[kde-community] About ocs-server future

Claudio Desideri happy.snizzo at gmail.com
Fri Jan 15 02:54:15 UTC 2016


>
> I'm glad to hear that you're still interested in ocs-server, but at the
> same
> time I'm puzzled, because that is not what you told me when we talked
> extensively about the project. You told me that you are not planning to
> work
> on ocs-server in your free time, but would be available to get paid to do
> it.
> If you would get paid to, you'd participate in a meeting.
> I went out on a limb to even get you pocket money (which is highly unusual
> for
> such meetings) which you requested, on top of covering your other expenses,
> just for you to be able to participate.


You asked me, in case the final decision at the meeting would have been to
merge or work on the BS' implementation, if I would have been available to
work with the future team to-be-built. I said no, because I had no time to
put in a larger project with more people. Even if my code sucks, I liked
writing it and learning and improving it. I just had no time to follow
tasks in a bigger team with deadlines. I could have found that time if bs
sponsored my work with my requested amount (I'd like to point out that I
asked 100€/month), in the other case I'd just had to work on free time. I'm
now doing a small job completely unrelated to programming or opensource
software. That's because I just need that extra. Then, when you told me
that I could work for a new project with a new team for free I just said
no. It was very funny to develop the project, I just wasn't as passionate
in a new project. It's open source, we're still doing it for passion in the
end, right? And regarding the travel... I know exactly what you told me,
and I'm not going to deny that. I'd just like to point out that you talked
about a "hotel" and I discovered very late it wasn't a hotel, it was an
apartment. I'm sorry, it can be the same for you but it's a huge difference
for me as I need my personal and private spaces from time to time. At
akademy night party, I wasn't there, I was working on the server, because
sometimes I have to socially "recharge batteries". That's the night we had
it working with newstuff.
Regarding the phrase "If you would get paid to, you'd participate in a
meeting." let's explain the logical steps to readers. I'd hate to be
misunderstood again. You told me bs had this proprietary implementation and
then you invited me in a meeting to decide about ocs future and telling me
that an evaluation would have been done there, and that the best would have
been chosen. I told you then, that it was pretty obvious my implementation
had security problems and other flaws so that basically there was no
choice. Then the focal point of the meeting was missing. You also admitted
that mine was probably worse than bs' one. Then I asked you if there were
real work opportunities (I recently moved in with my girlfriend and we had
expenses, I asked for 100/month which I think it's not exactly gold
diggering.) if I'd have come to the meeting, because if there weren't I was
just not interested in working for free for a brand new project. That was
the whole point of the "meeting issue". And I tried to explain it to you as
clearly as possible. I'm sorry, I should have communicated better.

I made really sure (told you multiple times, I just reviewed the IRC logs,
> I'm
> happy to send them to you if you find that your memory is lacking) that
> we're
> looking at it open-mindedly, and if you care about the subject, I would try
> hard to get roadblocks removed for you to participate. You chose not to.
>

What you say perfectly makes sense, and it's completely true. It's just I
hadn't the energy and passion to join a brand new project led by a company
with employees working full time. You have to admit that even if that's
legally open source development it's different, because paid people proceed
with a much quicker speed and I knew I couldn't catch up if not using
almost all my free time. Please consider I'm still a student so I can't
focus completely on such a project. I tried to explain to you also this
fear of mine, but clearly I must have been communicating wrong again.

If you feel being met with unfairness, I'm sorry to hear that, but after
> having another critical look at how things went down exactly, I think
> you're
> misrepresenting important facts (I could point out many of them in your
> email,
> but I don't think it really contributes to the discussion, not any more
> than
> asking you to re-read the parent email asking yourself what are facts, and
> which parts are your own assumptions.)
> Next time you have doubts, questions, or somesuch, and you're struggling to
> find answers, please reach out to me before coming to conclusions that may
> be
> based on misinformation and incorrect assumptions. Until you do that,
> please
> assume positive intentions of those involved.
>

