From kde-core-devel Wed Sep 01 20:13:49 2004 From: Frans Englich Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:13:49 +0000 To: kde-core-devel Subject: Incidents, once in a while Message-Id: <200409012013.50040.frans.englich () telia ! com> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=109406930817902 Hello all, I'm posting this because I think it's healthy if this conflict is reviewed by the community's wide audience. I think criticism and inspection is good. Further, I'm stuck and don't know how to continue. It's about the mail exchanges I and Aaron have had on various lists about different topics. One topic have been my recent work on the HIG: I converted the guidelines to docbook, moved them from developer.kde.org to usability.kde.org, and sanity edited it to bring out the content(but it still says the same). This was some of Aaron's reactions: "due to acting independently and out of sync with the rest of the project. [...] this is not the sort of endeavour that one person can simply plow ahead and do; seriously.... stop this. if you don't, i will simply seek other measures to ensure you do such as restricting your rights to commit to www/areas/usability by not doing this you seriously degrade the respectability of the usability project and make me question your ability to work with the rest of us in this regard."[1] "this fork of the User Interface Guidelines is retrograde to the usability efforts"[2] "preferably Frans would coordinate with what's happening elsewhere in the project rather than simply plowing ahead."[3] In a nut shell, Aaron said I worked in isolation, ignored people's input, and worked on a project which people didn't want. My replies[4] to those assertions outlined quotes which clearly indicated cooperation, and that the HIG project had been mentioned on several lists and people have been positive and helped with the work. Nothing indicates what Aaron claimed. Of course, anyone is welcome to question, and bring again that up to discussion again. What Aaron also stated was for example "if it's meant to be a replacement",[3] despite all my comments have indicated it was the same HIG, such as the initial commit - "converted to Docbook XML 4.3, combined with a move to usability.kde.org", plus, that numerous people liked it, and hence was not percepted as a fork. In other words, it is deliberate, conscious statements which does not reflect facts; popularly called FUD. Let's move on. In the thread where Aaron, in the name of the people participating in the usability tracks on aKademy, presented[5] what was concluded at the meetings, I responded[6]: I started the KDE Usability Articles project, which exactly aims for taking care of the why/rationalis-side of usability -- a documentation platform which people can "learn" usability, find inspiration and on the shoulders of giants invent new things.[...] http://usability.kde.org/kua/current/ (the grayed out articles are written, I've just not found the time for feeding them for review, due to finishing the HIG in time for aKademy) It was announced on kde-core-devel/kde-usability 2(?) months ago, and there have been about 3 threads about it on kde-usability. What are your plans with the KUA, considering the other documentation efforts? Aaron replied: "i think that by simply going ahead and pretending to represent KDE's usability processes, including writing articles that are, quite frankly, embarrassing to those involved in the project is not useful and in fact hurts our efforts. i have no plans for KUA at this point due to this and due to your limited knowledge in the field that is directly reflected by your solo efforts in this regard. we have several usability professionals that are getting involved in KDE usability and KUA does nothing to enable this process."[6] The reply was in many ways similar to the one about the HIG. All semantical changes I've done to KUA have been posted on kde-usability(as patches to my own work and links) and I can't think of anything which indicates a resistance to cooperation from my side. This was also mentioned in the post Aaron replied to, and Aaron also reads kde-usability. Still he writes that reply. People have expressed positiveness towards the project, and suggestions and patches have been contributed. I can't see anything that indicates I pretend to "represent KDE's usability processes", or have been doing "solo efforts in this regard". I have been doing the majority of the work, but that's of course a different matter. The usability discussions on aKademy focused on documentation, and KDE Usability articles is a highly relevant major project already running. Aaron knew about it, but from what I can tell, it wasn't brought up for coordination at those discussions. The KUA project involves tons of work, but that doesn't hinder Aaron from saying "i have no plans for KUA," essentially saying it should be deleted. It is great people realize KDE needs usability documentation, but that shouldn't be done on the expense of projects and people who realized, and started working on it months before. We need dialog. Another topic have been KControl. Aaron have been an ardent criticizer of KControl prototypes written by for example me or Benjamin M., such as the generic comment(which again is the usual downturning of ideas without motivating why): "several important items have been missed in the current kcontrol revisions various people have come up with. you've also hit home on several things." This rather consistent view caused me to write: "Aaron, you opposes a [...] approach, [...], but we don't know what solution you have in mind, and what it practically means. What we know is our proposals are wrong, but you haven't shown what is better. Could you do an exact description of the solution you prefer [...] or a prototype, like others have done? That would bring new ideas, something to actually shoot down and show what you actually are talking about."[8] Aaron replied: "i've posted such things to this list numerous times. that's why we have lists.kde.org, and why we should try and remember past conversations as much as possible." And that creates a gap between Aaron who is right, and all others whose ideas are wrong, and are left in the archive, with no links or pointers. I also doubt the statement; there have certainly been email's, but concrete plain text/html documents and code(literally) such as Benjamin, Jamethiel or I have provided, I haven't seen Aaron propose. And I have been involved in the list just as much as Aaron, the code in the new_kcm_code branch, and the (outdated) comments in kdebase/kcontrol/TODO is built from the ideas/feedback on that list. But what happens instead? One can read in main stream media that the new KControl will have search as it primary interface -- which Aaron likes. All others have posted on the list their ideas, and met the criticism and feedback. Imagine the reaction, contrasting what Aaron writes about KUA and my HIG work, if I had hooked up a reporter and said something random about the new_kcm_code branch/whatever. The common denominator in Aaron's statements isn't "I think it can be done in a better way because , and I suggest instead . Feedback appreciated," but it is instead... insults. They are not productive or constructive because they concern that people are bad, are not wanted and hurts KDE, instead of discussing issues and matters(and their drawbacks). No matter what way one turn it, it is unstrategic. Why do Aaron react as he do? I have my theories, but I think they wouldn't help. I also need help with continuing this; If anyone have ideas how I can achieve a productive discussion about for example KUA with respect to other documentation efforts, without getting told to go hide under a rock. Call it a rant, but I write this because I think it needs exposure. It smells a long way. (The discussion of whether KUA is good/bad and how it can be combined with other efforts, is another discussion, but it would amaze me if it would be strategic to throw a feature complete and bug free framework with Docbook lying beneath, in the bit bucket. Seeing people joining is of course great, but what the aKademy people concluded is what I've already done and started working on months ago, roughly speaking. This needs discussion, with motivations and reasoning to what will happen no matter what; feel free to follow up in a new thread or the "KDE HIG, CIG and AG" thread on kde-usability.) Cheers, Frans Footnotes 1. http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=109317854331524&w=2 2. http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-usability&m=109308718320640&w=2 3. http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=109319683515072&w=2 4. http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-cvs&m=109329502523220&w=2 http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-cvs&m=109294273703384&w=2 5. http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-usability&m=109344021328113&w=2 6. I can't find them, the archive appears incomplete.. The mails have the titles in the style of "Re: KDE Doc: Content of the HIG" and is in the "KDE HIG, CIG and AG" thread on kde-core-devel and kde-usability, high up. 7. http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-usability&m=109083236522919&w=2 8. http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-usability&m=109303309105129&w=2