I try not avoid making assumptions that aren't already save or measurable empirically. I was elaborating on the the cause and effect of GNOME, their actions and how they are received by the larger FOSS community.

GNOME are free to act in accordance with how the foundation and the collective from which it is composed wish to manage the development of their software and surrounding community. There are social consequences however, to neglecting the needs and interests of the people using it.

Telling someone to go fork the software or go elsewhere is not a reasonable response nor conductive to keeping a healthy community and userbase. It only communicates that you are not interested in considering external output which will rightfully make the people who use and are invested in GNOME and its ecosystem rightfully frustrated.

That is why my previous post outlines and urges the necessity of listening to your community and move in lock step with them or else you'll end up in the same circumstance that GNOME currently is.

@DiogoConstantino@masto.pt @vkc@linuxmom.net

There is a vested interest by numerous groups within the free and open source community to take Linux in a direction that not everyone will agree with. GNOME happens to be one such group and tends to catch a lot of flak due to their unwillingness to compromise on their principles. Something that has at times caused complications in the projects they collaborate on such as Wayland.

Ultimately, we have a difference in opinion when it comes to communities and their responsibility. I believe that a community has a responsibility to tend to the needs and interests of the people from which it consists. As a YouTuber for example, you would be nothing without your audience and as such you may have a vested interest to appease them.

GNOME is held accountable only to the developers and people within their foundation and not the community. This creates a disconnect where people feel they are being ignored. When the users of your software make that discontent known and you continue to ignore it rather than address the issue, it festers resentment. That resentment builds up into the sentiment that some people have towards GNOME today.

Sure, they can always just use COSMIC which has some feature parity to GNOME. But that isn't the point. In order to maintain a healthy community, some concessions are necessary and the cause and effect of GNOME refusing to do so is the sentiment people hold towards them.

@vkc@linuxmom.net

It's frustration by the community using GNOME as they feel their interests aren't considered in the development process. This is a natural outcome in sociology.

When you use something, you typically have a vested interest in the prosperity of it. People tend to get frustrated when they feel ignored and some are passionate enough about it to voice their discontent.

I did the very same with you previously regarding paywalling your community.

*Edited.

@vkc@linuxmom.net

It's frustration by the community using GNOME as they feel their interests aren't considered in the development process. This is a natural outcome in sociology.

When you use something, you typically have a vested interest in the prosperity of it. People tend to get frustrated when they're ignored and passionate enough about something to voice their discontent.

I did the very same with you previously regarding paywalling your community.

@vkc@linuxmom.net