No, lame is using the interests of volunteers to excuse a bad technical decision, that is, throwing out the window all experience gained with a currently working environment, all in the pursuit of some questionable usability nirvana.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for improvement, but I seriously object to two things:
1. the mentality that once something is done, it's dead. Not. It's done. Most software projects should aim at being done some day, at least the parts others have to rely upon. That's what originated my initial post.
2. the way Gnome has chosen to release Shell. Make a new point zero release and rush a half baked idea with a half baked implementation. And make it mandatory! What's that familiar smell? Oh, yes! smells like KDE4 all over again! Why would it be so difficult to maintain the current, working, environment for the (millions!) of current users, and give the radically new stuff as an option for the adventurous?
But I guess they will make the same mistake again, who is going to test it if it's not mandatory, anyway? Excuse my lameness, but I have been through all this before, and it was not pretty.
All this would be moot, though, if Gnome tried to finish something. But can Gnome 2 be considered "done"? Nope, it was never written with that in mind. There are piles of bugs that will *never* get a fix, because in the minds of those developers Gnome 2 is not mature, but deprecated.
Of course, I may equally well be wrong. It happens to me all the time.