Fwd: Summary of the fdo disussion at GCDS
daengbo at gmail.com
Fri Jul 10 23:11:30 PDT 2009
Why not have two levels of specification: experimental and official?
Official specs are hosted at FD.o and can implement a
backwards-compatible freedesktop.org interface, while experimental
specs are hosted by the maintainer and can't use the freedesktop.org
name. Instead of this ( http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications
) format, use a table with columns for the spec (with link), status
(official or experimental), and for the implementation in each DE or
WM ( complete, in-process, planned, deprecated, or not planned). This
table will make clear how much current and planned implementation
exists in the community.
Which DEs are represented and how does a spec become official? That's
up for discussion, but I suggest a board with voting privileges, as
Initially open the board to a representative from each DE or WM which
wants to participate. The criteria for inclusion should be interest,
not the size of the project. Which person represents each DE/WM and
how that person is chosen is up to the individual project. The process
of selection is not FD.o's concern. Interested DEs/WMs have a set time
to select the representative (maybe one month) before the initial
board is constructed.
Once the board is set, new members can be added by two supporting
votes (or majority, whatever) by existing members. Specs are promoted
to official status by a motion, second, and majority vote (non-voting
members don't count toward the majority. Projects which fail to vote
for two or three successive votes lose membership. Projects can change
representatives at any time, and projects which lose membership can
lobby for re-inclusion using the new members' method.
Because FD.o's specification page shows a more descriptive than
prescriptive role, the official or experimental status of a spec
becomes a little less important than it does now, but becoming an
official spec will be a simple process. Specs need to have version
numbers, and these version numbers need to be broken out on the wiki
page. At any point in time, for example, some DEs may implement the
experimental version of the spec but not the later, official version,
that support being planned, and this information should be easily
discernible. DE/WM reps should probably be given write access to this
page and the responsibility of keeping the project information up to
Of course, whatever rules there are need to be spelled out in a charter.
Just my 20 Korean won.
More information about the xdg