0 voters
With the current discussion of removing ‘Desk’ (The homepage of Frappe/ERPNext) I thought it would be useful to take a poll. The options are:
Not change anything:
Upgrade to ‘Desk 2.0’(Adding a sidebar):
Removing the Desk:
https://discuss.frappe.io/t/version-12-killing-the-iconic-desktop/
“If I had asked my customers, they would have asked for a faster horse” - Henry Ford
@cpurbaugh I guess this is an unscientific poll and unfortunately any change will be opposed at first, and then accepted. Also without experiencing the new desk for a few days, it is not a good idea to compare it to the current one.
Also what appears good at a glance isn’t always best. A fantastic example is the 1975 Pepsi Challenge, where believing a voting contest resulted in a huge debacle for Coca Cola.
It is an interesting philosophical question on how do we take calls like these. Maybe we need a core committee at some point. Right now there is no right answer.
Edit: another article: https://sabotagetimes.com/life/the-coke-wars-when-the-pepsi-challenge-nearly-killed-coca-cola
It seems pretty scientific to me. You asked the foremost experts on ERPNext what they would change and received a clear consensus.
@rmehta You’ve been saying for years that the community needs to take more part in development in ERPNext. Well, they’ve done it. They’ve improved your UI and sent a pull request to merge it. They’ve voted, and they voted for it. The pepsi challenge is not a valid comparison. ERPNext is not changing the desk because some poll said Odoo was better, and Odoo has no desk. ERPNext is changing the desk because you want to change the desk.
IGood to see the community take active part in contributing!
As far as Desk 2.0 goes, it does not really solve any problem. People already have their OS task bar, browser tabs, this is another permanent distraction. Also it is based on the current desk, which is badly designed.
Probably works for those whose primary job is clicking around the system, but will only create a doorway effect (additional distraction) for users who want to focus on some activity. Why Walking through a Doorway Makes You Forget - Scientific American
Like I said, people voting probably don’t represent the full set of users and neither may have any skin in the game.
Not sure voting is the right model for decision making. For example, if people vote for closed sourced extensions to be added, it won’t happen.
Edit: I think we will move the existing desk and desktop icons to another app and not officially support it. Works best for everyone. Same can be done for desk 2.0
So this is meant V12 desk can be customized (customizable) via custom app ( sth like wordpress template ) ? Just install app, choose desk format and it works?
I agree with @magic-overflow Give people options to choose from. At the end of the day, everyone will get to use the design that brings the best results.
Sometimes, the more the options, the better it is - @Ernest_Ofosu
it a good idea to change but what if we have both and everyone has a chance to which to use if possible?
Splitting the desk off into it’s own app does not work for anyone on ERPNext hosting. So not best for everyone.
Voting is a great way for decision making, which is why nearly every government in the world has some method in place for doing so.
By it’s nature, voting gives a voice to those with ‘skin in the game.’ Arbitrary decision making does not.
This goes back to my original idea of splitting ERPNext into a platform with installable apps. However, there needs to be some sort of Frappe version of an app store to automate installs, and to allow installation on a hosted server, something like this:
I would like to comment on this desk.
So, my take on this matter are:
This way there is hierarchy to help user navigating the whole application.
Woah, if this is government, hope you are paying your taxes. 
I hope you are realising you are trying to control someone else’s labour.
The right attitude should be: we love the existing desk, we will commit x hours of labour per week to support issues in the desk. Or here is the equivalent amount.
Voting in the poll is not “skin in the game”. Skin in the game is when you are spending hundreds or thousands of hours in building a community software.
You need to find a more convincing argument, or some volunteers who are interested in maintaining the desk!
Woah, if this is government, hope you are paying your taxes.
I hope you are realising you are trying to control someone else’s labour.
I’m talking about decision making within governments. Not the public voting officials into office.
The right attitude should be: we love the existing desk, we will commit x hours of labour per week to support issues in the desk. Or here is the equivalent amount.
The open pull request for the desk improvements already shows that point.
Voting in the poll is not “skin in the game”. Skin in the game is when you are spending hundreds or thousands of hours in building a community software.
If someone hasn’t voted in the poll that’s spent hundreds of hours building something, then they must not care about that issue. Furthermore, you coming out with just some random decision to drastically change the UI doesn’t give them a voice!
You need to find a more convincing argument, or some volunteers who are interested in maintaining the desk!
The desk cannot be maintained if you remove it from the software. If you keep it in, improvements must be approved by you, which you seem unwilling to do. Again, there’s an open pull request for improvements to this software that you are refusing to pull because it’s not what you want to do! This isn’t a matter of how will it be maintained. It’s a matter of you won’t allow it to be maintained.
Desk 2.0 does not solve any of the problems that we are trying to solve here. I have already replied, so won’t repeat.
We (current maintainers) have no interest in maintaining the current desk once the new design is merged. If you have the bandwidth, do let us know - I am talking about Desk 1.0 not 2.0.
Edit: Will avoid replying unless there is a new point here (so that we don’t go in loops).
In the broader scheme, this conversation seems like it might discourage future pull requests and innovation from the community. What is the appropriate mechanism for independent developers to determine if their contribution will be seriously considered before investing time in development?
The Foundation might help to relieve and resolve such issues. But at present that body and support of governance is stalled. As bigger players step up, the Foundation will assume a leadership and stabilizing role. Money talks…
