Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Valorie Zimmerman]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Kenny Duffus  wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 03:41:59 GMT, Ken Vermette wrote:
>>
>> I think he might be right, only the trademark is still Canonical.
>> Development is supported primarily by... ... Blue Systems? Rush? The
>> community? The Tragically Hip? Valorie? Nickelback?

NICKLEBACK! Oh, how cruel! We are at this point community supported.

>> ... Either way, I personally look at the lineage and say that's good
>> enough
>> for me, at least for the first year. If nothing else and we do something
>> along those lines, I'd pony up €100 myself for the first year.

Ken, you are very sweet to offer. I would rather see the money go
directly to the KDE e.V. though.

> I think you are starting to head off at a bit of a tangent, the issue isn't
> regarding monetary costs.
>
> The only small number of objections to the current request seem to be
> theoretical/political and even then don't seem to think that in the end it
> is really a huge deal.
>
> There is minimal sysadmin time required for the current request, in fact far
> more sysadmin time has been sucked up by this thread I would expect.
>
> Obviously as sysadmins volunteer their time and doing extra things puts a
> bit more strain on them it wouldn't be fair to ask for lots of things not
> directly related to our community.
>
> I also think that Valorie may have clouded the issue slightly by using
> ambiguous terms in what she described in the initial mail which could have
> made some peoples minds start to run wild. As Nicolás has said adding the
> phab stuff is only a few minutes work which seems to have been dwarfed by
> this discussion.

Sorry about that. Yes, we just wanted a workboard.

> This thread could probably continue for ever not really getting anywhere
> new. The point of the start of this thread was more the issue of precedent
> rather than the actual request. I think that it may be hard to come up with
> guidance on strict what is ok and what isn't based on infinite
> possibilities.
> A number of people have expressed the view that if we can help with things
> that get KDE products into peoples hands without a big effort then it seems
> like the nice and right thing to do.
>
> I would suggest that if any of the sysamins are happy to do this then they
> should just be encouraged to go ahead and get it done and everyone move on.
>
> --
>
> Kenny

I'm happy to say that Ben has set us up. I'm happy to know that the
KDE community appreciates the work that Kubuntu and other distros do
in packaging and distributing KDE software. I hope that as time goes
on, we grow even closer and work together more efficiently.

All the best,

Valorie

-- 
http://about.me/valoriez

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Alexander Neundorf]

On 2017 M01 17, Tue 15:11:14 CET Adriaan de Groot wrote:
> On Monday, January 16, 2017 01:13:03 AM Nicolás Alvarez wrote:
> > Where do we stop? We have to draw the line somewhere, but I don't know
> > where. Perhaps making it case-by-case could be problematic, someone
> > could claim it's unfair to give X to Kubuntu and not give Y to them
> > because in their opinion Y doesn't need much more resources than X.
> > Must be Kubuntu favoritism!
> > 
> > But perhaps I'm being paranoid, and trying to define a strict policy
> > ahead of time will involve even worse bikeshedding and drama, and
> > case-by-case is good enough.
> 
> Thank you, Nicolás, for laying out the fundamental question at the base of
> this thread. At this point, I'd like to suggest just moving on, creating the
> board, and keeping this thread in mind when (if) new requests come in.
> 
> While there's a couple of interesting points left -- I understand Luca's
> objections better now, and Ken has an interesting quid-pro-quo suggestings
> -- let's not let those keep us from a resolution of this thread.
> 
> Since Ken's suggestion involves money, it might be an idea to take that up
> separately with sysadmin and the e.V..

+1

Alex

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Adriaan de Groot]

On Monday, January 16, 2017 01:13:03 AM Nicolás Alvarez wrote:
> Where do we stop? We have to draw the line somewhere, but I don't know
> where. Perhaps making it case-by-case could be problematic, someone
> could claim it's unfair to give X to Kubuntu and not give Y to them
> because in their opinion Y doesn't need much more resources than X.
> Must be Kubuntu favoritism!
> 
> But perhaps I'm being paranoid, and trying to define a strict policy
> ahead of time will involve even worse bikeshedding and drama, and
> case-by-case is good enough.

Thank you, Nicolás, for laying out the fundamental question at the base of 
this thread. At this point, I'd like to suggest just moving on, creating the 
board, and keeping this thread in mind when (if) new requests come in.

While there's a couple of interesting points left -- I understand Luca's 
objections better now, and Ken has an interesting quid-pro-quo suggestings -- 
let's not let those keep us from a resolution of this thread.

Since Ken's suggestion involves money, it might be an idea to take that up 
separately with sysadmin and the e.V..

