[crossfire] skill window

[Kevin Bulgrien]

Until other responses are made to this, there is really little point in
continuing the discussion.  It is evident that an agenda is being pushed when
there are many other alternative paths and cooperative viewpoints that are less
isolating and much more constructive.  Policy is being proposed that is not
applied to other areas of SVN.  It gives the appearance that control is much
more important than cooperation.  There seems little point to argue when the
agenda is so destructive.

Freedom at the expense of relationship is not something that is going to help
Crossfire.  Copy a design you want to change, and modify it.  Commit it, and
expect that people will be respectful of the work that went into it, and will
not attempt to wrest control of your efforts away from you, nor attempt to
invalidate your tastes of how a client should look and feel while you are
still active in the project.

> > > http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/gtk-v2_ui_updates
> > > 
> > > Where these responses can be collected.
> > > 
> > > The other advantage of this approach is that if no verdict or
> > > comments are given after a month or two, then it is probably safe
> > > to consider that layout unused and unloved, and then to consider it
> > > for exclusion from future releases and ultimately removal from the
> > > SVN repository.
> > 
> > Surely you jest.  Just how often is the quantity of wiki edits /
> > month or two an accurate sampling of the entire crossfire player
> > population's views on anything?
> 
> I'm hoping the answer to that is, 'when there are a number of mailing
> list, IRC and forum posts inviting, with ever escalating persistence, an
> expression of such views.
> 
> That probably means up to 4 mailing list posts & forum posts +
> at least that quantity of IRC discussions which follow the following
> form:
> 
> 1) There is a proposal to change layouts, can all layout
> owners/maintainers give their verdicts and interested users give
> comments.
> 
> [2-4 weeks later]
> 
> 2) Please give all comments and verdicts to the layout change proposals
> in the next 2 weeks, the following layouts are lacking any response:
> ....
> the following layouts have comments but no owner verdict.
> ...
> [2-4 weeks thereafter]
> 
> 3) The following layouts have not received a response from the
> owner/maintainer regarding the change n. 
> ...
> Please can any commentators
> who wish to take over maintenance of these layouts contact the mailing
> list.
> 
> [2-4 weeks thereafter]
> 
> 4) The following layouts received no response at all to the proposed
> layout change n, 
> ...
> and are now considered abandoned, they will be removed
> prior to the next release.
> 
> There may also be a case for a crossfire-announce posting to be made in
> the lead-up to a release, probably a couple of weeks beforehand so that
> there is time for anyone who doesn't read the main mailing list to
> yell. (Although then you might question how much such a person really
> cares about the ongoing development of CF, and if they would really
> notice).
> 
> The overall aims here are:
> 1) That the number of layouts remains fewer than the number of players,
> preferably substantially fewer.
> 2) That the majority of players using the majority of layouts should
> benefit from work being done on client changes, unless they are
> deliberately choosing layouts which are designed not to.
> 
> My view would tend to be that if: 
> * There is a layout currently that is intended never to be updated, 
> * It is for the use of a single individual, who has decided that it is
> perfect as it is 
> 
> Then that shouldn't be in SVN, and shouldn't be a choice in the
> client as it is distributed by default. By all means keep a backup
> somewhere globally accessible, along with instructions for using it
> with a client, but for someone new to CF, who discovers the layout
> selection widget for the first time, they should expect that the
> selections they choose from correspond vaguely with the documentation
> that they will read, and not have something which is hugely different
> (other than in the ways that are a design feature of the layout)
> 
> The case of an underused layout where there is a desire to see it
> actively maintained is a different matter, I'd hope that all the
> current layouts fall into this category, and the only question is over
> how to implement such maintenance (if at all).
>  
> > > Obviously if there are vastly differing and strongly held
> > > sentiments in terms of what should be done for any given layout,
> > > then that makes the case for creating another new layout.
> 
> If no one cares to express such views over the course of several
> months, the conclusion must be that they are not strongly held.
> 
> Brendan.