[kde-linux] Users guide to KDE?

[Randy Kramer]

Note that I've reordered at least one paragraph to make my response more 
convenient for myself (and hopefully, more coherent for others ;-)

On Sunday 06 July 2008 09:55 am, Kevin Krammer wrote:
> On Saturday 05 July 2008, Gaffer. wrote:
> 
> > There seems to be a gap between what the goals are and what is
> > promised.  End user expectation has been created by whoever, that
> > generated enthusiasm and excitement about how much better KDE4 would
> > be when it arrived.
> 
> The main problem seem to be communicating the timeframe.

I agree.

> As some tried to explain, KDE4 is not just KDE 4.0 and I am not aware of any 
> goal for KDE 4 which has been abandoned.
> 
> Since the new major release allowed certain forms of changes, e.g. removing 
> architectural limitations, implementation road blocks, replacing legacy 
> subsystems, etc., the developers who were previously limited by the old 
> platform started to think what they could achieve with the new one and 
> started to share these ideas.
> 
> Given finite resources, it was at least clear to developers that this would 
> mean adding these new stuff step-by-step and I personally would have never 
> expected that anyone would anticipate all of it on the very beginning of the 
> product development cycle.

<moved paragraph>
> I am afraid that it currently looks like the user base has expanded beyond 
> those who value first hand information about what is going on and will move 
> the information culture away from community style to top-down controlled 
> coporate style.

I hate to think that has to be the case ...

> 
> But it seems that sharing insight into the ongoing development process is 
> sometimes interpreted as some kind of release announcement, dispite release 
> announcement usually being marked as such.

That puts a burden on the reader to remember that if a post doesn't say 
"release announcement" he has to be consider that the information could 
represent something further in the future than the next release.

As primarily a reader (rather than an announcer), I'd propose instead a 
(short) disclaimer on each post, something like (but to be wordsmithed to 
make it as clear and concise as possible):

"Discussions on this mailing list may refer to features that won't make it 
into the next KDE release, or even to speculative features that never make it 
into a KDE release.  Before spreading rumors, ask or just please be patient."

(That phrasing leaves a few unanswered questions--I'd hate to see that 
everytime someone posted something someone else posted to ask, "will that be 
in the next release" or "which release will that be in"--readers should be 
restrained and recognize they are reading a list that is more for development 
related discussions than for release annoucements.)

So maybe that leads to modifying the disclaimer something like this:

"This mail list is not intended for announcements of features to be included 
in the next release of KDE.  Instead, it is intended for discussions among 
developers and interested users about features that might appear in future 
releases of KDE.  Before spreading rumors, refer to the <kde release 
announcements list> for concrete plans, ask, or just please be patient."

or

"This mail list is intended for development related discussions.  As such, 
discussions may refer to features that won't make it into the next KDE 
release, or even to speculative features that never make it into a KDE 
release.  Before spreading rumors, refer to the <kde release announcements 
list> for concrete plans, ask, or just please be patient."

> Which means that those of us who like to get excited by things to come will 
> have to spend a lot more time hunting down information themselves.
> And I was so looking forward to spend less time reading tens of mailinglists 
> but rather reading a couple of "planet" blog aggregators.
> 
> Maybe there is a way in between, like having invite-only planets for those 
who 
> value in-depth information and just have release announcements for those who 
> want to think in terms of finished products.

I guess I'm trying to avoid "invite-only planets for those who value in-depth 
information".  Maybe that would not be so objectionable if the invite-only 
net is fairly wide or not difficult to pass--I'd start by suggesting that 
such planets (I don't really know what a planet is) should be open to almost 
any interested user, and maybe, when a user subscribes, he should read a more 
extended form of the disclaimer.

Randy Kramer

> Anyone seeing other options?