[Kde-games-devel] Restructuring KDE Games

[Parker Coates]

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 06:07, Mauricio Piacentini wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Frederik Schwarzer wrote:
>
>> First step would be to clearly point out the problem. I came after
>
> Thanks for the great summary. I agree we should narrow the focus.

I had half started a big reply, but for the most part I found myself
just repeating what Frederik said. I have to say I'm in full agreement
with him.

>> - Apply some formal process to decision-making in the module. It can
>> be online voting (we have to decide who is qualified to vote), or
>> appointing of a module coordinator to decide.
>
> I think something like that should be limited to a few major cases.
> Otherwise it induces other problems, like:
> - who maintains the list of qualified voters?
> - what are decisions that require a vote?
> - who arranges the voting process (it is more work than it seems)?

Honestly, I don't feel we have a real need for a formal decision
making system. The major issue with our current system (this mailing
list) isn't it's lack of formality, it's a lack of opinions expressed
altogether. Other than maybe the discussion about removing games, I
can't really think of a recent case where there was an issue with
strong conflicts of opinion that would have been easier to resolve
with a formal vote.

Deciding who doesn't get to vote would also be a very unpleasant
process, easily leading to guilt in those who must decide to exclude
people and a lost sense of belonging for those who are excluded. KDE
and KDEGames are ultimately meritocracies where those who do the work
decide, so I don't think there's a real need for formal consensus. In
the past our system has been:.

  1. Someone raises an issue that they're interested in/concerned
with/looking to implement.
  2. People give a bunch of opinions/suggestions/warnings/etc and
possibly volunteer to help out. Not all of this input necessarily even
comes from core contributors.
  3. The person takes that all into consideration, but ultimately
makes a decision themselves and goes to work.

What I think we're lacking most is the second step. Twice in the 4.5
cycle I was keen to go ahead with the KBattleship/KTron renaming. Both
times, there was a call for opinions and then a meagre response. I'm
not trying to make excuses; I really should have just pushed ahead
with the limited feedback we had, but it can be hard to find the
motivation to make a change like this when you aren't certain that you
really know that the majority of the community approve.

> Manpower is a problem. But I think that having no active coordination
> is something that is a bigger problem at this time, as people have
> energy but are not sure if they can just sit down and do something.

I think another fairly major issue (and one that's not all that
pleasant to talk about) is that fact that not everybody actually likes
all the games. For a single example, I don't like KBattleship. It's
not that there's any major problem with the application itself or with
the concept of the game. It's just a matter of personal taste that I
don't find it entertaining. So if I see an easy crash reported against
KBattleship, I'll probably take to look to see if I can easily fix it.
But if someone requests (or provides a patch for) a new feature, a new
name, a behavioural modification or a graphical change, I'm more
hesitant to jump in. As someone who doesn't actually play or even
enjoy the game, it can be hard to judge what would be an actual
improvement for those who do. I don't really have a solution to this
problem (other than having an active and engaged maintainer for every
game), but I think it's an important one to consider when talking
about a lack of involvement.

> Looking back, I think our decision to make frequent IRC meetings was
> THE best one during the 4.0 phase. It created a sense of community,
> and provided a forum for decisions. Maybe we can schedule one next
> week to discuss the issue of coordination and goals?

I think regular meetings are a great idea. Even if they don't end up
being a big deal and if we only have a couple of quick items to
discuss, I think getting together regularly just helps to keep the
feeling of community alive.

> I will be at Akademy (just confirmed it) during the first four days as well.

I will not be at Akademy, unfortunately. Airfare costs (in combination
with recently quitting my job on a whim to go back to school) mean
that it's not really a wise financial move at this point.

Parker