On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 11:51:25AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 05:34:31AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote: > >> > On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 01:47:48PM +0100, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller > >> > wrote: > >> > So who do we expect to provide those engineering resources? We seem to > >> > agree that those general users are, in many cases, the developers and > >> > enthusiasts that we expect to support, so we need to ensure that there's > >> > development effort put into ensuring that the desktop experience itself > >> > is compelling. > >> > >> I expect the vast majority of our engineering resources to come from Red Hat. > > > > Red Hat will be committing engineering resources to support the general > > user desktop? > > > >> > The list of use cases is supposed to define the sets of users that we'll > >> > consider during development. We agree that the needs of the general > >> > desktop user are important and have to be considered during development, > >> > which means that it's a supported use case. Which obviously means it > >> > should be enumerated in the set of use cases. > >> > >> I disagree, it is meant to enumerate the areas we give special focus during development. Adding a 'catch all' usecase > >> like 'general users' doesn't help anyone do anything. > > > > I don't think you understand what "use case" means. It's the set of ways > > that people can use our system that we wish to support. We wish to > > support users who aren't actively engaging in development and who aren't > > CS students, so they should be included in the set of use cases that we > > support. > > We've reached a stalemate on this. > > On the one hand we have a case that aims Workstation at becoming a > development environment for a broad set of possible software. On the > other we have one that places importance on general desktop usage. > Neither of them are actually conflicting with each other in any way > other than whether the latter is implicit in the former. > > It seems we have a trust issue here. There's a lack of trust that a > development focused Workstation can possibly be generally usable while > also solving problems for the developer set. There's a lack of trust > that resources will be put forward where necessary. And there's a > complete lack of faith that other contributors and upstreams can fill > the role of developing applications and such for the general use case. > > I can't solve this, but the (agonizingly delayed) back and forth going > on right now is not lending itself to actually accomplishing anything > at all. If we don't set a direction soon, and have faith that people > won't have their heads up their collective arses and hold myopic views > of "targets", then we're going to continue to languish. > > We have a deadline for the PRD coming up in about a week. I'd like to > actually have something to present to FESCo. Can we please either > agree to trust each other or barring that call for a vote on one of > the current draft PRDs? Members of the Workstation WG really need to > speak up here. I hope it's not my mail client acting up, but it looks like no replies here from WG members. I'd like to explicitly say I for one trust that those expecting (and expected) to do a majority of the work do care about the general use case. And I'd expect many, and perhaps most, of the things that improve by focusing on a good experience for developers will also benefit general users. Personally I'm a lot more like the latter than the former, which is why I want to trust the contributors to do the right thing. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