[ade]

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Kenny Duffus]

On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 03:41:59 GMT, Ken Vermette wrote:

I think he might be right, only the trademark is still Canonical.
Development is supported primarily by... ... Blue Systems? Rush? The
community? The Tragically Hip? Valorie? Nickelback?

... Either way, I personally look at the lineage and say that's good enough
for me, at least for the first year. If nothing else and we do something
along those lines, I'd pony up €100 myself for the first year.



I think you are starting to head off at a bit of a tangent, the issue isn't 
regarding monetary costs.


The only small number of objections to the current request seem to be 
theoretical/political and even then don't seem to think that in the end it 
is really a huge deal.


There is minimal sysadmin time required for the current request, in fact 
far more sysadmin time has been sucked up by this thread I would expect.


Obviously as sysadmins volunteer their time and doing extra things puts a 
bit more strain on them it wouldn't be fair to ask for lots of things not 
directly related to our community.


I also think that Valorie may have clouded the issue slightly by using 
ambiguous terms in what she described in the initial mail which could have 
made some peoples minds start to run wild. As Nicolás has said adding the 
phab stuff is only a few minutes work which seems to have been dwarfed by 
this discussion.


This thread could probably continue for ever not really getting anywhere 
new. The point of the start of this thread was more the issue of precedent 
rather than the actual request. I think that it may be hard to come up with 
guidance on strict what is ok and what isn't based on infinite 
possibilities. 

A number of people have expressed the view that if we can help with things 
that get KDE products into peoples hands without a big effort then it seems 
like the nice and right thing to do.


I would suggest that if any of the sysamins are happy to do this then they 
should just be encouraged to go ahead and get it done and everyone move on.


--

Kenny

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Clemens Toennies]

Blue Systems is not really involved after the shift to Neon.

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Ken Vermette]

I think he might be right, only the trademark is still Canonical.
Development is supported primarily by... ... Blue Systems? Rush? The
community? The Tragically Hip? Valorie? Nickelback?

... Either way, I personally look at the lineage and say that's good enough
for me, at least for the first year. If nothing else and we do something
along those lines, I'd pony up €100 myself for the first year.

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Albert Astals Cid  wrote:

> El dilluns, 16 de gener de 2017, a les 22:43:26 CET, Alexander Potashev va
> escriure:
> > 2017-01-16 20:51 GMT+03:00 Ken Vermette :
> > > KDE applications. In this case Canonical could use KDE infra for
> Kubuntu
> > >
> > > In this case, Canonical is a patron, so Kubuntu, under Canonical, would
> > > fall under this this umbrella.
> >
> > Kubuntu is not under Canonical since 2012.
>
> Footer of http://kubuntu.org/
> Kubuntu is a trademark of Canonical Ltd.
>
> Cheers,
>   Albert
>

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Albert Astals Cid]

El dilluns, 16 de gener de 2017, a les 22:43:26 CET, Alexander Potashev va 
escriure:
> 2017-01-16 20:51 GMT+03:00 Ken Vermette :
> > KDE applications. In this case Canonical could use KDE infra for Kubuntu
> > 
> > In this case, Canonical is a patron, so Kubuntu, under Canonical, would
> > fall under this this umbrella.
> 
> Kubuntu is not under Canonical since 2012.

Footer of http://kubuntu.org/
Kubuntu is a trademark of Canonical Ltd. 

Cheers,
  Albert

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Alexander Potashev]

2017-01-16 20:51 GMT+03:00 Ken Vermette :
> KDE applications. In this case Canonical could use KDE infra for Kubuntu

> In this case, Canonical is a patron, so Kubuntu, under Canonical, would fall
> under this this umbrella.

Kubuntu is not under Canonical since 2012.

-- 
Alexander Potashev

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Ken Vermette]

For my $0.02, any distribution or parent sponsoring KDE development by
becoming a member (€1000/yr for companies, €100/yr for individuals) could
see that commitment met with infrastructure on our end as an optional perk.
This helps justify their financial contributions, and it gives us more
opportunity to help our supporters. Or, if this runs afoul of something (I
don't know the legalities) establish this as a standalone service of some
type.

Supporters fitting this bill could make use of our infrastructure as long
as the distributions/flavors using that infrastructure ship Plasma Shell
and/or KDE applications. In this case Canonical could use KDE infra for
Kubuntu tasks, but not for Ubuntu tasks. In exchange they get a phab
instance, some share space, and we could see what other potential services
we may want to roll in, as feasible and requested. We would also want to
keep services offered this way as "standard", so we don't start making
exceptions. If one distro wants to, say, host ISOs on KDE infra, we need to
be prepared to allow all participating distros to do so - possibly saying
"no, that's not in scope".

