On Sunday 11 December 2011 16:32:23 you wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Martin Gr��lin <mgraesslin@...> wrote:
> > Hi Trinity developers,
> >
> > Therefore I suggest to you to discontinue the work on twin and instead
> > switch to KWin 4 as provided, developed and maintained by the KDE
> > community. We are
> martin,
>
> i was happy to accept - with reservations - what you were saying
> right up until the point where you effectively ordered everyone to
> quit.
>
> the gist of your message is as follows:
>
> a) you (twin developers) are making mistakes
> b) you cannot be trusted not to make mistakes
> c) it's a big responsibility and i believe that you're not up to the job
> d) therefore you should quit.
>
> i was prepared to accept that you are perfectly within your rights to
> say that mistakes are being made, and it is very useful for you to do
> so. however you have absolutely NO right to suggest, recommend, tell
> or otherwise imply that the twin developers should do something other
> than what they are doing.
of course I have the right to suggest that Trinity should make use of KWin4
instead of doing an improper fork. I do not see how I should not have that
right. I think that is very well covered by freedom of speech.
>
> now it's my turn to give you a reality-check.
* skip long bitching on KDE 4 *
Now I do not understand what you want to achieve with your bitching of KDE 4.
It is completely irrelevant in the scope of my suggestion to use KWin. As I
have pointed out several times by now KWin 4 is the direct continuation of
KWin 3 and not a rewrite or anything else in that manner. Does anything else
about KDE 4 matter if we look at [t|k]win and KWin4? Not at all!
Furthermore it is completely irrelevant as I as current KWin maintainer
received commit rights to the KDE source repository after the release of KDE
4.0. Whatever the KDE developers did what does not please you, I have not been
involved.
Now let me add a little bit to the bitching. First of all, I did not read it,
I could not care less. But I find it completely unacceptable to see something
like that written and it is completely unacceptable that other people think
that this is great writing.
I come here as the maintainer of a main component of the KDE Plasma Workspaces
to offer help. Because I see the issues with maintaining a fork of KWin. And
that is a reply? What do you want your relationship to KDE be? Do you want to
be seen as the bunch of disappointed users one should ignore or do you hope to
be able to collaborate with KDE developers? Because collaboration is what you
need. There will be the time that you don't understand code, that you need
help. How do you want to get the help if *that* is the way to response to help
offered to you by KDE developers in an altrustic way.
After that experience I cannot recommend any KDE developer to interact with
Trinity developers. And that's a pity. This harms the development of the
Trinity project. Think about the impact of me writing e.g. a blog post about
my experience with the Trinity project. Given that my blog is read by media
this could seriously harm the project. I don't want to do that, because I want
a working collaboration between Trinity and KDE. But you just have to be aware
how you harm your own case.
Think about what you want to achieve and how you want to interact with the KDE
community. I think an appology would help in such cases.
Best Regards
Martin Gr��lin
Attachments: