Hello Everybody, On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Gerald B. Cox <gbcox@xxxxxx> wrote: > 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. QupZilla does not use KDE based technologies, it uses Qt technologies, KDE is using Qt technologies, but Qt doesn't use KDE's. It integrates better, but so does Chromium. > 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. Even if QupZilla used KDE based technologies (it does not), the compelling reason is add-ons and extensions, most people I know use them. > > 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. > I argued above that Qupzilla is just like Chromium and Firefox for the mission statement, all don't go against it, because there is no supported KDE browser. The SIG should provide new users with the best experience possible out of the box, and most users want Firefox or Chrome, one of the main reason is trust, another one is extensions. Some people want to use the browser only for browsing, but most people want extensions. Regards Mustafa Muhammad _______________________________________________ kde mailing list kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
