Miloslav Trmač (mitr@xxxxxxxx) said: > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Miloslav Trmač wrote: > >> No, the intent was very much to change what the resulting desktop > >> prioritizes. Quite a few FESCo members would be rather disappointed > >> if the new Workstation ended up just an unchanged GNOME[1]. > > [snip] > >> [1] As opposed to any of 1) non-GNOME, 2) GNOME changed by Fedora, 3) > >> GNOME upstream changing. I don't know enough to say whether any of > >> these variants is generally preferred within FESCo. > > > > 2 features which would have changed that have been proposed over time: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KDE_Plasma_Desktop_by_default > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Cinnamon_as_Default_Desktop > > Both have been rejected by FESCo. > > Repeating myself, "I don't know enough to say whether any of these > variants is generally preferred within FESCo.". And I would argue that having the user interface swing wildly in design & implementation based on "the current composition of an elected board that is refreshed in part every six months" is not the sort of situation that Fedora would want to be in anyway. (Of course, if it was, that would add an entirely different feel to the elections. Vote now in next month's elections to bring on people to completely change the proposed product split? Candidates running on 23 products instead of 3?) Bill -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
