[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: PolicyKit changes in F12

| From: Rex Dieter <rdieter math unl edu>

| Seems frustrations are mounting:
| "On policykit and standards"
| http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/polkit-devel/2009-May/000119.html

[I'm an outsider.  This thread is my introduction to the whole area.
I'm not even a KDE user.]

This certainly does not look like a healthy approach to standardization
and cooperation.

- the http://cgit.freedesktop.org/PolicyKit/tree/docs/PORTING-GUIDE
  appears clearly biased towards GNOME, even though its URL and title
  suggest universality: the first substantial line talks about
  polkit-gobject-1 (I *think* that gobject means GNOME object)

- in a well-constituted standards process (not a de facto standard),
  stakeholders are consulted before changes are made.  It looks
  as if KDE folks have been stakeholders and have not been allowed to
  even sign-off on the design, let alone participate in it.

- for good reason, the normal output of a standardization process is a
  document, not code.  There appears to be no complete documentation.

- all stakeholders ought to be treated respectfully and equitably.
  That means, for example, KDE ought not the be second to GNOME.
  More particularly, the architectures should be open-ended, allowing
  for more than KDE and GNOME.  See, for example,

I admit that my reactions may be ill-founded.  Perhaps this is meant
to be an example of
	"We reject: kings, presidents and voting.
	We believe in: rough consensus and running code"
(The IETF approach, as phrased by
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Clark )
Even the IETF does have votes (but only of those in the room at the

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]