<div dir="ltr">Yes it was accepted. You can see the list of accepted features here <a href="https://github.com/sugarlabs/roadmap/issues?milestone=1&state=open">https://github.com/sugarlabs/roadmap/issues?milestone=1&state=open</a> </div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On 20 June 2013 13:40, Simon Schampijer <<a href="mailto:simon@schampijer.de" target="_blank">simon@schampijer.de</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On 06/20/2013 01:28 PM, Walter Bender wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> I agree that the technical solution we have come up with to a large extent obviates the need for consensus around whether or not to implement this feature as it pushes it to the user space in the from of an activity. (Gonzalo and I have been discussing the fact that other cpsection widgets could also be moved to activities, but that is for another day. Regarding the specifics of this feature, I have not found any of the arguments that this feature is somehow going to confuse our users even remotely convincing. Three observations: (1) any change to the icon is driven by explicit user action, so no surprises there; (2) in virtually every other system or service our users encounter, there is the ability to set a personal avatar, so to argue that this is somehow going to confuse them in Sugar seems a stretch; and (3) particularly in light of the new approach, making it easier for our end users to make modifications to the system is in keeping with our overall pedagogy -- moving away from requiring root access to make changes is a good thing and while we don't want our users to inadvertently break things irreparably, there is something to be said for learning from the experience of breaking things. Bottom line, I seem to have more faith in the abilities of our users than perhaps is warranted, but I think that is aligned with our goals to encourage our users to take change. (The fact that this feature comes from one of our users says a lot.) Regarding our broken decision-making process, the problem I have is less that we don't reach consensus than that the discussions are happening very late in the process. We had, for example, had an email from our release manager months ago about the features proposed for this release. That was the time to question whether or not this feature should be accepted. To wait until now is not fair to the person, in the case, Ignacio, who has been working hard on his implementation. It is fine to give technical criticism at this point, and I think that discussion has been fruitful, but in my opinion, we really need to be more forthcoming earlier in the process about the features themselves. </blockquote> </div></div> Has that feature been accepted for 0.100? I must admit that I do not read all the mails and I might have overseen this one, at least I first saw [1] when the patch was submitted. Has there been a mail to ask for feedback for the design? The process tries to make room for that early feedback, especially for Features that changes UI or work flow. Simon [1] <a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Icon_Change" target="_blank">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Icon_Change</a> [2] <a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Policy#Propose_a_feature_for_addition_into_the_release_cycle" target="_blank">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Policy#Propose_a_feature_for_addition_into_the_release_cycle</a> </blockquote></div> -- Daniel Narvaez </div>