Thoughts on the Iteration Sprint, discussions and criticism

[Aleix Pol]

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Marco Martin <notmart at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 June 2012, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
>> > Starting from the very beginning, I honestly can't understand the
>> > arguments about "we already have a vision". Assume this is true - this
>> > vision was created (and eventually evolved) over the last, I think
>> > now, 3 years. Maybe a bit more maybe a bit less, whatever. In the
>> > highly changing time we live, that's an *enormous* span of time. The
>> > question this sprint tries to answer is: do we need to create a
>> > new/change the existing/keep the current vision for the workspace?
>>
>> I think at least it doesn't hurt to verify if our assumptions are still
>> true, or if things happened that might change the assumptions.
>
> yup, seeing the clash produced by those threads i realized that yes, we really
> need to doublecheck that..
> * did we fossilized over an idea too much?
> * why our idea seem to have some struggle to be widely embraced? a
> communication problem?
> * or there are really some fallacies in our premise?
>
>> > What should be our goal over the next months, especially for the
>> > desktop? If I were an author of the original vision, I would be HAPPY
>> > to see this happen and I would strive to take part in it. The argument
>> > about names doesn't really stand - this is as clear as it gets, it is
>> > a sprint for finding out who we are now and who we want to be. Does
>> > this have a clear answer now? I don't think so.
>> >
>> > Also, I'd like to point out that Plasma != Active. Active IS Plasma,
>> > but Plasma IS NOT active. Plasma is (or should be) much more than
>> > that, should focus on other platforms more than tablets.
>>
>> Plasma Active is not about tablets, it's about a spectrum of devices which
>> includes -- but certainly does not *ex*clude the desktop. What I meant by
>> writing Plasma == Active is that in the majority of cases, it does not
>> makes sense to look at them separately. There's a catch, though: The
>
> I see there isn't much progress here.
>
> * I see here someone continuing to repeat why all of mobile effort is a
> continuous spectrum of which the desktop is part of this.
> * The other part continuing to repeat that no, plasma is not active, is much
> more than tablets, desktop has to be more the centre of attention.. all things
> that taken individually can be agreed each one. but...
>
>
> Let's take a step back there..
>
>
> What I see is that there isn't agreement about the very core idea of device
> spectrum, and there are very precise concerns against the validity of the
> approach of considering active and the desktop *the same project*.
> Is the reason of this thinking that there is an unvalicable line between
> devices? are they too different to be considered the same project? I don't
> know, i would be very interested to know why.
>
> One of the main reasons I joined KDE back in the days, was because i seen
> plasma as a project that tried to go over what is traditionally considered a
> "desktop", a pretty primitive metaphor and boundary, and i tought "hey i could
> build a mediacenter around it, or a phone"... and the differences on how stuff
> would be presented will be details, those boundaries could really be
> blurried... and mostly every minute i spent in it was to realize that (yeah,
> even waaay before all the mobile fuzz, or active started)
> so I reckon that I tend to get over emotional on that (and sometimes not 100%
> rational ;)
> Pardon me, on this topic, considering the desktop and devices the same thing I
> tend to get a tad cranky because is one of the things that /is keeping me
> here/
> As is probably as emotional for other people that are coming to it from a
> completely different perspective and a different set of values.
>
> Never the less, there could be a fatal fallacy in this whole concept, and
> seems many people have precise concerns over it, they may be right, who
> knows...  so let's get this exposed!
>
>
> What could be a nice idea in the sprint, is a short session with a debate
> (maybe even moderated by someone, almost in talk-show style :p) on this very
> same topic: why stopping to consider the desktop a "special thing" is right?
> why is wrong? what are the concerns or the risks about it?
>
> won't settle the argument forever, but would at least focus a bit what is the
> exact core of the disagreement here, and could be a start ;)
>
> Cheers,
> Marco Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Plasma-devel mailing list
> Plasma-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel

I've always considered Active a Project on top of KDE/Plasma because
it carries concerns out of the scope of the shell, like the OS. What
makes it different from different approaches is that it's made by the
Plasma people and it has a clear orientation to touch devices, at
least until PA3.

Now I've always considered that this was fine (even after being to the
PA3 sprint). You can widen the definition and say that Active can fit
the desktop, but then it turns quite blurry to me what is what. I
understand that simplifying nomenclature is good but also we need to
know what we're talking about.

Maybe a Venn diagram of what is Plasma, Active and KDE, would be helpful.

Aleix