On 13 December 2011 19:52, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Andrea Pescetti > <pesce...@openoffice.org> wrote: >> On 13/12/2011 Marcus (OOo) wrote: >>> >>> Am 12/13/2011 06:12 PM, schrieb Gianluca Turconi: snip
>>>> >>>> I can only say that a colored icon set for OO is the second >>>> most wanted feature in the usenet Italian community. ... >>> >>> So, you think that a big hint like "3.4 will be with the old b/w icons >>> but we will do everything to give you back the long-wished colored icons >>> with the next but one release [3.5 or 4.0]" is not good enough and the >>> people cannot wait for the next but one release? >> >> >> Gianluca is right. For some reason the blue icons were perceived by some >> (who were possibly right!) as a sign of Oracle's stubbornness in dictating >> the direction of OpenOffice.org; going back to the colored icons would be, >> to them, a sign that Apache OpenOffice cares about complaints from the >> community (and probably the others would see it as a usability improvement >> anyway). >> >> And, considering the flamewars we have seen on the issue on other lists, >> being able to restore the colored icons back without too much discussion or >> formality would be an even better sign. >> > > Favor so cheaply won is also as easily lost. > > I have no idea about the history of this. I don't really care about > the political side of this. But can someone explain why the icons > were changed in the first place? Surely, someone had an argument for > this at the time? > > You mention flamewars. That suggests there were two points of view. > It is hard to have a flamewar where eveyone agrees. ;-) > > -Rob > Briefly, the issue pitted non-Sun/Oracle voices against what seemed to be a Sun/Oracle front in favour of changing the icons to be a) more noticeable and memorable (you recall, Rob, the proposal I put forth to the ODF Adoption TC a couple of times?) and b) perhaps coincidentally to conform more with other things. The problem was that the non-sponsored community had been working on its own set, and Sun/Oracle came late to the party and then put the lampshade on its head, as it were, and, because it held the keys to the party…. well, you can fill in the blanks. Sun/Oracle actually tried to do good, and the people managing this went through a lot of hell—no one likes being attacked, even as proxy, and no one likes defending positions of provoking such flames. And the issue is in fact quite silly—now. We have the chance to improve both the icons and the spirit of discussion, as there is *no* corporate mandate now. So we can have the usual sort of squabbles and aesthetic disputes—the things that make community life fun, I suppose—without the grief of believing that Big Power has just sat on you. But, to repeat: the people who were involved, on all sides, really did mean the best, and really did, at some point, find themselves ballistically shot into deep hot waters—and no one liked that and no one wants to repeat it, and we do not have to. louis
