>but given that it's a subjective technical decision No, there's nothing subjective about it. The fact is, doing things the way they suggested won't fix anythi

>but given that it's a subjective technical decision No, there's nothing subjective about it. The fact is, doing things the way they suggested won't fix anything. That's a fact of the code as it's written. They could change the code to fix it, but then they'd be breaking backwards compatibility. These are the objective facts. >if your ethical framework is "Gnome is all volunteers they can do what they want" That's not an ethical framework. It's a functional description of the way that open source projects work, by necessity. How do you propose volunteers make anything work if they're forced to program in every idea from every user, including all the impossible and nonsensical ideas? Or what if one user wants to expand a feature but another user wants to remove the same feature, what do they do? >Yes, I concede that they are free to do whatever they want, but that doesn't free them from criticism. Neither does it free the SDL developers from criticism from the GNOME developers, or from anyone else. It also doesn't free either me or you from criticism for making impossible suggestions. >Do you think that the choice to not implement XDG-decoration is based on probable facts? Yes, see above. The code that's currently written is an objective, provable fact. You can go look at the code right now, that's the code that's shipping on users' computers. Any decision they make is restricted by that code, unless they want users to be even more angry about how they broke backwards compatibility. You're getting confused, because the subjective part here is what they do to the code in the future. The code as it currently stands says objectively that your idea won't work without causing other problems.