[04:41] <klepas> troy_s: that's i guess what i am trying to get through here: the Ubuntu Artwork team will never create artwork for Ubuntu in a "professional development" style. We are not a design studio.
[04:42] <troy_s> klepas:  I think that is where you are wrong.  There are certainly folks who will never be able to do that, but
[04:42] <troy_s> that said, I think it is quite possible to achieve it with some learning and dedication.
[04:42] <klepas> i guess that's something i'm never going to shrug off
[04:43] <klepas> we're part of the foss community
[04:43] <klepas> not a professional design studio
[04:43] <troy_s> Otherwise we must simply relegate ourselves to being 'yet another half assed open source project'
[04:43] <klepas> not proprietary-structured development
[04:43] <klepas> =\
[04:43] <troy_s> Irrelevant.
[04:43] <klepas> how is that irrelevant?
[04:43] <troy_s> There are structures implemented because they work.
[04:43] <klepas> what is ubuntu?
[04:43] <klepas> a foss project!
[04:44] <klepas> not a proprietary-top-down structured project
[04:44] <troy_s> Yes, but free software design has yet to embrace tactics that are proven and work.
[04:44] <klepas> ugh
[04:44] <troy_s> Not true either.
[04:44] <troy_s> What is bzr?
[04:44] <troy_s> Not just _anyone_ can push things upstream
[04:44] <troy_s> etc.
[04:44] <troy_s> But because everyone treats art and design as some abstract silly hobby
[04:44] <troy_s> the bikeshedding abounds
[04:44] <troy_s> etc.
[04:44] <klepas> yes, that is true, but you're not going to tell me the way the folks at Redmond develop Windows is that way the foss community work on Ubuntu
[04:45] <troy_s> Ultimately, someone provides direction -- whether it is a corporate boss or a collection of upstream developers.
[04:45] <troy_s> Someone says 'yes' or 'no.'
[04:45] <troy_s> the difference in FOSS is that you can always walk away and do it yourself.
[04:45] <klepas> that is still *very* different from the way the folks at Redmond do things
[04:46] <troy_s> probably less that you might think.  there is still organization.  there is still direction.  etc.
[04:46] <klepas> no, that's not the chief difference. The chief difference is the community of people who come together to jointly work on something they love, not because they are being paid for it
[04:46] <klepas> and the development style is totally different
[04:46] <klepas> i'm not saying that foss development is without organisation
[04:47] <troy_s> So what has that got to do with avoiding design documents and structure?
[04:47] <troy_s> Nothing.
[04:47] <klepas> i'm trying to get across that foss development != proprietary development
[04:47] <troy_s> Who cares?
[04:47] <klepas> who doesn't?
[04:47] <troy_s> the point is that when a process works, it works.
[04:47] <klepas> wtf?
[04:47] <klepas> yes proprietary development might work for companies like MS, but not for foss projects
[04:48] <troy_s> What are you talking about now?  Are we talking about art and design?
[04:48] <klepas> and there are aspects of the development process that both the foss way and the proprietary way both share
[04:48] <troy_s> I really have no clue what you are saying now.
[04:49] <klepas> i'm trying to point out that foss artwork communities != professional design studios
[04:49] <klepas> and thus don't need to start acting like ones
[04:49] <troy_s> Ok, now that is entirely different than what you said before
[04:49] <troy_s> and yes they do
[04:49] <troy_s> if they want to achieve SOME degree of coherency
[04:49] <troy_s> that means take direction
[04:49] <troy_s> and move with it
[04:49] <troy_s> formulate design documents so that _everyone_ can get on the same page.
[04:50] <troy_s> some people who have been practicing art and design for many years with a good deal of training MIGHT be able to dive in and follow a style
[04:50] <klepas> please read up the ideology of FOSS
[04:50] <troy_s> but for the large part, that isn't the case.
[04:50] <troy_s> Please get with the program.
[04:50] <klepas> it's not proprietary development, in both artwork and code
[04:50] <troy_s> Bugger ideology.  I am talking about getting a product out there that appeals to folks on a level that they will want to use it... I believe it is referred to as the
[04:50] <troy_s> "aesthetic usability effect"
[04:51] <klepas> why are you labelling ubuntu a product?
[04:51] <troy_s> Because it bloody well is.  It is a single entity.
[04:51] <troy_s> It is marketed by Canonical.
[04:51] <klepas> single entity = product?
[04:51] <troy_s> It is a product.
[04:51] <troy_s> In fact, one could make a very cohesive argument that Inkscape is a product.
[04:51] <troy_s> Etc.
[01:51] <msikma> argh, why is it so hard to make a small circle with an outline that appears _exactly_ 1 px thick?