Havoc replied to my earlier blogs regarding FD.o quite succincntly: we don't have to worry because FD.o isn't a standards body.
but hold on now... i never actually claimed that FD.o was a standards body! i simply claimed that it's where standards get made and that DConf was looking to become a desktop standard. that's the whole point of DConf. the title of this blog starts to make sense, doesn't it?
so let's examine whether or not FD.o really is about standards or not. there's a whole list of standards over on FD.o. and the main FD.o webpage says:
'freedesktop.org is not a formal standards organization, though some see a need for one that covers some of the areas we are working on [..] Unlike a standards organization, freedesktop.org is a "collaboration zone" where ideas and code are tossed around, and de facto specifications are encouraged.'
so Havoc is right, it's not a standards body. but it is where we have created many of our standards and continue to host the documents that define those standards. call it what you will, this is a dead parrot.
Havoc also said, "freedesktop.org right now is the equivalent of Sourceforge, essentially, except that projects have to be desktop-related." ignoring the fact that this is only true on a strictly technical level, the question is begged: is that what we need, another SourceForge? i mean, don't we already have three or four of those around? and if we're honest with ourselves, isn't that what most people are involved at FD.o for, to bridge between the projects? again, this isn't a SourceForge-for-the-desktop, it's a dead parrot.
there are couple of things Havoc nailed, though. first, that the "platform" is not about technology pimping. amen. but here's the real nugget of gold:
"While some people may have other ideas, I will again reiterate that KDE and GNOME can veto anything by simply not going along with it. That's the core reason I don't understand any paranoia here."
he's absolutely correct, we can simply decide to not use something. the problem is that if the FD.o collective puts out major pieces of software with the intent of bridging systems (and that's the whole point of DConf) and yet fails miserably due to flaws in the process, FD.o loses value. this is what i don't want to see happen.
it seems that both Waldo and Havoc think i'm afraid of FD.o pushing bad ideas on KDE or GNOME. but what i'm really worried about is FD.o becoming irrelevant. because then we'll have put ourselves right back to where we were all those years ago before we had a place to discuss and come up with standards, even if they were de facto.