naming the next major release

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

On 19.08.2013 21:56, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> Hi...
>
> after seeing the Nth time that we don’t know if the next release will be
> called Plasma Workspaces 2 or something else, i’d like to find consensus on
> this point so we can move forward in communication with confidence.
>
> the first point that we’ve all been around a million times, but i will cover
> again for completeness:
>
> 	Do we need a single name for all the bits that go into our desktop shell?
>
> yes, we do.
>
> a) the PR reason: it is impossible to communicate clearly about “those 20
> things that fit together but which all have different (and kooky) names” and for
> that reason it is very hard for people to identify with or understand such a
> product.
>
> b) the developers reason: it allows us to draw a clear line around the
> workspaces (desktop, netbook, active, etc.) and everything else KDE produces.
> this is key for broader use of our libraries (Frameworks 5) and our
> applications: when people don’t understand they aren’t connected to the
> “desktop platform” they don’t use our libraries or apps if they don’t use our
> desktop environment.
>
> c) the community reason: as has been said a number of times, many of us yearn
> for a greater sense of belonging in the workspace efforts. whether that is stuff
> like bluetooth, network integration, desktop wallet, panels, desktop layers,
> window management .. it all really belongs together in that it is written to
> be used together. to be usable together we need to work together. to work
> together we are helped by having a common identity.
>
> so we need a name we all share. the current working title has been “Plasma
> Workspaces 2".
>
> there are 3 parts to the PW2 name:
>
> 1. Plasma
> 2. Workspaces
> 3. ‘2’
>
> so, one at a time:
>
> 1. Plasma is a brand that has already received a good amount of investment,
> and we need a distinct nomenclature from ‘KDE’.
>
> we can’t just use “Workspace” either, with the idea of using “KDE Workspaces”
> because then what do we call Desktop vs Netbook vs Tablet? if “KDEK
> Workspaces” were the name, then we’d end up with KDE Tablet Workspace which
> sounds dreadful and is completely non-descript. KDE Workspace Tablet is
> grammatically awkward to the point of being wrong in English.
>
> 2. “Workspaces”gives us a way to umbrella all the Plasma primary UX that we
> provide (desktop, netbook, mediacenter, tablet, ... whatever comes in future).
>
> that said, “Workspaces” is the least meaningful bit of the 3 words. without it
> we have just KDE Plasma. the reason we added Workspaces was to differentiate
> between the user products and the underlying technology.  we do, however,
> refer to it as Plasma Desktop (no workspaces in there), Plasma Active, etc.
>
> “Workspaces” is also a word that most people do not know / understand until it
> is explained. this contributes to the weakness of this part of the
> nomenclature.
>
> it does allow us to say, however, things like “KDE Plasma Workspaces includes
> Plasma Destkop, Plasma Active ..” which rolls off the tongue nicely. however,
> we could do the same without making Workspaces a proper part of the name and
> just use it a regular noun in conjuction with the name “KDE Plasma”. this
> would result in phrasing like:
>
> 	“KDE’s Plasma workspaces come in Desktop, Netbook, Tablet and Mediacenter
> flavours...”
>
> 	“KDE’s Plasma provides user experiences for desktop, netbook, tablet, ..”
>
> given that we are moving to a “grand unified shell” approach where the different
> user experiences flow seamlessly from one to the next, it may make sense to
> drop the concept that there is such huge differentiation that they are the
> “Workspaces” and instead are just “Plasma” which happens to morph to fit the
> device.

+1 for dropping Workspaces. It sounds way more technical and less cool 
than Plasma.

> 3. ‘2’ ... why “two” if this is version 5? well, libplasma is actually going
> to be version 6 iirc, so it isn’t the library. i also am not a big believer in
> branding after version numbers. neither are any of our proprietary competitors
> who have a lot more marketing and communications savvy than we tend to. ;)
> what i like about 2 is:
>
> * it communicates this is something after the first. it’s that whole “two point
> oh” thing, though hopefully less hype than, say, “web 2.0” ;)
>
> * it’s simple and direct
>
> * ‘2’ is a couple, and a couple is a nice human idea :) this is borne out by
> the “1, 2, many” pattern in many ancient languages. we know 1, we know 2,
> after that it’s just an abstract concept.

How about dropping the number altogether? I think we just feel the need 
to add a number to it because it's so much different on a technical 
level. However, I keep reading that the switch between Plasma 4.X and 
the new Plasma is supposed to be hardly even noticeable for the end user.
So why not just calling it "Plasma" and give each version a purely 
technical version number which is not used for marketing purposes? New 
iterations would just be announced as "The next version of Plasma".

If we still feel we need to give it a different name because it's 
technically so new, we could just add something other than a number, 
"Plasma NG" or whatever (marketing people are better at finding cool 
names then I am, for sure). I'd find that less confusing than naming the 
successor to Plasma 4.11 "Plasma 2".

> Sooooooooooo ... here is my proposal:
>
> 	We call it Plasma 2 and use that as a rallying call to
> 	focus on its unified user experience
> 	across the spectrum of devices people use today.
>
> as developers, it will remind us of our goals.
>
> to our users, it will be the symbol of this idea of all these individual
> components that work together beautifully no matter what device you put it on.
>
> yes, this means we drop “Workspaces” as clumsy, hard to understand and no
> longer fully applicable.
>
>
> Other proposals, ideas, tweaks to the above most welcome, but let’s try to
> come to a consensus on this matter before the end of this month.
>
> then we can all move forward in confidence together, whatever it is we decide.

+1 for settling on a name soon. I don't think Plasma 2 is bad, but as 
stated above, I'd find something number-less even better.

Cheers,
Thomas