Comment 325 for bug 532633

Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> This is a difference between Ubuntu and several other community
> distributions. It may feel less democratic, but it's more meritocratic,
> and most importantly it means (a) we should have the best people making
> any given decision, and (b) it's worth investing your time to become the
> best person to make certain decisions, because you should have that
> competence recognised and rewarded with the freedom to make hard
> decisions and not get second-guessed all the time.

I must respectfully say that this logic is a bit flawed. Isn't the best person to make any decision actually the original (upstream) developer? And if that's the case then sticking with their defaults should always be optimal. If you want to change their code, then you need be very proactive and persistent to sway their opinions.

However, even bringing the change up with upstream will probably seem quite rude. They have already chosen to paint their bikeshed blue, and you want it purple; but its their bikeshed. What gives you the authority to impose your views on their property? If you really want to paint their bikeshed, you should really demonstrate to a very good reason to do so (as yet unseen yet for the button change). On the contrary, you have asked the community for data to support upstream non-divergence, but the correct approach is for you to justify the divergence to upstream and the community.

On the other hand, if you try, they may happily adopt your viewpoint; they'll push the change, and it will eventually roll into an Ubuntu release.

As it stands now, this is the wrong way of going about this change.

Best wishes,