I have been trying to follow the intense debate tagged GTK+ 3.0 and actually covering a lot more, from the longest post to the shortest. If I was into film criticism I would say that the story is evolving from decadentism to apocalypticism, with elements of final time, esoterism, conspiracy, dualism and reincarnation. It’s confusing… but solvable, since confusion is just a mental state.

As for the GTK+ 3.0 debate itself there is little-to-nothing I could add to Havoc’s conclusion. Perhaps is worth saying that my employer Nokia hasn’t pushed or inspired the proposal of the GTK+ maintainers and wouldn’t rush to jump out of 2.x if there is nothing new above. I’m sure Miguel knows that, and for the rest his criticism is valid and valuable.

But actually this post is more about GNOME, 3 or not.

Confused in the last years about the lack of leadership? Confused now about the lack of vision? Depends where you look at and what you expect from. Darkness comes when you observe too close your own belly. Visions come when you look for interesting stuff around and beyond. Leadership is nothing you search but something that one unsuspected day pulls you out while you are at something.

Some guys are really into something in the GNOME context. Is it a coincidence that nobody seems to see heavyweight leaders there? Is it a symptom that they are in projects that many don’t see in the core of GNOME? Is it a surprise that they argue less and do more?

Why do you think they enjoy wearing shirts in GUADEC with a big foot? Is it C? Is it GTK+? Federico’s smile? The FreeFA? Find the answers and you will start getting a GNOME vision. Now go back to that toolkit debate and see how much it matters.

Also, who are those guys? Where do they live? Are they students, employees, entrepreneurs? Do they pay rents and phone bills themselves? Nappies? What are their real jobs? What products do they work for? Find the answers and you will start seeing a context of GNOME innovation. Now go back to that toolkit debate and see how much it matters.

I’m not saying the debate about GTK+ is not important. It is but… is it the central debate of GNOME? Do we need to find a vision for GTK+ in order to draw the future of GNOME or is it the other way round? Is the backbone of GNOME a one and only toolkit or is it something else?

All these heated debates about GTK+/Qt or C/C++… how sensible will sound to young and creative developers beyond 2010? Look the runtimes, look the Web. To build a vision around a toolkit and a native environment was a good strategic move ten years ago. Do you think the same strategy will succeed in ten years?

So many questions, it is confusing sometimes. This is why is good to have principles preceding visions and strategies. The principles have been always clear: freedom and collaboration. They brought us here and they will push us forward as long as we keep them in good shape.

Freedom, collaboration, one vision, a refreshed strategy, a context for innovation and… who will stop this? Only ourselves watching our own bellies. Toolkits and version numbers need to be reactors to reach the goals, not talismanic objects becoming an end themselves. Someone has to discuss and find solutions around them, but be suspicious if too many people spend too much time discussing.

Which reminds me to stop this post now.