The requirement for financial support draws the line for randos claiming
unfair favoritism. While it may initially sound harsh because not everyone
has cold hard cash, for hobbyist distributions without corporate backing I
personally believe €100/yr isn't prohibitive and it's justified in the
sense that it helps pay for the costs of power, bandwidth, and hardware.
Even if those costs are negligible now, in 10 years the costs could be
justified if we have several distros using it, especially if we expand the
offerings over time.

In this case, Canonical is a patron, so Kubuntu, under Canonical, would
fall under this this umbrella.

About the only issue is "what happens if they do not renew their
memberships/patronage?". It's not so nice to suggest that a community
project might need to pull the plug on some people occasionally, but at the
same time if we want to offer good serious services with support, we need
to demand a level of seriousness from those who want it. I love the
attitude of "lets just give it to em and we'll go from there", but I see
doing something like this up-front as just more sustainable and clear-cut...

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 11:13 PM, Nicolás Alvarez  wrote:

> 2017-01-08 5:02 GMT-03:00 Valorie Zimmerman :
> > I'm writing at the request of the sysadmins, who would like to hear
> > from the community about distributions' use of KDE infra.
> >
> > I'm part of the Kubuntu community and will use it as the example I know
> best.
> >
> > Kubuntu has some KDE wiki pages, found at
> > https://community.kde.org/Kubuntu - for which we are very grateful.
> > Ubuntu has a wiki we used to use, but between the awfulness of
> > MoinMoin and the spam attacks on it, we love being at home at the KDE
> > wikis.
> >
> > For some time we've been using notes.kde.org as well, and are planning
> > how to use share.kde.org now that notes is closing down. We'll need to
> > set up a Kubuntu group so that all Kubuntu team members who need
> > access can actually access the shares. One of the advantages of using
> > KDE infra over piratepad or so, is that we can add a password if
> > necessary, and share among other KDE packagers if necessary.
> >
> > We are also interested in having a Phab instance for Kubuntu mostly
> > for the todo/workboard. Right now, we're using Trello, but would
> > prefer to use Free software if possible. And the beauty of Phabricator
> > is that we can keep more of our "stuff" in one place. For instance, it
> > includes a wiki as well, which we might use for packaging
> > documentation. Very slick to have all our packaging stuff in one
> > place.
> >
> > However, the sysadmins would like the KDE community support for this,
> > since it could be seen as a "slippery slope." In addition, Ben
> > Cooksley said, "we'll need to come up with some guidelines surrounding
> > what distributions can ask us for, given the Manifesto / KDE Project
> > rules.
> >
> > I would love to see more KDE distros getting cozy with the KDE
> > community because I don't like to see fighting between packagers and
> > developers, and communication is key.
> >
> > Our Manifesto [1] says: Being part of the international KDE community
> > conveys certain benefits: Make use of KDE infrastructure for
> > project hosting. I've noticed that some KDE projects do not use KDE
> > infra, such as bugzilla, websites, and even mail lists. I thought the
> > rule was that all KDE projects would move to KDE infra, so this
> > surprised me.
> >
> > On the other hand, groups which are associated with the community but
> > will never be "KDE projects" such as KDE distros, are not mentioned in
> > the Manifesto. We do already host the KDE Packagers list [2], and
> > Distributions list [3] which supports the Distribution Outreach
> > Program [4].
> >
> > What do you say? Obviously we want to support KDE distributions. Wh

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Nicolás Alvarez]

2017-01-08 5:02 GMT-03:00 Valorie Zimmerman :
> I'm writing at the request of the sysadmins, who would like to hear
> from the community about distributions' use of KDE infra.
>
> I'm part of the Kubuntu community and will use it as the example I know best.
>
> Kubuntu has some KDE wiki pages, found at
> https://community.kde.org/Kubuntu - for which we are very grateful.
> Ubuntu has a wiki we used to use, but between the awfulness of
> MoinMoin and the spam attacks on it, we love being at home at the KDE
> wikis.
>
> For some time we've been using notes.kde.org as well, and are planning
> how to use share.kde.org now that notes is closing down. We'll need to
> set up a Kubuntu group so that all Kubuntu team members who need
> access can actually access the shares. One of the advantages of using
> KDE infra over piratepad or so, is that we can add a password if
> necessary, and share among other KDE packagers if necessary.
>
> We are also interested in having a Phab instance for Kubuntu mostly
> for the todo/workboard. Right now, we're using Trello, but would
> prefer to use Free software if possible. And the beauty of Phabricator
> is that we can keep more of our "stuff" in one place. For instance, it
> includes a wiki as well, which we might use for packaging
> documentation. Very slick to have all our packaging stuff in one
> place.
>
> However, the sysadmins would like the KDE community support for this,
> since it could be seen as a "slippery slope." In addition, Ben
> Cooksley said, "we'll need to come up with some guidelines surrounding
> what distributions can ask us for, given the Manifesto / KDE Project
> rules.
>
> I would love to see more KDE distros getting cozy with the KDE
> community because I don't like to see fighting between packagers and
> developers, and communication is key.
>
> Our Manifesto [1] says: Being part of the international KDE community
> conveys certain benefits: Make use of KDE infrastructure for
> project hosting. I've noticed that some KDE projects do not use KDE
> infra, such as bugzilla, websites, and even mail lists. I thought the
> rule was that all KDE projects would move to KDE infra, so this
> surprised me.
>
> On the other hand, groups which are associated with the community but
> will never be "KDE projects" such as KDE distros, are not mentioned in
> the Manifesto. We do already host the KDE Packagers list [2], and
> Distributions list [3] which supports the Distribution Outreach
> Program [4].
>
> What do you say? Obviously we want to support KDE distributions. Where
> do we draw the line?

