide high-quality, usable KDE software packages to Fedora users and developers and to
support one another in maintaining those packages."
Granted, qupzilla is not an official KDE project, but it is definitely using KDE based technologies.
That tells me that all things considered, if there is a browser that uses these technologies, and is
functional - that it should be favored over other contenders - unless there is a complelling reason.
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see that "compelling reason". Personal preference
does NOT outweigh a mission statement.
What am I missing here? From an outsider looking in, it appears that everyone is voting based
upon different criteria and not adhering to the mission statement. Voting members have a
responsibility to be consistent and objective.
Mission statements exist to provide clarity, direction and to hold decision makers accountable.
_______________________________________________ kde mailing list kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
