Yes it was accepted. You can see the list of accepted features here https://github.com/sugarlabs/roadmap/issues?milestone=1&state=open
On 20 June 2013 13:40, Simon Schampijer <si...@schampijer.de> wrote: > On 06/20/2013 01:28 PM, Walter Bender wrote: > >> I agree that the technical solution we have come up with to a large >> extent obviates the need for consensus around whether or not to >> implement this feature as it pushes it to the user space in the from >> of an activity. (Gonzalo and I have been discussing the fact that >> other cpsection widgets could also be moved to activities, but that is >> for another day. >> >> Regarding the specifics of this feature, I have not found any of the >> arguments that this feature is somehow going to confuse our users even >> remotely convincing. Three observations: (1) any change to the icon is >> driven by explicit user action, so no surprises there; (2) in >> virtually every other system or service our users encounter, there is >> the ability to set a personal avatar, so to argue that this is somehow >> going to confuse them in Sugar seems a stretch; and (3) particularly >> in light of the new approach, making it easier for our end users to >> make modifications to the system is in keeping with our overall >> pedagogy -- moving away from requiring root access to make changes is >> a good thing and while we don't want our users to inadvertently break >> things irreparably, there is something to be said for learning from >> the experience of breaking things. Bottom line, I seem to have more >> faith in the abilities of our users than perhaps is warranted, but I >> think that is aligned with our goals to encourage our users to take >> change. (The fact that this feature comes from one of our users says a >> lot.) >> >> Regarding our broken decision-making process, the problem I have is >> less that we don't reach consensus than that the discussions are >> happening very late in the process. We had, for example, had an email >> from our release manager months ago about the features proposed for >> this release. That was the time to question whether or not this >> feature should be accepted. To wait until now is not fair to the >> person, in the case, Ignacio, who has been working hard on his >> implementation. It is fine to give technical criticism at this point, >> and I think that discussion has been fruitful, but in my opinion, we >> really need to be more forthcoming earlier in the process about the >> features themselves. >> > > Has that feature been accepted for 0.100? I must admit that I do not read > all the mails and I might have overseen this one, at least I first saw [1] > when the patch was submitted. Has there been a mail to ask for feedback for > the design? > > The process tries to make room for that early feedback, especially for > Features that changes UI or work flow. > > Simon > > [1] > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/**Features/Icon_Change<http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Icon_Change> > [2] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/**Features/Policy#Propose_a_** > feature_for_addition_into_the_**release_cycle<http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Policy#Propose_a_feature_for_addition_into_the_release_cycle> > > > -- Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel