On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Matthias Clasen wrote:
(3) How appropriate is it characterize opinions as belonging to the
Desktop Team versus individuals within that team? Far better for the
Art Team to have one set of positions and the Desktop Team to have
another set of positions, but to know that the collective members of
those teams all agree with the starting points. Then you can have
one conversation, as opposed to 7 or 8 individual ones.
You mean we need to pick our sides, elect speakers and clamp down on
dissenters ?
No, that's not what I meant. Just that it's useful for individual teams
to have a relatively agreed-upon vision of what they want when they
start talking to other teams, so that all of the individual
conversations that do happen are more or less starting from the same
place. There's nothing sinister or anti-community in that, it's just
basic common sense and teamwork, IMHO.
(5) What needs to be done to finally end this cycle of conversations
in a way that everyone can live with? We've been having the same
instance of this talk since Fedora 6/7 timeframe, and one way or
another, it has to end.
I don't agree with this at all. Conversation should not end. What must
end is the divisive 'us' vs. 'them' mentality. The conversion about
the goals and visions for the desktop and its art should continue. And
I will defend the freedom of anybody in my team to criticize the art,
just as everybody else is free to criticize what vt we choose to run X
on.
I agree with that. I'd like the conversation to move on to a new topic
after 4 releases or arguing about the background. :)
--Max
_______________________________________________
Fedora-art-list mailing list
Fedora-art-list@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-art-list
