Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of October 29th, 2013

[Allan Day <allanpday gmail com>]

Emily,

Emily Gonyer <emilyyrose gmail com> wrote:
> Alright. So how about this. We chop the toes off of the foot, so its
> not quite the same. Will that work for you? Of course not. That'd be
> 'bad design'. This nit picking is what makes people hate GNOME. What
> makes people (good people!) throw up their arms and say screw it!
> Cause' trying to work with GNOME isn't worth it - its far more hassle
> than its worth, and far easier/better/simpler to just fork and move
> on. As Cinnamon and Elementary have done. Or avoid (whenever possible)
> acknowledging that they're using portions of GNOME as XFCE is.
>
> As Dave pointed out, back a few yrs ago, people who were using only
> portions of GNOME were happily included in the GNOME family. But now
> GNOME insists on drawing utterly arbitrary and constantly shifting
> lines in the sand as to what constitutes 'GNOME'. Its ridiculous. Its
> spiteful, and above all its counter productive.

This sounds a bit like you are saying that my views are "spiteful",
"nit picking", "ridiculous", and that they are why people have forked
GNOME on multiple occasions. I'm taking this personally, because you
are clearly addressing what I have said, though you have not used my
name. I find these comments to be pretty hurtful, especially since
they are coming from someone who I have worked with as a part of the
Engagement Team in the past.

Considering that all I was suggesting was that we have a friendly chat
with the Ubuntu GNOME crew (who I think I've generally had a good
relationship with in the past) about the logo, I find your response to
be excessive. I've tried to explain my position, and maybe I haven't
done a great job at that, but I'm pretty sure that it isn't "utterly
arbitrary".

Allan