[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-promo
Subject:    Re: [kde-promo] Article about Baloo
From:       "Aaron J. Seigo" <aseigo () kde ! org>
Date:       2014-02-18 23:19:04
Message-ID: 19350590.olKufMTW1P () freedom
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 22:49:04 David Edmundson wrote:
> Vishesh gave me the distinct impression that he wanted to put some
> distance between Nepomuk and Baloo. Vishesh certainly isn't stupid and

Nobody is suggesting Vishesh is stupid. Each of us have things we are 
experienced in and for which we have some level of innate talent, and other 
things which we don't. This is not about generic intellect, but experience and 
wisdom in specific areas; in particular here, that would be public 
communication and positioning.

> certainly going to have the best awareness of the public perception of
> Nepomuk out of any of us here and probably knows best.

Many developers believe they have the "best awareness" of the public 
perception of the project they are working on. In my experience, that is often 
not the case.

In the case of Nepomuk, some of us have been working on the public relations 
for Nepomuk longer than Vishesh has been around it. That includes interacting 
with the press and with the public on social media, online and at conferences.

However, even if Vishesh does have the best awareness of the public perception 
of Nepomuk, that does not mean he will have the best concepts in hand for 
promotion. If this was the case, we wouldn't need a promo team: developers 
could do it all; and tech companies wouldn't hire PR firms because their 
software devs could make all the ads for them.

> Personally, I think it is a mistake to continue pushing Nepomuk on the
> premise that we have already put a lot of effort into branding
> Nepomuk. It's a very deliberate change of tact in the code and IMHO
> that should be reflected in how we publish it.

You're suggesting that branding should follow implementation?

To the end-user, the end result of the old code and the new code is ultimately 
the same. To application developers, the topic area is the same. That is what 
matters, not that the implementation is shifting.

I've explained in previous emails the challenges in this case with introducing 
a new name for something that does the same thing, so I won't repeat myself 
here.

> Knowing the codebase somewhat, the design objectives between the two
> are very different; there is no semantic linking between objects, just
> independent fast search stores in various places. I think it's

This doesn't matter to the end user.

> important that developers to see them as being different so they do
> re-evaluate it's usefulness for their project. From a developer point
> of view, they are very different.

... and that can be adequately communicated without a new name. One important 
factor there is that developers tend to be more technically savvy and less 
thrown by naming (pro and con). Many frameworks (including our beloved Qt) go 
through radical shifts over time without changing names.

The current challenge with Nepomuk/Baloo remains largely with end-user 
communication, and it has already become an issue with the likes of Phoronix 
leading the charge.

> Lets check our goals align with Vishesh's before we try and come up
> with a plan on how to achieve it.

I don't think anyone is suggestion otherwise. It is still fine to discuss and 
gain some level of mutual understanding in the meantime, and he can catch up 
when he is back on his feet.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo

_______________________________________________
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.


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]