Icon naming spec: generic binary MIME type icon?

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Friday 05 December 2008, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 10:26 +0100, Jakob Petsovits wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 December 2008, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> > > It is maintained. And I am very easily contacted.
> >
> > You might consider to reply to the original post in this thread.
> > I believe the lack of feedback about past proposals contributes a major
> > portion to the (perceived?) maintenance and communication problems.
>
> I have replied to that mail now. Your reply would have been sufficient
> if you hadn't made derogatory remarks about the maintainership of the
> spec, and gnome-icon-theme. The fact is that gnome-icon-theme has
> nothing to do with the spec, other than that it uses it. There are
> plenty of icons in it, which aren't in the spec, and shouldn't be. I
> do however maintain it, as well as Tango, along with the artists working
> on them. I can't exactly have the artists experiment with metaphors and
> icon names in themes which I don't control, very easily, now can I?

It sounds like you have a lot on your plate. Would it make sense to find 
someone to help you out with the maintainership of it? That could certainly 
take some of the pressure off of you and increase the bus count significantly. 
That would be seem to be an all around win, and perhaps a way to avoid future 
issues such as this one.

Reading through the thread again, it seems really unfortunate and a pretty 
clear sign that some adjustments in process would be useful for everyone's 
blood pressure.

Forking, which was suggested, would be mildly rediculous, especially since a 
spec is only truly valuable if there is a version we can all agree on. As a 
member of one of the projects that relies on the specification, however, I have 
to say that this thread and how it was handled worries me. I'd be much more 
comfortable with either a co-maintainer or a new maintainer. I think that 
decision rests with Rodney first, however.

> When initially working on the spec, I made several changes to make the
> spec fit better with KDE.

Which was and is appreciated, just in case that gets lost in all of this.

In this case, the topic was LXDE, of course.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Software

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20081205/e233137e/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20081205/e233137e/attachment.pgp