[kde-promo] Plasma Next Naming

Wed Jan 22 20:38:34 UTC 2014

Mark, 
You 
pointed out that "not everybody is happy" with this. That is fair and probably 
true. But is it relevant? Consensus does not mean everybody agrees. It doesn't 
even have to mean everybody is happy. That is simply not always possible in a 
community. It means you're willing to step out of the way of making a decision 
to not block the process.

That does not mean 'admitting defeat' or anything like that. More like a 
realization that at some point, 'perfect' is the enemy of good.

Now I (nor, clearly, sebas, the martins and others) want to FORCE this issue. 
If we did, they wouldn't continue to discuss with you. Your input is 
considered valuable, otherwise it would have been ignored. So don't think that 
this is meant to be a power play. And for sure, if you are certain that this 
will destroy plasma, KDE and Open Source, you can and SHOULD continue to try 
and turn this decision around.

I just think that you can agree that that is not the case; nor does it seem 
likely that you can sway the opinions of everybody who cared enough to discuss 
it. And expect the silent majority to either agree with the proposal or not 
care. There is little point to the discussion.

Anyway, not trying to slap you here, just trying to friendly ask you to think 
deep about the value of more discussion.

(and I would have send this privately if I didn't know you well enough that I 
think you won't be offended and I think this might be valuable for some 
lurkers on the list)

Boatload of hugs,
Jos

On Wednesday 22 January 2014 20:29:33 Mark Gaiser wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Martin Graesslin <mgraesslin at kde.org> 
wrote:
> > On Wednesday 22 January 2014 19:29:24 Mark Gaiser wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Martin Klapetek
> >> 
> >> <martin.klapetek at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Mark Gaiser <markg85 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> It just shows that not everyone is happy with the initial proposal.
> >> >> 
> >> >> "The next version of plasma" has always been made public under the
> >> >> names:
> >> >> - PW2
> >> >> - Plasma Workpaces 2
> >> >> - Plasma 2
> >> >> 
> >> >> Yes, we right now have "Plasma 4.xx"
> >> >> We call it "Plasma". We hardly ever put a version behind it.
> >> >> 
> >> >> I really think it makes perfect sense to just call it "Plasma 2". It's
> >> >> very much in the direction you folks (those blogging about plasma)
> >> >> have always named it. To me it just doesn't make much sense to
> >> >> suddenly entirely drop that de facto new name for "Plasma June/2014"
> >> >> or "Plasma Angelfish <date>" or whatever the order is.
> >> > 
> >> > Let me give a different example from the same area - do you remember
> >> > Windows Longhorn? Everyone was talking about "Longhorn" always and how
> >> > revolutionary and new it will be...and then, Windows Vista came out.
> >> > From
> >> > the very same company, Windows Vienna turned into Windows 7. And many
> >> > others could be found.
> >> 
> >> The comparison isn't fair.
> >> The name change from Longhorn to Vista had cost Microsoft billions!
> >> Literally. The change from Vienna to 7 wasn't that big of a deal since
> >> it was already mostly known as windows 7 before it became the official
> >> name.
> > 
> > I think this comparison is fair and I had it already written in my reply
> > to
> > Markus (removed it as I don't like referring to the competition). Btw. how
> > do you know that it cost Microsoft billions? AFAIK "normal" users didn't
> > know that the next version was called Longhorn in the development. We
> > shouldn't expect that we as a group of engineers know these names, means
> > that anybody else knows the name.
> 
> I can't find raw numbers on windows 7, but remember an article where a
> number in billions (1.7?) was named.
> I could find one from Windows Phone 7 which is 1 billion
> http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/26/microsoft-half-billion-dollars-windows-phon
> e-7/
> 
> However, "only" 500 million was for marketing in that article.
> 
> > The comparison is fair as it shows that it is a normal thing in IT
> > development to rename the working title once the software goes into
> > production.> 
> >> Big company's can pull these stunts. They have the marketing budget.
> >> We - KDE - can't pull that stunt. There is no marketing capital like
> >> those big company's have. We need to slowly build momentum starting
> >> from the very first blog about a new piece of software and sticking to
> >> it's name or change it slightly. But the general structure should
> >> remain the same i think.
> > 
> > That's just not realistic to assume that we can get the name of the
> > product
> > before we start developing. Should we not blog about our process just
> > because we haven't named it yet? We work in an environment where our
> > development process is extremely open. We have to work with that and make
> > the best out of it and not stick our head in the sand and say that it's
> > already too late. We are not driven by Phoronix reporting everything we
> > do.
> 
> Do you really have to pull in Phoronix? That makes no sense.
> 
> > Following this we are not allowed to change the version number for KWin,
> > right - it has to be 5, /5 or next which I used in the blog posts? Or
> > what about giving KWin/Wayland a different name? All not possible because
> > I already blogged about it before talking to the marketing team? That
> > doesn't make sense, marketing comes last.
> 
> For what it's worth. I don't give a thing about "marketing value"
> behind a name for marketing purposes. If i pick a name i want one with
> a meaning to me. For example my QML file browser "Accretion". At that
> time it looked like a awesome name since i only looked at one meaning
> that fitted my reasoning very well. Recently i have learned that it
> might have more negative then positive meanings so i probably have to
> figure out a new name for that. That sucks hard, but isn't that big a
> deal since nearly nobody is using it (it's unusable anyway). Thus i'm
> in a different position.
> 
> But for well settled names it makes no sense to drastically change it.
> Which is about to happen for Plasma. For you - for KWin - there isn't
> an issue. KWin is a well established name and you only increase the
> version number. That's how it should be done imho.
> 
> In my opinion a new name should be chosen when you make a completely
> new project. Like the new name of Nepomuk: Baloo. It's worth it
> because it's entirely different.
> 
> Apparently my view on these things is wildly different then most other
> people in this thread.
> That is also the beauty in KDE. We can openly discuss this. I'm a
> minority with just a few others agreeing. I have no roots in plasma,
> just an opinion.
> I think my point is clear (and not shared by many others). So be it,
> no harm taken :)
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what is the final naming conclusion for the
> next plasma version now? A complete example please.
> Plasma <CodeNam> <year>.<month>?
> 
> Yes, i kinda lost track in this topic.
> _______________________________________________
> Plasma-devel mailing list
> Plasma-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel