[Compcomm] Our problems?

[Danny Baumann]

Hi,

> May I point at the topic of this mail? In what ways did you actually
> refer to that? If you have a problem with Mike you should use private
> mails to discuss that. It would be nice if you could constructively
> react on the topic's questions instead of nitpicking on whatever seems
> to be not 100% perfectly explained. Would that be possible?

Not as long Mike prefers to publically insult people. If Mike has a
problem with Dennis, he should use private mails, too. I just explained
why Dennis (and me, and other people, too) show up rarely on this ML
lately. 

>From my point of view, the problems already were discussed at length. To
answer your points: 

> - The merged project suddenly got a much bigger scope than it originally
> should have ("project enhancing compiz and maybe creating other
> compositing apps" VS. "hub for compositing apps, combined forum for
> everything that comes")

Quinn's mail should answer that ;-)

> - Some people continously prove to be not capable of ensuring a
> professional way of handling things (in technical areas) which likely
> will make a joined project lose its credibility (when compared to
> compiz). Only one example: "one-man-show"-actions whenever certain
> admins get angry about things and start dropping/replacing forums
> without asking the whole team

I partly agree here. I am annoyed about nesl247's behaviour as you are, and I believe we need to take care of that. But I also think it's no showstopper for us.
About the vB forum: It's just invisible, but isn't dropped - that's a huge difference ;-)

> - Circumstances concerning NOT using the compiz-name for a "possibly
> lightweight-DE-like" project have changed ... it would be ok now, so all
> this (original) naming-issues should be gone anyway. Names like "compiz
> fusion" were originally well accepted by many people, now the "compiz"
> in the name is yet again a problem (btw:95% of end-users say they don't
> care about a name)

The name proposal "Compiz Fusion" should take care of that.

> - Lack of a clearly structured management (which were proposed several
> times) and clearly separated responsibilities

I can't remember a management proposal - can you point me to that? I agree about the responsibilities, however.

> - Compiz.org was said to be kept/extended (in our original definition of
> what the re-unification should include), now it is apparently to be
> dropped/replaced by some unstable and rushed "alternative" without any
> clear goal, roadmap or identity

Again, see Quinn's post, I agree to a surprisingly ( ;-) ) large extent to it.

> - Continous approaches of misinformation among innocent users to create
> a wrong picture of the "other side"

The "other side" does more than enough to light the fire for that ;-)
I really appreciate that you (=RYX) tried hard to avoid inflammatory language and insults lately, but ... yeah, you know what and who I have problems with ;-)

> And maybe you could inform all those people on irc who have more
> "important" things to do with their time than discussing our project's
> future to join here and answer the question, too? That'd be nice.

Ahem, I think you don't need cynism. :-/
Actually, I think those people who have something new to say will do
without me telling them to do so. I think the number of readers on this
ML by far outnumbers the number of writers due to the well-known
reasons.
If someone doesn't show up here whenever a decision and/or important
discussion is to be made, it's his own fault.

Regards,

Danny