This is a general reply to the thread. With my sysadmin hat on: Giving
Kubuntu a Phabricator board is easy, takes negligible server
resources, takes little sysadmin human resources. I could just go and
do it.

The problem originating this discussion is: what do we do if another
KDE-related community (could be a community packaging KDE software for
another distro, or something else entirely) asks for a Phabricator
board too; after all, we helped Kubuntu with the Phabricator thing
before, right? Then someone some little space in our download servers
for beta packages or whatever. Not much storage, not much bandwidth.
Then someone wants to use share.kde.org. Then someone wants a VM to
compile packages for their distro. Then someone else wants
significantly more download server space.

Where do we stop? We have to draw the line somewhere, but I don't know
where. Perhaps making it case-by-case could be problematic, someone
could claim it's unfair to give X to Kubuntu and not give Y to them
because in their opinion Y doesn't need much more resources than X.
Must be Kubuntu favoritism!

But perhaps I'm being paranoid, and trying to define a strict policy
ahead of time will involve even worse bikeshedding and drama, and
case-by-case is good enough.

Maybe we just should create the Kubuntu task board and defer this
issue until the next such request comes. Maybe it will never come.

-- 
Nicolás
KDE Sysadmin Team

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Alexander Neundorf]

On 2017 M01 14, Sat 16:53:19 CET Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2017 11:18:07 CET Harald Sitter wrote:
> > Manifesto says one of our values is "Inclusivity to ensure that all
> > people are welcome to join us and participate;". Be inclusive, give
> > Kubuntu and Fedora a place on phab to manage their todos. Costs us
> > nothing, helps our friends make their product which features our
> > products better. If either starts calling themselves a KDE project or
> > misrepresents their association with KDE, hit them with the manifesto
> > bat.
> 
> Let me add to that: Any distribution or spin shipping our software is of
> course welcome to become a KDE project as well (from KDE's side, at least).
> neon was the first to ask for that, but it's not exclusive.

well, I wouldn't put it this way.
Regarding neon we had a major discussion whether it is a good idea that KDE 
starts to put his toes into distro waters. I am myself not really decided, 
both sides have valid points.
The "vision" discussion resulted in a nice statement, which avoids mentioning 
what we do (or do not do) completely.
The "mission" discussion has paused for some months now...
I think there is still the split between people seeing KDE as an organization 
"supporting all kinds of FLOSS-related projects" (as the last eV report puts 
it), and people seeing KDE as an organization developing (Qt-based) end-user 
software.

Extending KDE's scope to distros is, so to say, extending it vertically, which 
is a reasonable idea with pros and cons worth discussion, but it's not a no-
brainer. Extending KDE's scope to Wikis, is extending it horizontally, which 
is IMO even more worth discussion.

OTOH, "being nice" towards friends is something where there is I think more or 
less unanimous agreement in the KDE community.

Alex

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Ivan Čukić]

+1 for being nice.

One thing I'd like to add is that while the Fedora and Ubuntu are not
KDE projects (nor that they can be if we take the previous claims that
they do not have the same goals as us), that does not mean that the
project to provide KDE software for those distributions can not be a
KDE project.

Why would Neon be special? Neon did not strictly start as a part of
KDE community (this was a reason mentioned why it is ok for Neon and
KDE-FreeBSD). We voted on to allow it to be a KDE project - it already
existed before that, albeit for a short time. From my point of view,
denying this request to Kubuntu people would just be plain wrong - it
is a distribution that is based on something that is not under KDE's
control just like it is the case with Neon and KDE-FreeBSD.

