[Compcomm] My ideas (for the record)

[Danny Baumann]

Hi,

> > Other compositing managers were only a small part of what I was saying. 
> > What about Compiz plugins, Compiz settings managers, Compiz window 
> > decorators, and other bits that aren't good enough or otherwise don't 
> > deserve to be in the official Compiz distribution(s)? Compiz-Core 
> > developers have expressed frequent concerns about the quality of the 
> > design that comes before the code--something that they contend most 
> > plugins/decorators/extensions lack. It seems like a very exclusive and 
> > closed environment to me. I prefer something more inclusive and open.

I disagree with that one. At the beginning, it was a pretty closed
environment, but that situation has improved significantly over that
past months.

> You said David was not open to the community.  He worked hard
> to fix that.  Even now he says how he must spend more time
> helping plugin developers.  This was not good enough.

It was good enough at least for all Compiz plugin/extension developers I am aware of.

> You said, David will not accept our changes.  He worked hard
> with you to make those patches acceptable to EVERYBODY.
> That was not good enough.

It was good enough at least for all Compiz plugin/extension developers I
am aware of.

> You wanted to have a git repo, so David took time out to fix that.
> This was not good enough.

For the obvious reasons (no git+ssh support, no proper working
gitweb)...BTW, it seems that it also wasn't good enough for you, or why
do you host your plugins at fd.o? I would also host it there if I
wouldn't host the on opencompositing.org, but I'm also not complaining
about people not using git.compiz.org.

> You said Compiz has no settings manager.  We worked VERY
> hard to make this possible, many different settings managers
> exist for Compiz.  This was not good enough.

Which one of them is still actively developed and maintained? Is there a
SINGLE one?

> You wanted total freedom over the plugins.  David handed them
> on a plate and said 'go for it'.  That was not good enough.

Can you explain that a bit more?

> You said 'compiz relies on gconf - we hate gconf', I wrote the ini
> plugin.  That was not good enough.

It's (after Patrick's patches that fixed a ton of mem leaks) good enough
to replace the gconf plugin. Who said it's not good enough?

> You wanted access to the core so you didn't have to send
> patches over the mailing list.  David handed out FDO accounts
> like sweets.  That was not good enough.

Who said that? Besides that, you're implying that people aren't worth
the FDO accounts they got. Can you elaborate a bit more on that?

> You want to be able to create your own sub projects and set
> your own goals.  We (finally) managed to come to some agreement
> on that, the details are not totally worked out, but I don't think
> there is anything that is unobtainable.  This is STILL not good
> enough.

Who said that?

> I think we have tried and tried to accommodate your wishes
> without stomping on others, what more do we have to do?

Stop misunderstanding and 'over-interpreting' people? 'We' === you in
that case.

Regards,

Danny