On 21/12/11 14:36, SRoesgen wrote:
> As I said before Mark Shuttleworth said more or less directly that
> some features will never be implemented. And this is crap.
Please. It's free software - you can fork it. We *do* have the right,
and the need, so exercise discretion.
> I can understand that one says:"we do not have the manpower". I can
> understand the answer "not now, there is not time for this". or the
> answer "at the moments there will emerge too many bugs".
Those things are true, too.
> But there are people here who would help to code patches to make the
> initial steps possible (and yes, I know, there would be need for
> somebody who maintains these patches, which would be the next
> problem). And telling them:"we do not want you and your help and we do
> not want your patches because Unity will never ever include that
> feature", that is a behaviour I cannot stand.
That's not what we're saying. There are *hundreds* of patches that come
in exactly as you describe. Please exercise some judgement and recognise
that your claims of ignorance / obstinacy / arrogance / stupidity on my
part don't gel with the facts: many bugs fixed, many opinions debated
and discussed, many patches accepted with kudos and appreciation.
Recognise that it's rude to put your own pet peeve above those of
everybody else. And then please stop being rude.
Any project which is afraid to decline a feature or a patch is doomed.
We're not interested in being doomed :-)
> Ubuntu became what it is today by and through the community.
That's half the story.
Ubuntu became what it is today by being opinionated. Making choices: one
cd, one release cadence, one mail client (at a time ;-)). All of those
choices were unpopular with somebody; but that's how Ubuntu stepped away
from the crowd. Others have followed, but that opinionated leadership is
*essential* to Ubuntu's success.
When you say that every patch should be accepted you are also suggesting
that every package should be included and every option supported. You
are arguing for failure, and your argument will not carry.
Ubuntu also became what it is today because of the incredible commitment
of people at Canonical. The community is a partner, not an owner or a
moral superior. Folk at Canonical are part of the community too, if you
want to think of it like that. Harrassing and dividing us form one
another is not a helpful or appreciated contribution.
> And telling a part of this community that the ship is now heading down
> the river into a new direction and that everybody who does want
> adjustments to the current course has to jump from board and board a
> different ship, that is not very kind and very grateful to those who
> have invested much of their private, spare time to help the community
> to grow.
This ship is heading down this river into a new direction. I hope you'll
stay aboard. It will be fun: we are taking free software where it has
never been before:
* we introduced design, and built Unity, which has been well copied
elsewhere but continues to lead
* we will bring free software to the tv, tablet, phone, where you can
enjoy it and share it
* we invest millions and give the result away, asking little in return
* we support the efforts of teams that bring wholly different
experiences from other projects to their users, building on the common core
That's a lot to be proud of. And we are proud of it.
> I did never talk about Unity being bad or crap. I like it. I did not
> talk of changing the course, I only see the need for adjustments,
> instead of changes. But every time you start to criticize the design
> decisions you are treated as an enemy to the whole project.
Oh nonsense. We have no enemies. There are only people with whom it is
pleasant and useful and constructive to engage, and those with whom it
is not. Any two people will differ on more than they agree upon. We
cannot build a community around the idea that we should all be agreed on
everything; it would be a community of one. So what matters is how we
disagree, and round here, we do it on the basis of:
* recognising that decisions need to be taken and we have a framework
for taking them
* recognising that disagreements on a detail (and this is a detail) are
not grounds for hatred, divisiveness, or failure to collaborate on other
* recognising that the tone and language used for disagreement are
important to ensure we find our agreements fun too
Now, decisions and leaders can be wrong. They can be changed, or they
can change their minds. That's all normal and natural. What's NOT normal
and natural is turning a disagreement on a detail into a basis for
unpleasantness. If you cannot focus and contribute on the areas where we
are in perfect agreement, if you will allow a single disagreement to be
a thorn in your side and then turn into an unpleasant thorn in everybody
else's side, then this is not the best place to hang out. There are too
many details, too many changes, too many imperfections, and your
reaction will quickly tire you and others out.
We can and do ask people who don't understand that, or won't follow it,
to leave. That keeps the forum focused, productive, constructive.