Re: Article about Baloo

On 02/18/2014 12:03 PM, Jos Poortvliet wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 February 2014 15:15:19 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 14:54:04 you wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 18 February 2014 14:30:13 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>>> I'm about half-way there with you. I agree with the principle, but as
>>> with
>>> artwork (where developers still have plenty of say) I think this should
>>> be
>>> in both hands at once.
>>
>> I agree. With artwork, it is usually a consultation type relationship. The
>> artist works with the developers, but retains direction and decision
>> making.
>>> Which puts (as you rightly do) the blame as much on us as anyone - we
>>> should step up more, as marketing/promo people, when it comes to
>>> branding.
>> More than just “stepping up”, a mandate from the development community  to
>> manage these things is needed, and a group needs to take on that commitment
>> and execute over the long term. “Stepping up” is not going to produce
>> consistent results, as seen in this case.
>>
>>> So yes, perhaps we should have said to Vishesh that Baloo is not a
>>> perfect
>>> name.
>>
>> I did, and explained why, on a public mailing list. That was ignored.
>> Perhaps I’m not part of the “we” around these parts anymore, but it was
>> pointed out.
>
> I see below that you mean you said you disagreed with changing the name in
> the first place. That was NOT ignored, at least - I think we discussed it and
> it seemed consensus was that it is not such a bad thing to do. At least I
> know I took your opinion under consideration and was happy you provided that
> reasoning. And I think that it had merrit - just, for me, not enough for a
> big fight. I think, renaming or not, it doesn't matter that much.
>
> And I'm saying this not to slap you or anything, just to counter your
> "perhaps I'm not part of the "we" around these parts anymore". As far as I am
> concerned, you VERY MUCH are.
>
>> Developer  have the understanding that branding is ultimately a decision
>> made at their sole discretion, even when it impacts others.
>>
>>> Meanwhile, I didn't think of anything horrible and still don't feel it is
>>> that bad *and* it seems nobody has hammered on this point yet - I suggest
>>> we stick with it.
>>
>> The name itself is not objectively bad, and that has never been the issue.
>> The issue is *changing* a name that already exists and for which quite a
>> bit of effort has been put into. It exists on wikis such as Userbase and
>> Techbase, in configuration UI (though that has been pushed back to a
>> minimum, more or less), etc. The lack of continuity not only throws
>> confusion into the air, it removes what is probably the most obvious and
>> easiest public communications path: “version 2 addresses the prior
>> version’s challenges while retaining its benefits”. Now there is the more
>> complex task of explaining what Baloo does, what it does differently from
>> Nepomuk, why this necessitated such a big change ... iow we’re going to be
>> faced with discussion revolving around
>> implementation details rather than being able to focus purely of user
>> benefit stories.
>
> Yes, I'm aware. As I've said before - you're right. At the same time, the
> name Nepomuk is so poisoned for many, I'm not sure a V2 would get a chance to
> convince many.

I'm not convinced of this. Some people have poked fun at Nepomuk; some 
have complained about its performance, its resource over-use. On the 
other hand, people have praised it and praised developers for continuing 
to improve it.

Try this thought experiment...
When the new name is used, what do we tell people the new thing is 
without mentioning Nepomuk?

regarding not having a chance to convince many...there are still people 
who bitch about KDE 3.5.10 being abandoned. Any time there's a KDE story 
on slashdot, at least one commenter will write something disparaging. 
There are still people who bitch about KDE using Qt and its "bad" license.

KDE was part of the EU Nepomuk project through Mandriva and Sebastian 
Trüg. KDE has the most visible implementation of Nepomuk/EU. This 
technology was anticipated 70 years ago, based on a simple 
principle--computers store and retrieve information differently than the 
way humans do. If it was easy, there would be no need for this discussion.

Life can be a bitch for a leader. If the term Nepomuk is poisoned for 
some people, they are free to choose something else.

It doesn't makes sense to change the name because some people thought it 
should be nearly flawless from the start. Or because some people don't 
recognize the commitment of KDE developers, Sebastian and Vishesh to use 
and improve the technology. In essence, the poison is based on an 
uncommitted complaint that Nepomuk is bad, flawed, etc. and it will 
never be better. I don't hear anyone suggesting that we should abandon 
the semantic technology; if it's crap and always will be, then we should 
stop doing it.

Carl






>
>>> Besides, in our communication we should indeed call it
>>> 'search' or 'semantic search' and nothing else anyway.
>>
>> Agreed ... which is also why introducing a new name publicly is not a great
>> idea: it makes accomplishing this more difficult.
>
> Fair.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message is from the kde-promo mailing list.
>
> Visit https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-promo to unsubscribe, set digest on or temporarily stop your subscription.
>


_______________________________________________
This message is from the kde-promo mailing list.

Visit https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-promo to unsubscribe, set digest on or temporarily stop your subscription.