Removal of inline playlists controls

[Leo Franchi]

I'm not particularly for or against this move (i've never used them,  
nor even realized they were there).

However, I think "as discussed on IRC" implies that there was a  
discussion. Rather Seb proposed something, mark said it was fine with  
him, and then that was it. Far from a discussion, imho. Not to mention  
the fact that it did not take into account any of the people  
personally responsible for the feature in question, nor even bring it  
up with more than a small subset of the developers.

The biggest complaint that I can see against the feature is

"<xxxxx> i'd like them removed
<xxxxxx> zero value add feature"

So it's really just someone who disagrees with a feature, deciding to  
remove it, and going ahead.

I don't support this commit without more open discussion.

leo


On 6 Sep 2009, at 10:15, Bart Cerneels wrote:

> I must say, I didn't see any discussion about this on irc either. I've
> been afk for long periods but still. I would think these kind of
> decisions are talked about over a period of more then 24h before there
> can be anything resembling a consensus.
>
> At the very least I would expect to let have Nikolaj explain what his
> plans are with this feature. I also didn't think it was so invasive as
> to require immediate removal.
>
> Can we please use this mailing list more often.
>
> Bart
>
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 15:55, Nikolaj Hald
> Nielsen<nhnfreespirit at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I just got back to find that one of the features that I have spent
>> quite  bit of time and energy on recently have been completely  
>> removed
>> from git master.
>>
>> From the commit text:
>>
>>  "Remove inline playback controls from the application, as discussed
>> on IRC. We gathered that this
>>   feature did not provide great feature value to the product, and
>> instead added redundancy with a
>>   third (!) toolbar equivalent. It also increased complexity in an
>> already crowded playlist layout
>>   configuration UI."
>>
>> "... as discussed on IRC" : How can you even pretend to have had any
>> discussion about this without including th person whow rote the
>> featere in question? I call BS!
>>
>> "We gathered..." : I would very much like to know who "We" is.
>> Especially since this commit mail was also forwarded to the amarok
>> mailing list, giving the impression that this is an official and  
>> final
>> Amarok decision.
>>
>> "...this feature did not provide great feature value to the
>> product..." : Honestly, at this point I could not care less about the
>> actual arguments for this decision. I am mainly pissed to no end that
>> I was not asked. It just might be that I actually have a plan or a
>> reason for adding this stuff.
>>
>> In the past when people have asked me how Amarok was run as a  
>> project,
>> I have always answered that it was a pretty pure meritocracy, with  
>> any
>> major issues being resolved in a discussion where all interested
>> parties could have a say. This however reeks of a quick and dirty  
>> call
>> by some of the old guard carefully crafted to exclude me from having
>> any say, and quickly published to the amarok mailing list so even  
>> if I
>> did raise hell it will be hard to revert soince it has already been
>> made official. I do _really_ hope I am wrong in seeing it this way!
>>
>> If this is how things will be done in Amarok in the future, I am  
>> going
>> to have to seriously reconsider my involvement, as it is just not
>> worth the aggregation to get sidelined like this.
>>
>> - Nikolaj
>> _______________________________________________
>> Amarok-devel mailing list
>> Amarok-devel at kde.org
>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok-devel mailing list
> Amarok-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel

---
Leo Franchi				(650) 704 3680
Tufts University 2010

lfranchi at kde.org
leonardo.franchi at tufts.edu