TL;DR While Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE are not KDE projects, that does
not mean that the projects of making KDE-versions of popular
distributions are not.

Cheers,
Ivan

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

On Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2017 11:18:07 CET Harald Sitter wrote:

> Manifesto says one of our values is "Inclusivity to ensure that all
> people are welcome to join us and participate;". Be inclusive, give
> Kubuntu and Fedora a place on phab to manage their todos. Costs us
> nothing, helps our friends make their product which features our
> products better. If either starts calling themselves a KDE project or
> misrepresents their association with KDE, hit them with the manifesto
> bat.

Let me add to that: Any distribution or spin shipping our software is of 
course welcome to become a KDE project as well (from KDE's side, at least). 
neon was the first to ask for that, but it's not exclusive.

Extent of KDE helping downstreams (was Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure)

[Luca Beltrame]

Il giorno Sat, 14 Jan 2017 14:20:15 +0100
Adriaan de Groot  ha scritto:

[renamed the discussion so that it drifts away from Valorie's request
onto something else, and doesn't distract from her question]

> I'm having a terrible time understanding the nature of the line in
> the sand you'd like to draw. What does the Venn diagram look like to

The line would be: distros (*any* distro) on the side, KDE on the
other. The reasoning is non technical, as I said, mainly because even
if distros are Free Software, their goals and objectives may not always
fit within KDE.

On the other hand (I *need* to point this out), some distros have
definite issues with their infrastructure for handling KDE software
(Fedora and Kubuntu, for different reasons). 

> you? Frankly I'd rather not have FreeBSD be "the special case" if it
> comes to that.

Luigi in the follow up mail explained better what I meant. 

> Then there's KDE Argon, Xenon and others .. different base distro's,

Argon and Krypton are not KDE projects, they're openSUSE community
things, they do not use KDE infrastructure at all (except downloading
stuff from KDE git). 

> efforts -- then I still don't see how that translates to "KDE doesn't
> help downstream in any way", which is kind of how I interpret your

"Help" perhaps is a bit too vague. I'm a downstream (openSUSE) as well
as an upstream: I wear both hats. I'm *all* for KDE helping
downstreams, in fact I think that with things like distribution
outreach and other people actively seeking distro input KDE is helping
a lot more than before. 

What I object to is having downstreams use KDE infrastructure (including
workboards and Phab) for distro-specific things (even if limited to KDE
packaging). Personally I try to keep things entirely separate.

That said, if the majority of the community wants to do that anyway,
it's not like I'll commit suicide tomorrow. ;) 

-- 
Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team
GPG key ID: A29D259B


pgpnaCyTK0ke5.pgp
Description: Firma digitale OpenPGP

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Luigi Toscano]

Adriaan de Groot ha scritto:

> I don't think votes are the way to go, really. I'd much rather just get on 
> with it. For the FreeBSD project on KDE's phab, I didn't even think about it: 
> I'm a KDE person, I'm interested in delivering KDE software to a particular 
> group, and I do lots of things on KDE infrastructure for doing that delivery 
> (e.g. filing bugs, writing patches, blogging, running KDE CI for FreeBSD), 
> and 
> sysadmin suggested having a Phab project for it would be useful to group 
> things. Yeah, sure.
> 
> I don't see, given the *tiny* technical burden implied by the request in this 
> thread, why Kubuntu should be any different from FreeBSD.

There is a slight difference: FreeBSD (but the same can be said for Windows or
Android) is a completely different platform and the "FreeBSD" project/tag on
phabricator.kde.org can be used to identify which reviews and changes are
relevant for that port.
The fact that you can organize the tasks and review is a side effect of this
reason, and that's why I proposed the creation of the tag (as Community
Administrator, not exactly an official sysadmin :)

I think this is different from *ubuntu (and Fedora, Debian, Opensuse, Arch,
Gentoo, Chakra, Slackware, etc etc) which are GNU/Linux distributions, all
(with "minimal" differences) the same platform (and probably the most tested).

-- 
Luigi

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Adriaan de Groot]

[Quoting two messages (from Luca Beltrame and Ovidiu-Florin BOGDAN), with 
slightly re-arranged text.]

To recap, this thread started with a general question by Valorie about 
distro's (or distro/packaging teams) using KDE infrastructure. It has become 
more specific: the Kubuntu packaging team (if that's the right word for it) 
would like some things arranged in KDE Phab for that team. Technically, this 
is a tiny request (and Albert says "let's get on with it"), but there's an 
ongoing non-technical discussion.

We don't really have a definition of the groups (of people) we're talking 
about; just some examples of self-identified groups of packagers / distro 
people. One example is the Kubuntu peeps; another is the KDE-FreeBSD peeps 
(which is 8 guys, all told, I think).

On Thursday 12 January 2017 17:18:46 Luca Beltrame wrote:
> Il giorno Thu, 12 Jan 2017 15:27:21 +0100
> 
> Adriaan de Groot  ha scritto:
> > Luca, what exactly are you "Nay"-ing? The former or the latter? If
> > the latter, do you also object to
> > https://phabricator.kde.org/project/view/199/ ?
> 
> The latter. For KDE-FreeBSD, I'd argue it's special-cased as AFAICS (but
> you're the expert here, feel free to point out if I'm wrong) it
> originated within KDE and not from outside.

[I couldn't correct you: back then I was doing KDE-on-Solaris, and I wandered 
over to FreeBSD after I was done with the 64-bit port of KDE; at that point 
KDE-FreeBSD way already a lively group led by Lauri Watts, who was IIRC also 
KDE's translation coordinator.]

I'm having a terrible time understanding the nature of the line in the sand 
you'd like to draw. What does the Venn diagram look like to you? Frankly I'd 
rather not have FreeBSD be "the special case" if it comes to that.

Where does KDE Neon fit in your worldview? That's *definitely* a distro, and a 
KDE project to boot, and it uses KDE infrastructure. Then there's KDE Argon, 
Xenon and others .. different base distro's, same purpose, to deliver the 
latest KDE software with your favorite underlying platform.

If your stance is "KDE delivers source and nothing else" -- which is true to 
some extent, except for our more recent AppImage / FlatPak efforts -- then I 
still don't see how that translates to "KDE doesn't help downstream in any 
way", which is kind of how I interpret your objection to a technically trivial 
service to a self-identified community.

Earlier you (Luca) said that distro teams should use the downstream tools. 
That presumes that downstream *has* those tools, and somehow singles out 
"distros" as a special class of (sub-)communities that ought to have 
downstream tools. What makes them special compared to, say, a community 
interested in delivering KDE software on Android (not a distro) or on touch 
devices, or in Kiosk mode, or indeed KDE people interested in KDE software for 
diving and 3D-printing (surely they should have underwater^Wdownstream tools 
as well and otherwise they can print them).

I imagine that where there's overlap -- namely between KDE and  -- that 
there's some presence on *both* sides of that overlap. Namely some KDE- 
resources on the KDE side, and some -KDE resources on the other.

Compare
https://freebsd.kde.org/  (KDE side)
https://wiki.freebsd.org/KDE  (FreeBSD side)

It is pretty much the same people on both ends, with different emphasis -- but 
that's precisely because this is a case of overlap.


On Friday 13 January 2017 18:35:02 Ovidiu-Florin BOGDAN wrote:
> 2017-01-13 9:40 GMT+02:00 Luca Beltrame :
> > Il giorno Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:09:16 +0100
> > 
> > Albert Astals Cid  ha scritto:
> > > This takes 1 minute to create and adds 0.0003% of work to our
> > > servers, let's just add it and stop a conversation that is making us
> > > spend lots of human- hours discussing it.
> > 
> > I thought there were no problems from a technical perspective. The
> > discussion is all about the non technical aspects as far as I see it.
>
> Should we gather +s and -s and count them as a vote? Can we give the
> sysadmins the ok?

I don't think votes are the way to go, really. I'd much rather just get on 
with it. For the FreeBSD project on KDE's phab, I didn't even think about it: 
I'm a KDE person, I'm interested in delivering KDE software to a particular 
group, and I do lots of things on KDE infrastructure for doing that delivery 
(e.g. filing bugs, writing patches, blogging, running KDE CI for FreeBSD), and 
sysadmin suggested having a Phab project for it would be useful to group 
things. Yeah, sure.

I don't see, given the *tiny* technical burden implied by the request in this 
thread, why Kubuntu should be any different from FreeBSD.

On the other hand, we do need to watch out a little for scope creep. As long 
as the request is tiny, and the resource use is sensible, things are fine. 
Somewhere there's a blurry line, though, where downstreams / subgroups need to 
put in own effort / resources to support KDE like KDE supports them.

It's a 

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Ovidiu-Florin BOGDAN]

Should we gather +s and -s and count them as a vote? Can we give the
sysadmins the ok?

*Ovidiu - Florin BOGDAN*
GeekAliens.com 
Kubuntu România 


2017-01-13 9:40 GMT+02:00 Luca Beltrame :

> Il giorno Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:09:16 +0100
> Albert Astals Cid  ha scritto:
>
> > This takes 1 minute to create and adds 0.0003% of work to our
> > servers, let's just add it and stop a conversation that is making us
> > spend lots of human- hours discussing it.
>
> I thought there were no problems from a technical perspective. The
> discussion is all about the non technical aspects as far as I see it.
>
> --
> Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team
> KDE Science supporter
> GPG key ID: 6E1A4E79
>
>
>

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Luca Beltrame]

Il giorno Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:09:16 +0100
Albert Astals Cid  ha scritto:

> This takes 1 minute to create and adds 0.0003% of work to our
> servers, let's just add it and stop a conversation that is making us
> spend lots of human- hours discussing it.

I thought there were no problems from a technical perspective. The
discussion is all about the non technical aspects as far as I see it.

-- 
Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team
KDE Science supporter
GPG key ID: 6E1A4E79

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Albert Astals Cid]

El dijous, 12 de gener de 2017, a les 22:46:27 CET, Ovidiu-Florin BOGDAN va 
escriure:
> We would like a Project in the current Phabricator instance, which comes
> with a wiki, TODO board and all the magic.

This takes 1 minute to create and adds 0.0003% of work to our servers, let's 
just add it and stop a conversation that is making us spend lots of human-
hours discussing it.

Cheers,
  Albert

> 
> *Ovidiu - Florin BOGDAN*
> GeekAliens.com 
> Kubuntu România 
> 
> 
> 2017-01-12 16:27 GMT+02:00 Adriaan de Groot :
> > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 10:39:33 AM Luca Beltrame wrote:
> > > Il giorno Wed, 11 Jan 2017 14:58:32 -0800
> > > Valorie Zimmerman
> > > 
> > >  ha scritto:
> > > > Bottom line: we would like a Phab instance so that we can use the task
> > > > board, and perhaps the built-in wiki. The sysadmins want the KDE
> > > > Community to give the yea or nay to that request, and perhaps clarify
> > > 
> > > "Nay". These tasks need to use the upstream distribution's tools and
> > > KDE cannot act as a proxy for them: if these tools are broken, they
> > > should be fixed.
> > 
> > Valorie, when you say "Phab Instance" do you mean a whole separate Phab
> > installation, or do you mean "A KDE Phab workspace / project / todo-board
> > /
> > corner of the wiki"?
> > 
> > For the former, I'd submit that it's an additional (system-)maintainence
> > burden for a subset of KDE contributors; for the latter, I think it falls
> > firmly within "being nice" as formulated by Harald.
> > 
> > 
> > Luca, what exactly are you "Nay"-ing? The former or the latter? If the
> > latter,
> > do you also object to https://phabricator.kde.org/project/view/199/ ?
> > 
> > [ade]

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Ovidiu-Florin BOGDAN]

We would like a Project in the current Phabricator instance, which comes
with a wiki, TODO board and all the magic.

*Ovidiu - Florin BOGDAN*
GeekAliens.com 
Kubuntu România 


2017-01-12 16:27 GMT+02:00 Adriaan de Groot :

> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 10:39:33 AM Luca Beltrame wrote:
> > Il giorno Wed, 11 Jan 2017 14:58:32 -0800
> > Valorie Zimmerman
> >
> >  ha scritto:
> > > Bottom line: we would like a Phab instance so that we can use the task
> > > board, and perhaps the built-in wiki. The sysadmins want the KDE
> > > Community to give the yea or nay to that request, and perhaps clarify
> >
> > "Nay". These tasks need to use the upstream distribution's tools and
> > KDE cannot act as a proxy for them: if these tools are broken, they
> > should be fixed.
>
> Valorie, when you say "Phab Instance" do you mean a whole separate Phab
> installation, or do you mean "A KDE Phab workspace / project / todo-board /
> corner of the wiki"?
>
> For the former, I'd submit that it's an additional (system-)maintainence
> burden for a subset of KDE contributors; for the latter, I think it falls
> firmly within "being nice" as formulated by Harald.
>
>
> Luca, what exactly are you "Nay"-ing? The former or the latter? If the
> latter,
> do you also object to https://phabricator.kde.org/project/view/199/ ?
>
> [ade]
>

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Luca Beltrame]

Il giorno Thu, 12 Jan 2017 15:27:21 +0100
Adriaan de Groot  ha scritto:

> Luca, what exactly are you "Nay"-ing? The former or the latter? If
> the latter, do you also object to
> https://phabricator.kde.org/project/view/199/ ?

The latter. For KDE-FreeBSD, I'd argue it's special-cased as AFAICS (but
you're the expert here, feel free to point out if I'm wrong) it
originated within KDE and not from outside. 


pgpslEqk_nvyx.pgp
Description: Firma digitale OpenPGP

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Adriaan de Groot]

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 10:39:33 AM Luca Beltrame wrote:
> Il giorno Wed, 11 Jan 2017 14:58:32 -0800
> Valorie Zimmerman
> 
>  ha scritto:
> > Bottom line: we would like a Phab instance so that we can use the task
> > board, and perhaps the built-in wiki. The sysadmins want the KDE
> > Community to give the yea or nay to that request, and perhaps clarify
> 
> "Nay". These tasks need to use the upstream distribution's tools and
> KDE cannot act as a proxy for them: if these tools are broken, they
> should be fixed.

