[kde-artists] Resolving icon naming conflicts

[James Richard Tyrer]

Jakob Petsovits wrote:
> On Sunday, 1. June 2008, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
>> On Sunday, 1. June 2008, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>>> in the case of icon naming, as Ken and Pinheiro have also both given you
>>> their express approval and, indeed, support in this area, it only seems
>>> logical that you would be the person to take maintainership of the icon
>>> naming. doubly so since you have been doing the bulk of that work.
>> This if fine, but what happens if the names chosen don't work with the
>> icon loader code.  That is the concern where the developers need to be
>> involved.
> 
> Cool, that might make a good fit as I'm a developer myself, have been involved 
> with the icon loader code, and try to work together with the respective 
> application developers when new icons should go into the core theme
> (and subsequently, are in need of a proper name).

Then I shouldn't have to explain to you that if the Icon Loader doesn't 
parse some of the icon names correctly, this will be a bug.  And, it is 
icon names that will need to be changed to fix it.

>>> and as someone who was involved in that work as well prior to 4.0 (mostly
>>> from the coding side though), you also have my support.
>> Unfortunately, politics isn't going to result in a logically ordered set
>> of new icon names, or good new names for old icons.
> 
> Please mind that I don't argue about this stuff because of politics or ego but 
> because I care about the topic itself. If your suggestion is a net win for 
> everybody then why should I try to get in your way? (Especially given the 
> frustration that comes with such long-winded discussions.)

Some of the support which you offered in support of your position was 
political in nature and said nothing about the issue.

Engineers are very aware of the problems that mixing politics into what 
should be engineering questions can cause.  Engineers take it as an 
article of faith that it is NASA politics that resulted in the loss of 
two SpaceShuttles.  If they had listened to the engineers, it wouldn't 
have happened.

> I have no intention to take away logical considerations, I just want a 
> sufficient balance between logic, maintainability, application needs, 
> usability and 3rd party themers. Just focusing on one of those will sometimes 
> make life harder for others, so we need to weigh the benefits and drawbacks 
> against each other.

As I keep saying, there are two parts to this:

1.	The actual choice of words which is subjective and needs to meet
	the needs of the users (the humans).

2,	The logical organization of the names needs to be based only on
	logic and must meed the needs of the code.

So, I am not saying that we should focus only on logical considerations 
-- there is no balance, but rather two different considerations, both of 
which are important.  But, don't mix the two of them up (please).

>>> it sucks to not have a recognized and active maintainer in a project, so
>>> if you want that role it seems to be yours for the claiming =)
> 
> Mmkay, I claim icon naming maintainership.
> Any additional process, or does it just go like this?
> 
This would be a new job.  OTOH: Being the maintainer for:

	kdebase::runtime::pics

would be an existing job and I would support your taking it.

If you want the larger job, I would suggest that you consider what the 
responsibilities are and perhaps make a job description so you 
understand the extent of your responsibilities.  Then, you would need 
approval to create the new job.

-- 
JRT
______________________________________________________________________________
kde-artists at kde.org |  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists