First, blaming Uwe completely misses the point. There is a German saying that very well applies to here I think: "Wer kriecht kann nicht stolpern" . He might make mistakes, but it's only because he actually DOES something, as opposed to some big mouths who talk a lot but don't do much.
On the other hand, it can't be denied that FreeCAD has some very serious management problems ...
... and shooting the messenger because he says – unpolitely – some uncomfortable truth ALSO misses the point.
Now back to the meeting:
to be honest, I also don't understand why this meeting was held in such way. I don't feel that anything has been discussed that couldn't have been discussed openly here. It was still refreshing to sort-of meet people, but technically it didn't help. What I find more worrying is :
1) important developers (wmayer, yorick) were not present, so I have no idea whether what has been discussed actually matters. Who gets to decide at the end ? Why bother discussing if those "in power" don't agree ?
2) there seems to be a distinction among some people present that "users" and "developers" are 2 different categories of people, and "developers" don't need to show everything to the user because the "user doesn't need to know". I very strongly disagree here, and have said so, because for me that's the very meaning of open-source. Unfortunately, that part of the discussion didn't make it to the minutes.
3) regarding management, we had discussed months ago an agreement (C4-alike) about how FreeCAD development should be done, and the first decision was to not apply that method to the most important merge taking place, the toponaming. Again, why discuss things if we don't follow through on it ? Specifically, C4 mandates that big problems be broken into smaller pieces. During this toponaming meeting, we have agreed that Sketcher and Part are different problems regarding toponaming. Therefore, I again proposed to break the big problem into smaller bits, and first merge the toponaming stuff for sketcher alone, and then doing the Part/PartDesign bits. Unfortunately, the exact opposite decision has been taken : to continue the merge of PartDesign and then merge EVERYTHING in a big chunk into master. This is contrary to the C4 method that we agreed on, and also in contradiction with common sense. I didn't get any explanation for this decisions
4) there was no consensus, and the documentation part was the only thing that I managed to fight out.adrianinsaval wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:17 pm if there was consensus I assume it was deemed doable without causing absurd delays. Also from zolko's post I understand that it's not really about making this file "human readable" but about documenting how it should be parsed and written, this is a sane request