Re: Continuing Community Issues

Quoting Jaroslaw Staniek <[email protected]>:

> That has already been mentioned: freenode offers literaly free
> creation of new IRC channels.
>

That is easy to say, but there is a lot more going on here than simply  
a need to create a new channel.  There is an ongoing dispute about  
whether Thomas had agreed to rename the koffice suite as part of the  
split (which, in my opinion, he didn't).  Picking a new channel would  
be tacit surrender of the koffice name.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me.  But it does matter to Thomas.  I  
think people on "both sides" realize this and that is a big part of  
the push to "claim the channel" rather than honest concern for users  
and developers.

>
> I am sitting at #koffice too, one reason is that people come here for
> kexi help as well, so I feel I have all the rights.
> Kexi (and thus parts of kofficelibs brought by Kexi), moved so 100% to
> Calligra we also have all the rights to say: go to Calligra for
> updates.

I had not realized that group A had entirely given up on Kexi. I have  
heard several developers imply that other components (such as kivio)  
have "moved to Calligra".  That's simply not true.  I, personally,  
hope to continue contributing to kivio on the "koffice side".  I would  
have also been interested in continuing development on kexi in group  
A, but it doesn't seem to be in git on the koffice git repository.

> From my observation mostly nothing happens on #koffice in contract to
> #calligra which from point of view of many users and developers is the
> new place for _their_ activities, (we like it or not). So again,
> creating free irc channel for group A would help both sides.
>

Again, this is largely because the #koffice channel is disputed and  
not a place where free and open exchange of ideas can really happen.   
I would welcome the creation of a new channel, but the arbitration  
process must finish first.

> This is not correct indeed, could you please openly mention who said this?
>

I've heard very similar comments several times from several different  
people.  For example:

[Thursday, January 27, 2011] [03:41:39 AM] <smooky> as you read in  
article above, nokia will be lead (or participate) with koffice  
development
[Thursday, January 27, 2011] [03:42:31 AM] <boud> not lead -- that's  
the community, but participate, sure. They are funding quite a few  
developers
[Thursday, January 27, 2011] [03:42:33 AM] <smooky> i mean kword+kspread exact
[Thursday, January 27, 2011] [03:42:44 AM] <boud> but their  
involvement has moved with almost all of the koffice community to  
calligra

[Thursday, January 27, 2011] [08:55:33 AM] <boud> bye!
[Thursday, January 27, 2011] [05:14:30 PM] <FL1SK> what is the state of kivio
[Thursday, January 27, 2011] [05:15:26 PM] <FL1SK> is there anything  
done for KDE4
[Thursday, January 27, 2011] [05:15:36 PM] <FL1SK> Are they looking  
for packagers
[Thursday, January 27, 2011] [05:50:09 PM] <slangkamp> FL1SK: someone  
is working on it in Calligra, but there is still lots of work to do  
before it can be released
[Thursday, January 27, 2011] [05:53:22 PM] <FL1SK> understood

> That said, I just now know you're in group A. So you can admit that
> the communication channel for group A does not work well enough so
> far.
>
> Please read the above: the proposed temporary solution was from the
> beginning to have both groups owned and use #koffice only to redirect
> to one of them depending on the question.

This is what is disputed, actually.

> BTW, It's not fault of either group that most of the time one group is
> more active than the other. "Who codes, decides" rule, just
> generalized.
>

The politics prevent this from being a successful solution until  
arbitration finishes -- and it's not just the IRC channel.  It's the  
mailing list and a lot of the other infrastructure that goes into  
coordinating a project.  That does affect the activity of the project.

Again, I'm not trying to open all the old wounds back up -- I'm just  
asking for more civility and for developers to be more careful in  
their public statements about "group A".

Robert

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.