[kde-community] RFC: Distribution outreach program

[tetris4 at openmailbox.org]

On 01-02-2016 19:31, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Monday 01 February 2016 13:04:37 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not against automated testing at all, I just think it doesn't work 
>> at
>> the highest level and bears pitfalls of distros gaming the system, or
>> people actually care more about the number of points they get than the
>> actual user experience.
> 
> I think we have to readjust the perspective here a bit. I really 
> appreciate
> Thomas' initiative because there definitely could be better 
> collaboration
> between distributions and KDE. We have the common goal to get our 
> software to
> users in the best possible shape. We shouldn't see that as a gaming, 
> blaming,
> or judging, but we should see this as an opportunity to work together 
> in a
> better way. How this is then expressed to the public is a second 
> thought, and
> should be decided together with the distributions.
> 
> So defining and discussing criteria which make up a good experience, 
> listing
> and communicating requirements, talking to each other about what is 
> missing,
> what needs to be fixed, and where it should be fixed without playing 
> upstream-
> downstream-ping-pong, sharing and possibly aligning roadmaps, all these 
> things
> and more could happen through the distribution outreach program. This 
> would be
> really wonderful.
> 
> In essence I think this is about better communication between KDE and
> distributions, so that we can productively work on what needs to be 
> fixed,
> avoid misunderstandings, and keep a common momentum.

I would like to propose a middle ground solution hoping it will 
contribute to the discussion. It will imho serve everyone's interests; 
KDE, distributions and users.

The way I see it, the issue breaks down to 3 core areas as discussed so 
far:

1. KDE recommended standards
Recommendation: Provide a checklist of everything KDE considers 
important (configuration, dependencies, versions etc) as discussed in 
this thread.
This way everyone can check what KDE proposes as an optimal environment 
for the software it provides to run on.

2. Distribution specific implementation
Recommendation: Provide a place for distributions themselves to share 
their implementation.
This could be a wiki table of some sort with a checklist and comments 
related to the items outlined in #1. This way distributions have the 
opportunity to explain in short their motives and demonstrate their 
reasoning for not providing something the expected way. This also helps 
users to have a more clear understanding of the goals and methods of 
each distribution that ships KDE software, and at the same time avoid 
any misunderstanding that could occur by people perceiving this as KDE 
pointing the finger to some specific implementation strategy or 
distribution.

3. Review
Recommendation: From a distribution's perspective, I would expect 
distributions to be trusted to provide true information, so any 
reviewing should not be needed.
However, if in the long term this proves to be necessary, it could be 
done in specified or random intervals. A script could be used as 
suggested, a KDE assigned person could handle this, or both. Some text 
of the type 'This page was last reviewed by KDE on X date' could show to 
users that the related information is valid and up to date.
Badges could be assigned here and some visualization if KDE decides they 
help, as well as some grouping/sorting of the distros in relation to 
their appraisal.

And of course, in cases that some information is considered invalid, 
make sure to have open channels of communication with distributions to 
avoid misunderstandings. =)

Neofytos Kolokotronis
tetris4 at chakraos.org