[Compcomm] CompComm Digest, Vol 3, Issue 48

[Jupiter]

>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:47:36 +0100
> From: Mike Dransfield <mike at blueroot.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Compcomm] My ideas (for the record)
> To: Composite Community List <compcomm at Rock3d.org>
> Message-ID: <4675C818.9090805 at blueroot.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Jeffrey Laramie wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 June 2007 14:16, RYX wrote:
> >
> >> Am Sonntag, den 17.06.2007, 13:22 -0400 schrieb Jeffrey Laramie:
> >>
> >>> On Sunday 17 June 2007 11:27, Mike Dransfield wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Jeffrey Laramie wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Wait - wasn't the whole point of the merge the fact that
> >>>>>> Compiz-extra's and Beryl's Goals were very similar? Hmmm.... Can
> >>>>>> someone post these?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not sure what Mike is referring to here either. Mike? As far as
> I
> >>>>> know everyone supported the Compiz-Extra definition as the
> >>>>> description of our project. You can see an updated version of that
> >>>>> here:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://rock3d.org/index.php?section=8
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The packaging concepts have evolved since this was written, but the
> >>>>> idea to include and support other programs/projects has always been
> >>>>> part of the plans of both communities as far as I can tell.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Right, and we are working through this so that people
> >>>> can do whatever mad project they like with subdomains.
> >>>>
> >>>> So why is there a need for two communities to do the
> >>>> same thing but separatly?
> >>>>
> >>> Who is talking about 2 communities? I haven't seen anyone propose
> that.
> >>> As we all seem to agree, the compiz core doesn't need a community. I
> >>> think we all want one community that has the freedom to work on many
> >>> different projects. Right?
> >>>
> >> As far as I understood we want one community which focuses on compiz,
> >> compiz-plugins and compiz-related projects and enhancements. If someone
> >> wants to write a filemanager for windows we are likely the wrong
> >> community for him, so we should have some sort of scope or definition
> >> for what we want.
> >>
> >
> > We do. It should relate to Compiz in some way. This is the relevant
> > sentence: "The goal of the Composite Community division is to develop
> Compiz
> > related software and support the use of Compiz on all desktops."
> >
>
> In that case, why would compiz.org be such a mad domain
> to host these things?
>
> >
> >>> I don't have any objections to using subdomains other than a nagging
> >>> concern that that might cause additional fracturing of the community
> we
> >>> are trying so hard to bring together. Through the magic of DNS we can
> >>> make many different sites all appear to be part of the greater compiz
> >>> community, but does that make it so? I'm not sure. This is one of the
> few
> >>> cases on this list where I think more discussion is good.
> >>>
> >> That's an important point and I, personally, think we should host ALL
> >> sub-projects as sub-forums (under the category "Community
> Enhancements")
> >> on forum.compiz.org. They could maybe get their own header-images so
> >> they get a feeling of being their own project while keeping consistent
> >> with the whole look&feel
> >>
> >
> > I don't have any issues with this other than my concern about
> fragmenting the
> > community. Again, I'd like to hear more opinions on this idea.
> >
> >
> >> - I am sure that would be possible. We
> >> shouldn't continue this desperate way of splitting up everything into
> >> own projects with own websites. It doesn't help anyone, especially not
> >> the end-user ...
> >>
> >
> > What projects and websites are you talking about?
> >
> >
> >>>> My point is tht the compiz-extras definition was intentionally
> >>>> vague, but now we need to add some more details and try
> >>>> to combine forces to work in a directed way.  The definition
> >>>> covers a lot of things, but we need to add some order to the
> >>>> chaos (as everyone agrees).
> >>>>
> >>> Agreed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I think that its a great idea, but for some reason there is
> >>>> still no support.  Why do you think that is?
> >>>>
> >>> I think we have solid support for that definition of our project. The
> >>> disagreements revolve around which forum , which name, which domain
> >>> hosting option.
> >>>
> >>> Since we seem to be more in sync lately, what is your opinion on the
> >>> forums? You seem to be against using the opencompositing.org forum but
> I
> >>> don't remember why.
> >>>
> >> It's not directed at me, but I'd prefer if oc.org would become
> >> Guillaume's private compositing-focused chatting-community for people
> >> who just want to talk and compiz.org would become the place for
> >> helping/working/coding/developing with/on/for compiz, compiz-plugins
> and
> >> community enhacements to compiz. It would make most sense that way. The
> >> term "opencompositing" is something I can not identify very much
> >> with ... (compiz is the only thing that is compositing anything
> >> here :D ...)
> >>
> >
> > The opencompositing site is a temporary host for the community forum
> until we
> > select a new name and site. Nothing more. We've all agreed repeatedly
> that
> > Compiz-Core doesn't need a forum and we only need one community forum.
> >
> > Jeff
> > _______________________________________________
> > CompComm mailing list
> > CompComm at Rock3d.org
> > http://www.ubaight.com/mailman/listinfo/compcomm
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CompComm mailing list
> CompComm at Rock3d.org
> http://www.ubaight.com/mailman/listinfo/compcomm
>
>
> End of CompComm Digest, Vol 3, Issue 48
> ***************************************
>
The simple answer to your question as to why " why would compiz.org be such
a mad domain to host these things?". For the same reason that
beryl-project.org is and was not
acceptable to you. This is really what is  at the bottom of this issue. You
guy's didn't want
to join with beryl and, by the same token, beryl doesn't want to become
compiiz. So the
intent was to create a new community. A merger of equals on new ground. For
you to now
find this unacceptable is not right. For RYX to say "see you in 6 months"
doesn't show
anyone that he has any confidence in this new project "merger". It also
shows an attitude
of " my way or no way". Well if that is how he feels then why doesn't he
just walk away and
stop giving everyone else trying to make this merger work, a hard time. If
you guy's would
at least try and consider some of these issues with an open mind rather than
a my way or
no way attitude, it would really help.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.RiverGorgeSolutions.net/pipermail/compcomm/attachments/20070617/342a3cae/attachment-0002.htm>