FESCo Meeting Summary for 20090424

[Callum Lerwick]

On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 17:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 17:15 -0700, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> 
> > A compromise works best if both parties are on board.  I don't believe 
> > that the desktop guys will object to the package existing and being 
> > installable if people want.  No CLI needed since we have GUI install 
> > tools.  The objection is with the mandate for it to be installed by 
> > default on the desktop live/install spins.
> 
> *All* parties agreed on the compromise during the meeting, including
> those speaking on behalf of the desktop group. Approximate quote (since
> I'm on my laptop and don't have the IRC log handy): "I gave you that if
> it's what's needed to make this issue go away". Not everyone has to be
> 100% happy with a compromise (not everyone on the other side of the
> fence is 100% happy with it either), it just has to be agreed.

Oh dear.

I never agreed to this compromise. I didn't even know about it until
now.

I *almost* attended the FESCo meeting, so I could make sure my concerns
were represented accurately, but thought better of it for fear of just
fanning the flames further, as I wasn't exactly cooled off at the time.
For my own sanity I needed to get away from this mess and cool off. It
seems I made a grave mistake. My concerns have gotten completely lost,
and apparently were never understood by anyone. Reading the FESCo log is
only making my blood boil hotter.

By the way, Hi, I'm the guy with the "line-in play-through" use case.

I already explained why including gnome-alsamixer does nothing to make
me any happier here so I won't repeat it: (don't worry, it's clean)

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-April/msg02089.html

My two cents on reverting the VolumeControl feature entirely: Well, I
guess while this would ultimately address my concerns, it is
un-necessarily drastic. It's throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The new gnome-volume-control is a beautiful piece of UI. My only problem
with it is the panel control wasn't doing quite what I wanted. Just the
ability to make one, tiny little change is all I wanted. I want it to
control PCM instead of Master. Since the previous mixer infrastructure
provided UI for making this change, my expectations were that the new
infrastructure would at least continue to provide a hidden option
somewhere for this.

I began my initial thread in an earnest attempt to get some direction as
to how to make this change. I NEVER wanted any visible UI changed. I
never wanted any buttons added. I expected from the *start* to be
messing with some backend settings somewhere, I just needed to know
where they were. After much pain and sorrow, it was revealed there IS a
setting that (supposedly) did what I want. (Though I have not gotten it
to actually work.)

> Not everyone has to be
> 100% happy with a compromise (not everyone on the other side of the
> fence is 100% happy with it either), it just has to be agreed.

A compromise that does absolutely nothing, that is 0%, to address my
concerns is productive how?

Have the concerns of the person that sparked this whole thing become
irrelevant at some point along the way?

This thing has certainly spun far out of my control, and no longer even
has much to do with what I wanted in the first place.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090425/5dc404e0/attachment.sig>