> It would be more useful to ask them why they have removed those features, figure out what their goal is, and then discuss it so you can reach consensus. That

> It would be more useful to ask them why they have removed those features, figure out what their goal is, and then discuss it so you can reach consensus. That's not a productive approach; it would make the GNOME devs slaves of popularity contests. These are not my words. They're the words of a GNOME member¹ > as a question was there any kind of community review No, maintainers are not meant to become slaves of popularity contests. Discussions with GNOME devs seems not to lead anywhere. Here³'s the opionion of a Pop!_OS maintainer: Something @GNOME NEEDS to realize is that Pop!_OS, Ubuntu, and others are NOT going to stop theming. What we will do instead is replace GNOME components entirely if it becomes too costly to apply our style to them. Come up with a way forward for custom styles, or lose users. The theming problem has been very much discussed - if with "discussing", you mean lots of users (devs) talking to a wall. It's worse actually; the GNOME team actively prevented devs from developing theming, and advocated against it. I actually had a link where a GNOME dev was urging Debian (or Ubuntu, can't remember) to revert a patch that restored terminal transparency (or something like that). Could you help me finding it? Here's an interesting reply from Christian Persch²: > 1. Open gnome terminal > 2. Go to Edit -> Profile Preferences > Actual result: Background configuration tab is missing. > It was present in 3.6 version, please return it back. No. The above was actually discussed on HN⁴. Regarding this: This one is blatantly incorrect, see this twitter thread from a GNOME developer: https://twitter.com/tobias_bernard/status/145743855381055898... The "*lot* of work" has never been discussed with users (I've checked the multiple requests in the bug trackers). Given the amount of egomania in GNOME's background, and lack of strong (actually, any) technical grounds in the twit, the twit has exactly zero validity. ¹: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=695371#c35 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=695371#c35 ²: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=698544 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=698544 ⁴: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5690689 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5690689 ³: https://web.archive.org/web/20210901171117/https://twitter.com/jeremy_soller/status/1433088460655452162 https://web.archive.org/web/20210901171117/https://twitter.c...