[Compcomm] The Next Step

[Will Farrington]

On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 01:01 +0100, Mike Dransfield wrote:
> Will Farrington wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 00:31 +0100, Mike Dransfield wrote:
> >   
> >> Since its just a change of domain name, can we discuss who will
> >> own this domain?
> >>
> >> I am not happy about anyone except David being in control of the
> >> 'official' domain for obvious reasons.
> >>     
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> >   
> >> It still really does not explain why we have to change domains,
> >> forum name and possibly logo for.  It seems like a lot of extra effort
> >> and expense for not a lot of gain.
> >>     
> >
> > Because it was agreed a long while back that this would allow us to have
> > a neutral forum for the merged project that wouldn't have all the
> > ambiguity and confusion that two separate forums would. Furthermore,
> > there's a good backlog of information on the Beryl forum that really
> > ought to be preserved if for nothing more than the poor kid who has Z
> > issue and someone posted Y fix a long time ago on the Beryl forum.
> >   
> 
> Neutral from what / who exactly?  Compiz?  David?

>From the extremists on both sides. Neutral from the idea of "This is
Compiz land; this is Beryl land" sort of ideology that seems so popular
any more.

> Preserving posts from the beryl forum is not an argument
> for creating an entirely new one.  We can copy over posts if thats
> what you want.

We could, with vBulletin, yeah. However, it's hardly fair in terms of
trying to compromise with the Beryl team if we just tell them "Okay, so
you come code for us, and we'll just suck your entire site into ours and
call it a day, okay?" Trust me, as much as I'd like to pretend that day
exists, this is a merger and we need to be open to the concept of
compromise. We're speaking about simply changing a domain name and
hosting it on its own dedicated server (for bandwidth reasons). It's not
as if I'm suggesting we do something completely unreasonable.

> >> I thought the discussion about what we actually require was productive
> >> and helpful but for some reason people keep demanding we change
> >> names (yet again).
> >>     
> >
> > I'm not demanding anything other than what's already, as far as I know, been agreed upon to begin with.
> >   
> 
> The agreement on what we agreed to change the name of
> has always been hard to define.

Perhaps the Compiz administration and the Beryl administration needs to
have a sit-down in IRC and clarify some of this stuff?

Perhaps a private IRC chat for them with the promise that minutes will
be available once the discussion is done?

> There has never been a straight answer about what we are changing
> the name of or for what reason.  This is why I am very skeptical, it
> sounds to me like the same sort of logic that was used to justify the
> fork originally.

Come now - being a long-dedicated Compiz member I'm certainly not advocating something like forking the project. I really don't think this is that unreasonable.