You're right, once again. I did assumptions, mainly because I received no
follow up to the meeting at all. I didn't know that if I didn't come I
wasn't eligible to receive a follow up. Part of my work for OCS isn't
everything about coding. It's a well established technology, up and
running, and as such, it sees many people involved, which means that
there's a bit more bureaucracy than usual. For example, during akademy, I
talked with some persons (I can recall who, if you need to) but we talked
about possible migration metodologies, and the protocol itself. I had some
ideas in fixing the protocol itself (I found some parts to be incomplete in
the official specs) and decided that I'd have written an email to frank,
asking if there was the possibility to expand the protocol. Before doing
it, since I haven't ever met Frank I sent my email for review and I
received a response that was more less "wait because someone has to reach
to you about ocs stuff" (not exactly those words but the meaning is that).
I then stopped working because I thought it could have been useless, if
somebody else decided a different fate for ocs-server. And I wouldn't have
opposed to that. I waited for the meeting to happen and then after that
leinir said to me that you decided they were two different project and I
could have go on with the development. When I asked if my code would have
been used replacing openDesktop, however, i got no response at all. After
repeatedly asking, I was told it would have been part of incubation phase.
Now, I don't know project phases as much as you do, but I believe
incubation happens way before is inside KDE. Then, logically, that means
ocs-server wasn't inside KDE. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. I then
assumed that the same persons that were going to decide about ocs future
decided not to consider my project, and I guess my assumption was right,
because you said it: my project isn't suitable. I'm not criticizing your
choices nor BS'. I'm just telling that there was a lack of communication,
which I honestly wasn't expecting from you, because you asked me to go to
the meeting.
I could have made other assumptions as well, that I didn't. For example: if
you invited me, and didn't provide any follow-up nor any small comment I
could have assumed you decided to cut me off from the whole ocs thing. And
that, correct me if I'm wrong, is quite reasonable to assume. I don't know
your country, but here, if people that offers you a job or a collaboration
usually has to keep updated the peer on the process. However, I didn't do
this assumption and kept asking leinir what would have been the mission of
the project. It's probably my fault asking only leinir though. I assumed
that being this KDE and KDE community, and being him the project manager of
ocs-server (he created the project months ago), and since he was present at
the meeting, he knew more than me. I never had a reply for what role
covered ocs-server. I didn't want you to say to me I'm a good programmer or
anything like that. I just was seeking for an answer, being it "our mission
is to replace openDekstop.org, go on with development" or "I'm sorry, we
created an other project, or will create an other project, your code won't
be used here". Both answers were good, but I received none.

I did a review of the code of the ocs-server project, focusing on code
> quality
> and maturity, feature completeness and maintainability to get an idea if it
> could be a replacement for existing OCS services in the near future. You
> told
> me yourself that it has architectural and practical security flaws.
> Problems
> I've found during review is that the code is rather incomplete so it can't
> be
> a short term replacement for existing OCS services offered by
> opendesktop.org,
> there hasn't been any substantial activity after your GSoC project, and a
> general low level of quality leading to maintenance problems down the road.
> Another issue I've found was the relative immaturity of the project, and
> that
> progress was mostly limited to periods during GSoC (there hasn't been a
> single
> commit to ocs-server after the pencils down deadline this year in August,
> for
> example). I didn't get the impression that it's a healthy project, and
> lengthy
> conversation with you didn't convince me otherwise.
>

As I told you, also speaking to people and brainstorming about possible bug
fixes in the protocol is working, but it's not commiting. Then, I'd like to
inform you I suffer from kidney stones which are for real a suffering, and
if you never tried to code with a morphine-antiemetics cocktail in your
blood then I invite you to try that. I had one just before akademy and then
I had an other right after that beat me down very hard. Unlike it can
appears, a quite long recovery is needed because of severe pain extremely
stressing the body and an unusual amount of blood loss. I couldn't walk
normally for 3 weeks. But there's a big difference from disappearing and
hanging around, even if it's on irc or via mail, talking with people. As
soon as I full recovered I started moving on with the next step: writing to
Frank. That's when I was told to wait, because ocs' future was still not
decided (that was the point of the meeting: deciding future of ocs, with
main focus on openDesktop.org). And I waited. I see you assumed the project
wasn't healthy. I wasn't neither. Of course of all this feedback you're
giving to me, as I already many times said, I received none. I thought
constructive criticism is vital in this community. Many people criticized
the project and we always replied and tried to discuss with people, because
I give high value to the community. I was assuming the same from other
members, but as you said, I probably failed assumptions. I would have liked
to receive such feedback earlier.
Then there's an other thing that I can't get in this paragraph. You said
that no one told me concurrent implementation can't happen inside kde and
while I can assure you someone told me that, I'll now assume what you told
me. Then you're telling me in this paragraph the reasons why my
implementation wasn't chosen. But then you're admmitting that a choice has
been made, but this isn't the case of Konqueror, in which the choice is up
to the user but there's only one practical use case: kde's infrastructure.
So you're telling me I can go on with development but I won't have any
userbase. Then again, I can't find passion for a project that won't see any
real usecase. And please, don't take this as a personal attack, I'm okay
with that. Just it would have been nicer to know it before this email,
maybe in a follow up.
I'm doing a very last assumption: that bs will opensource hive01
implementation. If this assumption is confirmed then I'm super happy!
Because at akademy really many many many people told me they'd be happy
with an opensource implementation of an ocs server. If this assumption is
wrong, then I just have to make you notice that kde's infrastructure future
has been decided by you evaluating my ugly code in favor of a bs still
proprietary implemetation. In that case, I'd suggest to ask the opinion of
the community.
Also you said this evaluation has took place during meeting, right? Then in
October you decided not to use my ugly code in favor of a closed source
one. I agree, bs is very KDE friendly, and we all expect an opensource
release, but what if it didn't happen? It already happened once, and for
how unlikly it will be, it still can happen again. But that's a subjective
consideration, as I wasn't here when ocs was created so I just know what
people told me about that story.
But I'm pretty sure it will go open source, that's very more reasonable so
I'll keep my assumption in this case.
And last, I couldn't imagine talking with you about a travel and a meeting
was instead about convincing you about the healthiness of a project. All on
IRC. I'm sorry for that.

I'm not sure who told you that. There's a long list of past events which
> prove
> otherwise, Konqueror vs. Rekonq to name a popular one. KDE doesn't "shut
> down"
> projects, and there are mechnisms in place which make this impossible: our
> open and inclusive processes and the very nature of Free software licenses.
>

I can't exactly recall who told me that, but I'm very sure some had. I lost
all logs, that's for sure a thing I learned going through this. I'm
perfeclty aware KDE can't "shut down" projects, again: you're right. I'm
just telling you I have no passion to put on a project that won't have a
real use case. I'm not interested in that kind of project, which, in my
honest opinion, has very small growing possibilities. Technically, the
project isn't shut down at all, it's there and we can code, but my (our)
work won't be used.

Lastly, I can't stress this enough. I just wanted to have some official
answers and for once, forgive me for this, want the community to be
informed about the outcome. I decided to go with this public email because
you have the same right to speak as me, and I avoided blogging about the
lacks of any usefullness about ocs-server because that wasn't a discussion,
that was just an announcement.

So let's me recap with all the new information so we won't go back to this
again, and correct me if I'm wrong.
At the meeting you evaluated my open source project and decided it was
immature, low quality, not healthy and not secure. Also I didn't convince
you to be healthy and I respect that. Therefore you (and the people
involved, of course) rightfully decided not to use my work. Then I guess
it's my right to choose whether or not continue development of the project,
and I choose not to, because, I'm not afraid to say it, I can't find
passion for a project without a real world use.

Then now your decision is towards the still-closed hive01 implementation?
Or have we some amazing last minute news? Or isn't still decided which
direction will be taken? (I'm really asking this if you're allowed and
comfortable with replying, and more as a user, because it really doesn't
matter to this particular issue regarding ocs-server. I guess it's more of
a community-related question)

Thanks for informing me and the community about the outcome and the process
about ocs-server. Hope this is clarifying.

Cheers,
Claudio


2016-01-15 1:10 GMT+01:00 Sebastian Kügler <sebas at kde.org>:

> Hi Claudio,
>
> Since you addressed me directly, and I was involved with the process, I'd
> like
> to chime in here.
>
> On Thursday, January 14, 2016 06:55:37 PM Claudio Desideri wrote:
> > We'd loved to continue development of ocs-server (and clients) but the
> > current status of things seems not too encouraging.
>
> I'm glad to hear that you're still interested in ocs-server, but at the
> same
> time I'm puzzled, because that is not what you told me when we talked
> extensively about the project. You told me that you are not planning to
> work
> on ocs-server in your free time, but would be available to get paid to do
> it.
> If you would get paid to, you'd participate in a meeting.
> I went out on a limb to even get you pocket money (which is highly unusual
> for
> such meetings) which you requested, on top of covering your other expenses,
> just for you to be able to participate. You canceled your attendance for
> reasons unrelated to the project, at least that's what you told me, only 2
> days before the meeting.
>
> I made really sure (told you multiple times, I just reviewed the IRC logs,
> I'm
> happy to send them to you if you find that your memory is lacking) that
> we're
> looking at it open-mindedly, and if you care about the subject, I would try
> hard to get roadblocks removed for you to participate. You chose not to.
>
> If you feel being met with unfairness, I'm sorry to hear that, but after
> having another critical look at how things went down exactly, I think
> you're
> misrepresenting important facts (I could point out many of them in your
> email,
> but I don't think it really contributes to the discussion, not any more
> than
> asking you to re-read the parent email asking yourself what are facts, and
> which parts are your own assumptions.)
> Next time you have doubts, questions, or somesuch, and you're struggling to
> find answers, please reach out to me before coming to conclusions that may
> be
> based on misinformation and incorrect assumptions. Until you do that,
> please
> assume positive intentions of those involved.
>
> I did a review of the code of the ocs-server project, focusing on code
> quality
> and maturity, feature completeness and maintainability to get an idea if it
> could be a replacement for existing OCS services in the near future. You
> told
> me yourself that it has architectural and practical security flaws.
> Problems
> I've found during review is that the code is rather incomplete so it can't
> be
> a short term replacement for existing OCS services offered by
> opendesktop.org,
> there hasn't been any substantial activity after your GSoC project, and a
> general low level of quality leading to maintenance problems down the road.
> Another issue I've found was the relative immaturity of the project, and
> that
> progress was mostly limited to periods during GSoC (there hasn't been a
> single
> commit to ocs-server after the pencils down deadline this year in August,
> for
> example). I didn't get the impression that it's a healthy project, and
> lengthy
> conversation with you didn't convince me otherwise.
>
> > they told us our project could be merged or shut down because the
> > community doens't allow concurrent implementations inside KDE)
>
> I'm not sure who told you that. There's a long list of past events which
> prove
> otherwise, Konqueror vs. Rekonq to name a popular one. KDE doesn't "shut
> down"
> projects, and there are mechnisms in place which make this impossible: our
> open and inclusive processes and the very nature of Free software licenses.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> sebas
>
> http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org
> _______________________________________________
> kde-community mailing list
> kde-community at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20160115/b048017e/attachment.html>


More information about the kde-community mailing list