On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Carl Schwan <carl@carlschwan.eu> wrote:
> > -   From a product marketing POV, I'm surprised at the proposed announc=
ement text calling out "Plasma Nano" as the thing for embedded Plasma devel=
opment. I'm not aware of a conversation where it was established that Plasm=
a needs a sub-brand for embedded (brand !=3D code bits; saying you need som=
ething called Plasma Nano for embedded makes Plasma un-embedded). It invite=
s questions I don't see prep for - Plasma Nano has no website or FAQ anywhe=
re.

brand or not brand, that thing is a "kind" of framework (not
technically a framework but that's the idea), a thing that developers
should know about but not end users (tough if we don't talk about
things, also developers won't know it exists) maybe shouldn't be in
the dot article announcing this project in particular.. shrug.

> There was some discussion about the Plasma Nano brand here: https://phabr=
icator.kde.org/T10597 but I see that this discussion didn't include the Pla=
sma team :/

uh? i did participate, as maintainer of plasma nano and comaintainer
of plasma... the other people in the plasma team i talked with were
fine on whatever the decision of a logo was.

--
Marco Martin