Notification spec issue: Ability to assign an icon *and* an image to a notification

[Jeff Mitchell]

Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> On 06/25/2009 12:11 PM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
>> Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
>>>> The question is what's more important to you: is it backwards compatibility,
>>>> or is it equal treatment for all parties with all the community implications?
>>> Backwards-compat, definitely.  I'm sorry, but grow up.  We live in a
>>> world where things don't always work out as they should.
>> By this logic, you should be using Windows.  Microsoft takes on huge
>> burdens to maintain backwards compatibility (see an interesting blog
>> called The Old New Thing).  Sure, it's not the best OS out there, but
>> things don't always work out as they should.
> 
> There should be a form of Godwin's Law that describes how arguments can 
> devolve into "well then you should just use Windows."

Good point.  This thread has gone on long enough.  Your lack of
compromise on this matter is akin to the lack of compromise Hitler
displayed during his war campaign.  :-)

(My original point is still valid though.)

>>> If those certain developers can't handle not getting their way, then,
>>> frankly, I don't particularly care what they do or don't do.
>> Again, you boil this discussion down to dishonest simplicities.
> 
> I really resent being called dishonest when I am presenting my arguments 
> as honestly as I know how.  If I am arguing from a flawed premise or 
> based on incorrect information, please point out where and how I've made 
> a mistake, and I'll apologise, but I don't believe that's the case.

Well, I guess in your opinion your premise is totally valid:

>>  The
>> problem is not certain developers not getting their way, the problem is
>> the ineffectiveness of fd.o at reaching community consensus, agreeing on
>> standards, and enforcing them (in whatever manner possible or appropriate).
> 
> How are those two things different?  Emotionally, they are, but 
> semantically and practically, they're the same thing.

But I very much disagree (and saying "dishonest" wasn't meant to
indicate you are a liar, just that what you are boiling the arguments
down to removes so much context/uses such language as to be entirely
different from the original arguments).

Semantically and practically, they're not the same thing:

1) A group of developers A propose a spec.  Another group B
counter-proposes.  They go back and forth and are unable to resolve
differences, so they ask for third-party arbitration or put it to a
vote.  When group A's spec is chosen over group B's and given official
fd.o approval, the members of Group B whine, bitch, and complain.

2) A group of developers A propose a spec.  Another group B
counter-proposes.  Group A ignores group B's serious, stated issues with
Group A's spec.  No discussion can ensue because group A refuses to
participate.  In the end, group A simply uses their spec anyways,
without any fd.o official approval, on the fd.o namespace, and fd.o does
nothing about it, eventually considering grandfathering the spec in just
because it was forced there and it's been a while (and group B didn't
think of doing it first).

Number 1 is the case of "certain developers not getting their way".
Number 2 is the case of "fd.o being shown to be ineffective at its
stated goals of helping community members reach consensus on standards
and publishing and promoting these standards and specifications".

Are you really going to try to say that these are the same thing?

And if you are, then is there a good reason why the
<strikeout>people</strikeout> sore losers that want the spec changed
don't simply push their software on the org.freedesktop namespace too?

>> If fd.o has no ability to actually foster cross-platform,
>> cross-environment, cross-application, and/or cross-library
>> communication, then it brings up the question: what's the point?
> 
> Agreed.  But "fixing things" doesn't necessarily mean throwing away the 
> -- imperfect by not worthless -- things that already exist.

Right, that's why you deprecate it and give it an expiration date.

> But please understand that I'm not advocating a continuation of making 
> specs into 'blessed' standards when they haven't achieved a reasonable 
> level of consensus.  Going forward, I would be thrilled to see greater 
> participation, and fewer people getting frustrated and going their own 
> way.  But, that's the key bit: "going forward."

Why can't "going forward" mean "fixing a mistake from the past"?  Why
are they mutually exclusive?

--Jeff

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20090625/8e40bbc5/attachment.pgp