Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and Consensus
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:05:03 -0700 Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:20:52 +0200 Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:
> > Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> wrote:
> > That seems very unlikely to me. Diversity is an important part of
> > Debian. I think it is likely that the TC is going to value the Debian
> > Menu as long as Bill or someone else is going to work on it. I would
> > expect us to value the menu enough to enable those who want to
> > contribute to it to do so.
> >
> > Given the state menu is in, reading this isâ?¦ flabbergasting, to say the
> > least. I would answer tons of things, but fortunately they have already
> > been put together concisely: http://islinuxaboutchoice.com/
> >
> > I think that's consistent with the consensus proposal that you asked us
> > to consider in this bug.
> >
> > The consensus proposal was, in order to preserve some bits of Bill's
> > ego, to let menu die slowly by stopping to require mandatory entries for
> > a useless menu system that only a handful of obscure window managers are
> > still able to display. Now that Bill has made very clear, by completely
> > giving in to ridicule, that his ego should not be a problem, Charles is
> > merely proposing to accelerate that process and avoid pain for everyone.
>
> Josselin, do you really believe that an inflammatory message like this is
> the right way to get your point across and get people to agree with you?
>
> While I agree with the underlying arguments you're referring to, both
> about "choice" and about the (lack of) value of the old menu system,
> this kind of mail doesn't help anyone get past this issue, nor does it
> come across as reasonable. It's worth noting that the old menu system
> provided a significant amount of value for many years, long before the
> XDG menu existed. That it no longer holds as much importants as it once
s/importants/importance/; half-finished edit.
> did is no reason to denigrate people involved with it.
>
> - Josh Triplett
>
>
Reply to: