I'm usually called Jo-Erlend, but I don't really care that much what you call me, as long as you don't call me at home. :)
lol, no worries, I'll make sure I don't do that :-)
I were attending remotely, and there was quite a bit of chatter, so I couldn't catch everything. My impression, though, was that they were talking about the desktop, and that includes more than just Unity. However, once you start changing software, the workload increases. Because of this, it is very much in the interest of the Ubuntu community to stay as close to Gnome as possible. That means what configuration options should be available in 12.04, would probably also depend, at least in part, on what's accepted into Gnome. Nautilus supports plugins and extensions, though, so that might be a better solution than to make Nautilus itself more configurable.
Ahh, that makes sense. Didn't realise that Nautilus supports plugins/extensions, good to know. I think I have to spend some time getting into some dev work on ubuntu related stuff this summer (your winter I believe), learn the ins and outs and start contributing.
But you know, these sessions last one hour, so there's very little room to figure out the smallest details. That's not the goal. The goal is to figure out what the goals are. What configuration options becomes available remains to be seen. Some configuration options are necessary and others would be nice. I hope not to see a configuration bonanza though. Configuration options are often fairly easy to add, but -- obviously -- difficult to remove without making lots of people very unhappy. And for something to be configurable, you don't just need a checkbox. You need extra features, which necessarily consumes some resources. They also make the desktop more difficult to support. So, all in all, I would prefer to see configuration options appear as they're proven to be necessary, and not in the hope that they won't be useless. In other words, to err on the side of simplicity.