Comment 111 for bug 882274

Referring to this answer:
>If you agree that there should of necessity be some bugs we will not
>fix, who do you think should decide which of those suggestions or
>wishlist items should be in, and which should be out? Don't you think
>the underwriters, designers and developers of the project should have
>that right? That this will result in the best product? If it's not them,
>who should it be?

Again: if there were the same solution for Unity that is now implemented for Gnome Shell, this discussion would be obsolete. Nobody could be complaining about won't fix bugs, because there would always be the possibility to write your own patch and make it available as an installable extension.
But then we would need such a place in the Sofware Centre (instead of dozens of PPAs). Offer those, who complain about the "won't fix" situation, the possibility to simply upload their patches if they are willing to write them. Make these patches not default, but make it easily possible to install these patches via the Software Centre. But to not offer that possibility, though some people are willing to write those patches (or already have written those patches) and to deny them the possibility to thus participate in the community, though they are willing to do their share, that is what I call hypocritical. No average user would install a PPA and thus no average user has the opportunity to decide if he/she would like some of the patches which modify Unity because he/she cannot try these patches. A section in the Software Centre which is easily reachable would be a solution.

Nobody expects Canonical to invest money to pay developers to program solutions which are not on the agenda. Those who pay the developers decide what should be programmed. BUT you cannot and must not deny anyone the possibility to participate. Otherwise this is NOT community and this is NOT anything for human beings. Then it would only be Linux for Canonical beings. And you can really say then "canonical beings" or "Canonical beings". A canon defined by those who pay the developers and designers, a canon defined by Canonical.

So, what about the simple question of a section in the software center which reads "Unity Extension"? Not "Unity Indicators", not "Unity Scopes and Lenses". There are some who want more than just some fancy new icons and filters for their searches. And some of them already have implemented their own solutions and would perhaps like to offer them. Many people do not want to use dozens of PPAs just to be able to modify some simple things. Nobody expects you to invest money or developer power into those things. But make it possible that the work of those people who invest their time can be appreciated.