[kde-community] Why were there no talks about Ubuntu Mobile at Akademy?

[Jos Poortvliet]

On Wednesday 21 August 2013 10:59:29 Mario Fux KDE ML wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 21 August 2013, 09.14:58 schrieb Michael Zanetti:
> 
> Morning Michael
> 
> Thanks for your and Albert's explanations.
> 
> > On Tuesday 20 August 2013 22:11:04 Jos Poortvliet wrote:
> > > On Friday 16 August 2013 10:49:26 Jos Poortvliet wrote:
> > > > I think Aaron already made clear that he would be happy to work on
> > > > sharing as much as possible with the Plasma efforts he's involved in
> > > > and kick folk around him to do the same. I just make the wild bet that
> > > > the Frameworks folk are perfectly open to the same - standards benefit
> > > > us all, so does sharing libraries. They are turning KDE Libraries into
> > > > components which are
> > > > separately useful, that sounds like a terribly useful think for Ubuntu
> > > > Phone.
> > > 
> > > So I get plenty of replies in no time all over that I'm wrong, but when
> > > I
> > > offer help and ask how we can actually do something constructive,
> > > there's
> > > only silence? If the Canonical folks on this list don't feel like this
> > > mail was directed at them - you're hereby corrected. If you don't feel
> > > like there is anything you can do, please say so, we can then discuss
> > > trying to talk to somebody at Canonical directly.
> > 
> > I think for collaboration it takes more than just KDE and Canonical having
> > some similar stuff to do:
> > 
> > - Not all areas can be shared. I for one work on Unity8, which just works
> > and looks so different in every way than plasma does. We don't need
> > Plasmoid containers, you don't need search scopes. Given that Ubuntu Touch
> > is QML only, there's not much point in pulling the QWidget related stuff
> > from KF5 over to Ubuntu. Other things, like the Solid base for example
> > might indeed could be shared/reused.
> > 
> > - Once there is something which might make sense to be shared, it requires
> > the exact people working on it having interest in collaborating. Which
> > means, the responsive KDE person needs to accept that a certain API needs
> > to change for requirements NOT needed by KDE and the responsive person in
> > Canonical needs to have interest in pulling in something that most likely
> > can do way more than Ubuntu needs at this stage, with the additional
> > efforts of maintaining more code and doing code reviews for stuff not even
> > needed. It is not possible for me or Albert to go to some API guys and
> > tell them: You have to share code with KDE. This needs to happen from
> > inside the team. The person doing the work must drive it.
> > 
> > Now, coming from the Gnome/Gtk area, Canonical's people mostly are aware
> > what code could be shared with Gnome, but not many of them have a clue
> > what KDE frameworks actually is. Same the other way round. I'm quite sure
> > very few here know how the Ubuntu's architecture is built up.
> 
> So here my two questions:
> - What could we do that this "Gnome/GTK Canonical people" would be better
> informed about KDE Frameworks?
I mean, it would be possible to do a hangout or create a presentation or video 
on where they can find stuff 'for grabs'. As I pointed out before, I think it's 
good for Canonical to grab stuff from our repo's - it's GPL and all free. If 
they don't have time (now) to send patches, that is fine. Perhaps they have 
time later, maybe not - but by them just USING code we wrote, we're building 
up a relationship with them, and creating a reputation of being a repository 
of cool-stuff-to-grab. That can lead to collaboration in the future.

In other words, again, I'd like to emphasize: it is totally understandable 
that Canonical has no time to collaborate, send patches upstream etcetera 
right now. Just copy the code, use it, fix the API's for your own internal use, 
and see later on if we can collaborate. If not, you've forked it - fine, you at 
least didn't have to write it yourself. If we can bring it together again, 
awesome, points for both of us.

Catch my drift? I'm not demanding here that Canonical has to invest in 
collaboration. I want them to start stealing as much as possible. I simply 
believe that the way Free Software works will be an incentive for them to 
collaborate and contribute IN THE FUTURE. No pressure needed.

And as bonus, if they use a mention-worthy portion of our code I'll trow in my 
time for promoting Ubuntu Phone. All free, both code and my time. That's the 
case I'd like to be made to Ubuntu management here: you don't have to do 
anything. Take our code, use it, get your product out. And we'll help you 
promote it and say nice things about you, because we're happy to see our code 
being used. That's it. No strings attached.

/J

(ps and no, kmail, when I say "no strings attached", that doesn't mean I have 
to attach a file now :D)

> - Where could we read/get more information about how the Ubuntu architecture
> is built up? Could you tell use or give us some links?
> 
> > Then again, we actually do share and reuse some code. Take all the lightdm
> > stuff for example, the dbusmenu stuff and many more libs which in history
> > have flown into both directions already.
> > 
> > Br,
> > Michael
> 
> Thx
> Mario
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20130821/e617fc85/attachment.sig>