| From: Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> | Seems frustrations are mounting: | "On policykit and standards" | http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/polkit-devel/2009-May/000119.html [I'm an outsider. This thread is my introduction to the whole area. I'm not even a KDE user.] This certainly does not look like a healthy approach to standardization and cooperation. - the http://cgit.freedesktop.org/PolicyKit/tree/docs/PORTING-GUIDE appears clearly biased towards GNOME, even though its URL and title suggest universality: the first substantial line talks about polkit-gobject-1 (I *think* that gobject means GNOME object) - in a well-constituted standards process (not a de facto standard), stakeholders are consulted before changes are made. It looks as if KDE folks have been stakeholders and have not been allowed to even sign-off on the design, let alone participate in it. - for good reason, the normal output of a standardization process is a document, not code. There appears to be no complete documentation. - all stakeholders ought to be treated respectfully and equitably. That means, for example, KDE ought not the be second to GNOME. More particularly, the architectures should be open-ended, allowing for more than KDE and GNOME. See, for example, http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeroOneInfinityRule I admit that my reactions may be ill-founded. Perhaps this is meant to be an example of "We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code" (The IETF approach, as phrased by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Clark ) Even the IETF does have votes (but only of those in the room at the time). -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
