[compiz] The future of Compiz

[imnotpc]

> >>> If we only concentrate on making compiz stable then we will continue
> >>> to go down this path where we lose developers to more interesting
> >>> things. The 'experimental' branch is fundamental to our project,
> >>> because it adds the 'iz' in 'compiz'. With that kind of thing, that is
> >>> the way we really attract developers. Compiz is becoming more
> >>> irrelevant every day without it. When was the last time you saw
> >>> 'compiz' as a bullet point on a distribution release? When was the
> >>> last time you saw 'compiz' on the front page of digg?
> >>
> >> It is completely possible to have a stable environment without loosing
> >> innovation. You don't need to put up with undocumented and crappy
> >> "temporary" code to preserve innovation, but doing so will definitely
> >> hinder stability and developer motivation.
> >
> > I'm not saying that we shouldn't fix the project, just saying that
> > without the 'reasearch project' feel to developers, we're bound to
> > loose interest. Look at how many people have signed onto gnome-shell
> > and KWin for example.
>
> For  the research-project issue, consider this -- people went to Beryl
> for that feel yet we also kept on going w/ some kind of structure, and
> did get code out the door, I'm not saying we did things the best way
> possible, just saying, its possible to have your cake and eat it too
> here with careful management

Agreed. The old Compiz style was conservative and relatively stable, but not 
very interesting. The Beryl style was cutting edge and fun, but eventually 
the codebase became unmaintainable. There is a middle ground and we should 
find it. With git we can have it both ways as long as we have a reasonable, 
well enforced way of deciding what goes into a release branch. I'd like to 
see what Kristian comes up with.

While we're all holding hands around the campfire (please, no singing), this 
might be a good time to nail down a project management structure. It will be 
easier to do this now while there are no emotional issues in front of us. In 
particular we need an open decision making process that doesn't drag on 
indefinitely. I had drafted a few ideas back when we re-united. If there are 
no objections I can work on that.

I'd really like to hear the opinion of some of the other longtime 
devs/contributors on this thread. Guillaume? Dennis? Will? Jigish? Any other 
active contributors? I don't want to perpetuate the habit of individuals and 
small groups making decisions without the participation of the key 
contributors, but I have no interest in an organization with nonstop 
bickering either. Again, a middle ground should work here.

Jeff