[Compcomm] Compromise

Danny Baumann dannybaumann at web.de
Fri Jun 22 07:17:49 EDT 2007


Hi,

> > 1) RYX at least wants us to just use your forums, and drop ours.
> > Your's has less posts, would be easier to copy over the important
> > stuff like I said.
> You shouldn't answer important mails at 4:00am. 

Unimportant sidenote: Not everyone (like us two) are in the CEST
timezone - he wrote that mail 21:48 local time ;-)

> I never told you to drop
> your forums. I (and also Quinn) said that opencompositing.org should
> become its own project. This is what I understood:
> 
> The OCO forums will stay as they are and become a "compositing hub". 
> 
> Compiz forums will get upgraded to suit the needs of compiz fusion and
> the growth of the community and become the community place for compiz
> (as they were since the early days of compiz-quinn).

Agree, I just would like to see some important topics imported from the
OCo to the Compiz forums in that case. At least if that's possible.

> No intereference. Users can decide where they go and what they talk
> about, devs and contributors stay at the project they contribute to. As
> it is in any other area of OSS.

Agree.

> > 2) Compiz.org will remind people of compiz. We are NOT compiz. We are
> > a merge of Compiz Extras and Beryl. We should have our own domain.
> Wrong. We are a community using and enhancing the compiz window manager.
> Our community enhacements are called "Fusion" because they were brought
> in by our friends from the former beryl-project. The core of everything
> our project is about is called COMPIZ. Our primary domain is compiz.org.
> Where excatly is the problem?

Not much of a problem, but two (minor?) things:

- As Jeff already pointed out, dev at lists.compiz.org will be
non-Compiz-Core related discussion - that's kind of confusing.

-Same for the bugtracker - using bugs.compiz.org as URL for it will
bring us a lot of Compiz Core & core plugin bug reports, where core has
its own bugtracker at FD.o and we (as Compiz Fusion) aren't responsible
for (most of ;-) ) them.

Comments on these two?

Regards,

Danny




More information about the CompComm mailing list