On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 07:34 -0500, Luis Villa wrote: > On 2/17/06, Rodrigo Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 09:38 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > > On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 01:41 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote: > > > > So, what > > > > if we just set a list of things a module has to conform with to get > > > > accepted and base our decisions on that? > > > > > > > > For instance, we could have: > > > > * uses at least basic platform libs (GTK mainly) > > > > * uses existing platform libraries for everything possible (that is, > > > > does not use libs implementing an already existing feature in GNOME > > > > platform) > > > > * follows GNOME standards (coding standards, freedesktop specs, HIG, > > > > documentation, licensing, release dates and freezes, etc) > > > > * is source in GNOME CVS? > > > > > > > > If we have a complete and concise list, the decision is easy to be made, > > > > since you just have to tick or not the corresponding column in the list. > > > > When all columns are ticked, the module gets accepted. > > > > > > This strikes me as totally wrong, focusing only on certain, not very > > > interesting aspects of the modules. Much more important are things like: > > > > > it was just an example > > > > > * Does it conflict/compete/overlap with other software in the desktop > > > * Does it integrate with the desktop > > > * Is it good, interesting software > > > * Is this something that we think is important for a desktop to contain. > > > > > good, now we have a more complete list > > My list in the GEP includes all this and more ;) > yeah, I think your list + some "evaluation team" scrutiny could work much better than looking for complete consensus on the mailing list. -- Rodrigo Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list