I'm very OK with people working on things that I personally don't
believe in. I knew that such things would emerge and having a plugin
architecture that is as flexible as possible is intended to solve this.
This is one of the most significant reasons to why I want to keep the
core as small as possible, as the less we have in the core the less
there is that everyone have to agree on.

I'm willing to make changes to the core that will allow people to
implement things that I don't believe in. However, I'm not going to
spend time working on things that I don't believe in, but that must be
obvious.

> One solution I see is the merging of the two
> projects under a new name, with no individual from either party having
> a disproportionate amount of control (And here I must stress once
> again that I am not speaking for the Beryl project). This seems an
> amicable way to close old hostilities and more effectively work
> towards a shared overall goal. I believe if the development model of
> the new project is similar to that of Beryl and under a GPL license
> most if not all of Beryls developers will be behind such a change, and
> the new project will be able to leverage the significant mindshare
> behind both Beryl and Compiz. I believe Beryl would obviously be
> willing to compromise in areas such as GIT usage, and more stringent
> standards for code.

I'm not sure about moving the core to different name, maybe I can agree
to something like that. I definitely got concerns about making it GPL (I
think I made that clear in the mail I sent to the compiz list).

However, I'm interested in moving somehow in this direction. How about
setting up a common mailing list where architecture changes can be
discussed and we'll see if we can agree on the technical parts at least.

The plugin situation is a different thing and I would be fine with
moving all plugin development to a new project with a new name and I
think most of compiz community people would be OK with this too.