On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 15:16 +0100, Jukka Palander wrote:
You want me to be a group member and read
_all_the_fedora_related_development_lists_ to be able to say what I
think and what is wrong in a particular part of the whole combination
named as Fedora?
I don't know if that's what Jiri had in mind (and I certainly don't want
to put words in his mouth), but yes, I expect people interested in a
particular aspect of Fedora to join the appropriate group and start
working on implementing their vision for that aspect/group.
We aren't talking about users here, we are talking about people like you
and me: contributors.
Sorry, but this is wrong way.
Developers should read just a couple of major lists (including
ambassadors) and they would easily know what people think and whats
wrong. Not the vice versa because nobody can be a member of every list.
So GNOME upstream developers should read the GNOME developers mailing
lists? The GNOME users mailing lists? The GNOME users mailing lists in
their own language? The Fedora users mailing lists? The Ubuntu,
Mandriva, Opensuse,... users and developers mailing lists? The
ambassadors mailing lists of every downstream distribution? The QA lists
Where do you draw the line?
When are they supposed to fix those bugs and implement those features if
they spend their time reading emails? :)
You have to take into account that this particular GNOME discussion
not the _only_ problem or wish from the field. There are many - as many
as there are projects under Fedora and under GNU etc.
You have to take into accounts that most FOSS developers are not working
on only one product. They work on many, usually their own products and
all the software that they depend on.
It is much easier to developer to follow the list of the particular
product what they are developing including 2-4 other lists than other
way around when we should be members of a hundreds of lists to get our
Are you a developer of a project as wide and with as many downstream
distributors as a desktop environment?