Re: Continuing Community Issues

On Tuesday 01 February 2011, Robert Marmorstein wrote:
> 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
There is a lot of difference between "all the real developers have moved to  
Group B, try #calligra instead." and "but their involvement has moved with 
almost all of the koffice community to calligra" and "someone is working on it 
in Calligra".

The first sentence implies that you and Thomas are lesser developers, which we 
all agree is wrong. The second sentences implies that Nokia involvement has 
follow almost all of the community, which is true, it does not mean that there 
are no developers in Group A, it just mean that the majority is in Group B. 
And the last sentence mention that there is someone working on Kivio inside 
Calligra, it does not mean there is no one working on a flow chart editor in 
Group A (even though, until your email, there was little to no indication of 
that).

> 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)
Untrue. There is an ongoing dispute on who, between group A and group B has 
the right to use the KOffice name. All what Thomas agreed is to rename all 
applications but kword, as you can see by reading the following two emails:

http://lists.kde.org/?l=koffice-devel&m=128946428602054&w=2
http://lists.kde.org/?l=koffice-devel&m=128948627529641&w=2


-- 
Cyrille Berger Skott