Closed Ubuntu Artwork a Recipe for Disaster?

Old issue I realise, but does the central commercial “we let this guy get on with it and use what he produces” style of artwork development miss out on an essential part of open development, critiquing by the community.
Typically with Open development one central person will create some code/art/whatever, the community will evaluate this code/art/stuff and critique it, not only by submitting patches, fixes, updates and other things, but by openly discussing the development via mailing lists/IRC and such. When you centralise the development to a single person you miss out on this critiquing, and resulting you may end up with a bad project.

I realise the reason that the artwork for feisty (and maybe beyond) has been outsourced away from the community is because the ‘community’ could not come up with consistent development, with each person wanting to do things a different way. But in the end isn’t that what every project development is like? What I think was really lacking was a strong leader, Maybe Mr Shuttleworth should of invested in developing a strong artwork community with a strong leader instead of giving up.


One response to “Closed Ubuntu Artwork a Recipe for Disaster?

  1. First, I would like to state that I agree with your sentiments entirely.

    Second, I would also like to suggest that the failure during Edgy was entirely about sabdfl failing to make concrete decisions along the way. It is impossible to drive a design development pattern without having your ‘client’ make key decisions.

    As you probably know, sabdfl’s voice carries huge weight. Unfortunately, having evolved from some twelve people listed in Launchpad at the time, there was no singular voice that could hold quite as much sway as sabdfl’s. What some might not know is that the development process had _many_ key checkpoints for sabdfl to weigh in on. At no point did he.

    He exhibited interest in a few of the patterns that were evolving, but never _once_ managed to concretely say “let’s go this way”, and as such, it was never quite clear what direction to evolve into a formal pattern.

    I hope this helps to clear up the rather ‘spun’ twist that Ubuntu has put on Edgy’s cycle. It was sabdfl’s undoing, and his alone.

    Finally, in looking at what we currently have for Feisty, you can see that sabdfl’s preference is well deep into the conservative zone of bland. Nothing but a gradient does _not_ equate with clean, elegant, nor aesthetically acceptable.

    If you are interested in discussing art and design issues further, feel free to contact me via email.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s