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

[Michael Zanetti]

On Wednesday 21 August 2013 13:00:26 Jos Poortvliet wrote:
> 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 think subscribing to the ubuntu-phone mailing list and just start following 
what people are doing. Seeing what people are working on, ideas where stuff 
could be shared should pop up on its own I guess.

Starting to package up the libs that start to become usable might be a good 
thing too.

But in the end, building showcases is always the best I'd say. How about 
porting some KDE apps to Ubuntu Touch?  Doing a good job there would 
definitely draw attention to it. Especially at this point in time where every 
new app still gets like 5 blog posts dedicated to it. 

Doesn't even need to do some real thing. Already demos of how to use some K 
goodness would help I think.

> 
> 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.

I'd like to repeat that neither Albert nor me are part of the management 

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

/me still likes that feature 

Cheers,
Michael