On Wednesday 09 March 2016 03:23:36 Thomas Maus wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 March 2016, 22:44 wrote Lisi Reisz:
> > On Tuesday 08 March 2016 20:07:51 Thomas Maus wrote:
> > > I'm trying to lead a **rational** discussion here
[snip] 
> > > in a **heated** discussion to hit the exactly correct tone.

My stars.  I rest my case.  

> > I asked why "we" need a new logo.  We
> > know what you think and demand that the rest of us think.
>
> So in your perception I'm not part of the "we"?

Of course you are.  But you are PART of it.  Not the whole of it.  Other 
people matter too.

> > Your credentials in Open Source are not relevant to your insistence that
> > your opinion has to be taken as incontrovertible fact.
>
> My opinion is my opinion, and by definition a opinion is very obviously not
> a fact.
> (Even that my opinion is my opinion is not an incontrovertible fact, given
> convincing arguments ...)
>
> But here some facts, I based my conclusions on:

> My conclusions are known, what are your's? (2nd person, plural -- as would
> be unmistakable in German ;-)

I do not agree with you.  Felix doesn't agree with you. Perhaps others don't 
agree with you.

Tim has asked me not to air my analysis and conclusions in public.

> > Moreover you are ignoring the fact that Tim asked me not to proselytise.
>
> I was not knowing this fact -- until now. You mentioned you were asked, but
> not by whom. (But I see not how this fact contributes to the discussion)

Tim is the project owner - and owns the hardware on which the project runs.

> > You may feel that _you_ have already answered the questions I asked.  I
> > asked them of "us".  Plural, not dual.  I know what you think.
>
> Probably not -- see below.
>
> > What about
> > all those who have so far said nothing?  What about all those on the
> > users list?
>
> They are completely free to voice their opinion, add new arguments and help
> as to identify all chances, risks, pitfalls to find a good decision for the
> project. 

No - the final decision is Tim's.

> Actually, I would appreciate if the silent majority would speak. 

Go and ask on the users list.  But ask, don't steam-roll.

> > You ARE wanting change for change's sake.  You want change because TDE is
> > not "modern" enough.  That is change for change's sake.
>
> No, I definitely do not want "change for change's sake" -- as stated often
> and in many variations (I don't know how to express this any clearer in
> English). Hopefully you do not want "stasis for stasis's sake".
>
> Because  "stasis for stasis's sake" is as stupid and deadly as  "change for
> change's sake" ...

You see and hear only what you want to see and hear (like most of us.)
>
> > The idea of having two completely different logos is IMHO a complete
> > non-starter and makes nonsense of having a logo.
> >
> > You _will_ lose present users if you go along the track you want.
>
> You state this as a fact!?

Yes.  I personally know of people to whom this applies.  There are bound to be 
others whom I do not know.

> If this is a fact 

It is.

> (or even a probable outcome) -- I'll stop immediately. 
> Actually I considered stopping on the grounds of many intelligent people
> currently wasting a lot of time

!! We agree on something!

> -- and only your next statement compelled 
> me
>
> to answer:
> > This may, of course, be part of your design.
>
> This is a serious imputation, far beyond purely offending!

Yes, I'm sorry.  That was a bit low.

> I read, that this project is about "stasis" and "nostalgia" (well, that is
> benevolent rephrasing) in a lot of places, but so far not on the project's
> own Web-site. Maybe I missed something.

First mission statement - first statement - on the website:
<quote>
The Trinity Desktop Environment (TDE) project is a computer desktop 
environment for Unix-like operating systems with a primary goal of 
**retaining** the **function** and **form** of traditional desktop computers.
</quote>
My stars.

> If there is no change wanted, please be so kind to state this prominently
> in a mission statement or project charter or whatever the correct and non-
> inflammatory term is.

See above.

> It will surely protect the project from people like me -- in their
> enthusiasm -- doing anything active which could be construed as "foisting"
> their sinister "designs" of "change for change's sake" by chosing "garish
> deliberately M$- Windows"-like designs (like blue buttons, blue splash
> screens, blue background -- oops, that is status-quo, sorry, mixed that up,
> of course sparingly using the colors red/green/blue)
>
> > ...
> > I actually think that your analysis of the "problems" is completely
> > wrong, and largely irrelevant.
>
> That is fine with me.

Yes, we are both entitled to our opinions.  But yours is only an opinion, as 
is mine.  And I disagree profoundly with your analysis, as I say.

> In the Internet nobody knows you smell of sulphur ];-)

:-)

Are you sure? ;-)

Lisi