Rename Coffice?

[Sebastian Sauer]

On 03/28/2013 05:47 AM, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> Sebastian, I only referred the marketing/PR side of things; both Inge
> and part of me offer you support in that area.
> The desire I tried to express is: avoiding confusion among users or
> 3rdparties, plus wannabe journalists, by not multiplying extra
> *official public* flavors of Calligra in their minds unless it can be
> easily explained in a short sentence to a Joe user.

I see what you mean but I am not sure how to do better in the future. 
Maybe a bold intro sentence that explicit says "This is experimental" 
and probably most important :"This is not an official Calligra release". 
Yes, makes sense, agreed :)

> This is important,
> and was also quickly pointed out in the first comment on your blog
> entry [http://blogs.kde.org/2013/03/24/coffice-calligra-android-available-now].

Yep. Well, its all "work in progress" and that includes names, getting 
the patches proper upstream / into master, etc. I think its a different 
balance act of at the one time making clear "its a start, a preview, its 
going to change" and still make clear "yes, this is Calligra *code* done 
by the Calligra community". The later was important for me cause of 
exactly that assumption that some may write "New Office suite" and leave 
out all the background that 99.9% of the work that was needed are not 
done by me but by Calligra. Yes, it was important for me to outline that 
direct in the headline. Always not so easy to proper balance such things 
and you can be sure some news-pages will get it wrong, like to get it 
wrong, will spin there own stuff, always, cause it may sound better, 
brings more clicks. What I think is/was very important here is to make 
the message positive on any level. News love negative messages and imho 
its better to be to positive then negative on any level.

In concrete I personally prefer to be wrong citated with "its an 
official Calligra release" then with a "its a Calligra fork". I really 
tried hard to prevent the last case. Not only with Calligra but also 
with that fake-library, with the qmake/cmake case, with the Qt-only 
case, with Linux Desktop/Android case, etc. pp. In that blog I tried to 
explain why while making sure a) its not set in stones and b) its going 
to change and c) this is NOT negative and cause things are done 
different does NOT mean how its done before is bad or so.

Actually that's one of the reasons why I got that code into our 
repository weeks before. Personally this days I like github more but 
okay. Its also why I talked about that in IRC, why I announced the 
milestone2 here 1-2 weeks ago, why I gave earlier packages for testing 
to the community, why I real-time chatted in IRC, showed of the blog 
before, etc. pp. I just think it was very important to name Calligra 
(and for that matter KDE), to make clear that yes, this is Calligra code 
and its coming out of the Calligra community.

For the last sentence, the "its coming out of the Calligra community": 
Let's be realistic. NO project in Calligra or in KDE is done by all of 
the community. If somebody (and most things in KDE/Calligra are done by 
only one dev) comes up with something and if it fits basic rules (like 
FLOSS) then its from (or coming out of) the community. More so if it 
utilizes 99.9% of the code written by that community :) Anyhow, the imho 
REALLY important and interesting aspect here is more how its driven 
future. That's what we worked out or are still working out. Looks 
promising so far :)

On that matter:
* Calligra Mini then.
* I mailed sysadmins. In future we may use an own KDE Google Play 
account. Still some things to work out. Its in progress.

> I am totally OK with codenames, by design internal, either using urban
> dictionary, coding prefixes (COffice) or anything else :) But I would
> pick some parity here too since in case of FOSS also developer's blogs
> are part of the public messages. Journalists keep using them to
> sometimes say much more than the original authors actually mean. See
> Phoronix in the Aaron/Mir case as an example.

Well, really irrelevant imho. The one thing was positive and 
constructive ... but let's close *that* specific topic/example.

> Codenames, if they even exist, are not the same as the publicly
> communicated names that shaping the public recognition. A good
> improvement is the proposal of Calligra Mini sub-brand.
>
> Regarding the part that you do not plan (and I am not surprised given
> how complex it is): the look. I hope that ultimately, Calligra on
> Android shall be compliant with how 'native' apps look on the OS. This
> also most likely applies to any other platform that offers anything
> like own UX guidelines.

I think there are more important things for me to do atm and that's what 
I focus on. Its not that I not like to do that but it has no high 
priority for me atm. If anybody else likes: please do!

For a starting:
* What we may need is a night-/inverse-mode of textlayout to proper use 
a dark color scheme.
* There is a "SystemPalette" QML-item. Would make sense to experiment 
with it and fix Qt4 Necessitas where needed. *Note* that it may needed 
to build Qt5 Necessitas and do same/similar patch for Qt5 too. Rule is 
first Qt5 patch, then backport to Qt4. May also needed to get in contact 
with Necessitas-dev and look what's current Qt4 state, if backporting 
components/work from Qt5 to Qt4 is possible.
* Alternatively hacking direct in Java/JNI to fetch color-schemes, etc. 
and offer to QML. May the quick & dirty way for Qt4 being.
* Or alternatively port Calligra to Qt5.

> So your early (and hopefully often) releasing should be highly
> respected. I only mean that the effort should be have an
> 'Experimental' label attached in very visible place (Google calls it
> beta) so it is much safer for us.
>

Yep, fair enough & agreed. Thanks :)