[Compcomm] The Next Step

[Mike Dransfield]

Will Farrington wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 01:01 +0100, Mike Dransfield wrote:
>   
>> Will Farrington wrote:
>>     
>>> On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 00:31 +0100, Mike Dransfield wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Since its just a change of domain name, can we discuss who will
>>>> own this domain?
>>>>
>>>> I am not happy about anyone except David being in control of the
>>>> 'official' domain for obvious reasons.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> It still really does not explain why we have to change domains,
>>>> forum name and possibly logo for.  It seems like a lot of extra effort
>>>> and expense for not a lot of gain.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Because it was agreed a long while back that this would allow us to have
>>> a neutral forum for the merged project that wouldn't have all the
>>> ambiguity and confusion that two separate forums would. Furthermore,
>>> there's a good backlog of information on the Beryl forum that really
>>> ought to be preserved if for nothing more than the poor kid who has Z
>>> issue and someone posted Y fix a long time ago on the Beryl forum.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Neutral from what / who exactly?  Compiz?  David?
>>     
>
> >From the extremists on both sides. Neutral from the idea of "This is
> Compiz land; this is Beryl land" sort of ideology that seems so popular
> any more.
>
>   
>> Preserving posts from the beryl forum is not an argument
>> for creating an entirely new one.  We can copy over posts if thats
>> what you want.
>>     
>
> We could, with vBulletin, yeah. However, it's hardly fair in terms of
> trying to compromise with the Beryl team if we just tell them "Okay, so
> you come code for us, and we'll just suck your entire site into ours and
> call it a day, okay?" Trust me, as much as I'd like to pretend that day
> exists, this is a merger and we need to be open to the concept of
> compromise. We're speaking about simply changing a domain name and
> hosting it on its own dedicated server (for bandwidth reasons). It's not
> as if I'm suggesting we do something completely unreasonable.
>
>   
>>>> I thought the discussion about what we actually require was productive
>>>> and helpful but for some reason people keep demanding we change
>>>> names (yet again).
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> I'm not demanding anything other than what's already, as far as I know, been agreed upon to begin with.
>>>   
>>>       
>> The agreement on what we agreed to change the name of
>> has always been hard to define.
>>     
>
> Perhaps the Compiz administration and the Beryl administration needs to
> have a sit-down in IRC and clarify some of this stuff?
>
> Perhaps a private IRC chat for them with the promise that minutes will
> be available once the discussion is done?
>
>   
>> There has never been a straight answer about what we are changing
>> the name of or for what reason.  This is why I am very skeptical, it
>> sounds to me like the same sort of logic that was used to justify the
>> fork originally.
>>     
>
> Come now - being a long-dedicated Compiz member I'm certainly not advocating something like forking the project. I really don't think this is that unreasonable.
>
>   

This is exactly how I think it will go...

Compiz forums -> renamed coco
Coco releases plugins under coco name
People believe they are installing coco not compiz
Cries from kids about how compiz teh suck and coco teh rock
People do not think David is right and so add extra patches to compiz
core with coco
Coco becomes branch
Coco becomes fork
Repeat again and again

People only want to ditch the compiz name so that they can feel better
about all the lies they told which put us in this situation.

I wanted to build a stable base for the community but I have given
up on that idea, people seem to want to keep making decisions based
upon what appeals most to the public rather than whats right.

Personally I think its becoming a farce.