On Di, 2013-06-18 at 11:16 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> 2013/6/18 Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 05:13:33PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> I think Jonathon's post earlier today captures the core issue:
> >> On Monday, June 17, 2013 09:05:08 PM Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> As long as Canonical declines to work with the rest of the free software
> >> community,
> > Well, I think that's an altogether inaccurate and unfair characterization.
> > Canonical has always been open to working with "the rest of the free
> > software community"; what Canonical has not been willing to do is blindly
> > follow where certain self-appointed "upstreams" would lead, when that
> > conflicts with the business's goals.
> Well, working with the upstreams (who usually know their code best),
> making compromises, trying to convince upstreams that the way you
> think something should be designed is best and finally, if there is a
> consensus, implement that code and make it available to everyone is
> basically the essence of "working with "the rest of the free software
> community"". It has never been easy, and if upstreams reject certain
> features, people are free to fork. But the dicussion needs to happen
> first and stuff needs to be implemented closely to upstream, so
> everyone knows about it and it can be accepted easily.
> Especially the communication step was missing in the Wayland story.
so the right reaction is to now reject the communication from the
upstream/flavour side as a punishment for this ?!?