:) https://github.com/sugarlabs/roadmap/issues/7 Don't likes this feature. But I will do everything possible to work and be approved by the community!
2013/6/20 Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> > 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 > > -- Ignacio Rodríguez
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel