FESCo meeting summary for 2009-06-26

[Bill Nottingham]

Kevin Kofler (kevin.kofler at chello.at) said: 
> The thing is, any moment is as good as any other to file a proposal to
> FESCo, I don't see why I *shouldn't* have filed it now.

I wasn't asking as a means of making an argument against it. I'm asking
because this is something that could have been raised to FESCo at any time
in the past by you (or others), regardless of your status on FESCo. The fact
that you filed it immediately after joining FESCo, combined with your own
statement of 'I've been proposing this on the mailing list for ages' and
'My platform was clear', makes the implication that it was *intentional* to
wait until now, and in essence use a FESCo position as the colloquial bully
pulpit. Which I find sort of sad.

> > But hey, thanks for the unfounded assertion that everyone who voted
> > against it was operating under false assumptions, and they could not
> > possibly have any rational reasons for disagreeing with you.
> 
> The arguments you (plural) have brought have been very weak. If there are
> such "rational reasons", I'd like to read them!

1) You argue that the name 'Desktop' makes people think that it contains
*all possible desktops*. I find that to be an extremely unlikely reading
of the name. Given that to assume that you'd already have to know of other
desktops, then you would already know what the 'KDE fans...' text means, or
know what the long list of things on the torrent pages are.

2) I feel that changing the name on get-fedora doesn't give any benefits;
it adds verbiage that's *already there* in the description.

3) On get-fedora-all... you're coming from a page (#2) that already
describes it as being GNOME.

3) If you're talking about torrent.fp.o, the descriptions on that are so
bad that there are a whole host of things that need fixed before one
filename.

Bill