Valorie, when you say "Phab Instance" do you mean a whole separate Phab 
installation, or do you mean "A KDE Phab workspace / project / todo-board / 
corner of the wiki"?

For the former, I'd submit that it's an additional (system-)maintainence 
burden for a subset of KDE contributors; for the latter, I think it falls 
firmly within "being nice" as formulated by Harald.


Luca, what exactly are you "Nay"-ing? The former or the latter? If the latter, 
do you also object to https://phabricator.kde.org/project/view/199/ ?

[ade]

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Sebastian Kügler]

On donderdag 12 januari 2017 11:18:07 CET Harald Sitter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Valorie Zimmerman
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line: we would like a Phab instance so that we can use the task
> > board, and perhaps the built-in wiki. The sysadmins want the KDE
> > Community to give the yea or nay to that request, and perhaps clarify
> > in the Manifesto what KDE infra can be used by "non" KDE projects.
> 
> Didn't we have this bikeshed in 2013 with the wikis *after* the
> manifesto was put in place already? Surely there are better things to
> do than discuss the same things over and over again.
> 
> Manifesto says one of our values is "Inclusivity to ensure that all
> people are welcome to join us and participate;". Be inclusive, give
> Kubuntu and Fedora a place on phab to manage their todos. Costs us
> nothing, helps our friends make their product which features our
> products better. If either starts calling themselves a KDE project or
> misrepresents their association with KDE, hit them with the manifesto
> bat.
> 
> Since we have no community voting platform, take this to the e.v. if
> being nice really needs voting on.

Well said. +1 to being nice.
-- 
sebas

http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org

KDE on Fedora maybe? [was: Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure]

[Harald Sitter]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Helio Chissini de Castro
 wrote:
> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 10:42:37 AM CET Luca Beltrame wrote:
>
>> Il giorno Sun, 08 Jan 2017 10:10:55 +
>
>> Helio Chissini de Castro
>
>>
>
>>  ha scritto:
>
>> > I requested similar thing for doing Fedora similar things and simply
>
>> > the
>
>>
>
>> Interesting. Were there any motivations for this?
>
>>
>
>> (Notice that my objections are also valid for any distro, so I don't
>
>> think that even the KDE Fedora bits should use KDE infrastructure).
>
>
>
> Simple, despite we have a strong KDE packaging team, and even we're kind of
> now working together with Mageia KDE team as well, we do have a
> distribuition that has a default Gnome desktop, and all efforts on main
> distribution and the only official build is Gnome based.
>
>
>
> So, doesn't matter our efforts, KDE will not be included as default in
> Fedora, or RedHat. It's a businnes choice. And then, each new release we do
> not have a similar KDE spin that is sanctioned on both Fedora and parent
> RedHat company, or even by KDE project.
>
> We do have a KDE spin, but is considered a second class citizen on launch as
> not even possible polished as Neon, since at first any resource to make a
> seamless distro is made towards Gnome.
>
> There's several hard work from some packagers, like Rex Dieter, the lead on
> the KDE Sig, or Kevin Kofler that is been fighting for years to create a KDE
> only spin ( btw, he made his first try recently )
>
>
>
> So, the reasonable on have Fedora resources on KDE server, and the vm
> itself, is have a continuos build on Fedora platform as well "the reference
> Neon" that garantee the results of a KDE software will be the same quality
> on launch day, and even using a sane KDE defaults. With this would be easy
> at every new Fedora launch day we have at least a beatiful KDE stable as
> well like Kubuntu did and now Neon, and any other KDE based distro.
>
> Having the software been in CI and garanteed work with latest compilations
> and commits will free us to conecntrate in integrate the rest of KDE parts
> with the distro specifics.

FWIW, I think from what you describe it would make more sense to
consider incubating "KDE on Fedora" as a proper KDE project to get all
the benefits that come with that.

Since there is no Fedora CLA anymore I figure this should be a doable
thing. Albeit with some imaginary line drawn between what is Fedora
(i.e. KDE SIG) activity and what is KDE activity with the two working
in tandem and for all intents and purposes being run by largely the
same people.

In particular the build side of the SIG's activity seems like a handy
thing to have for both sides as it allows yet more pre-release
exposure to production platforms (i.e. knowing that everything builds
on Fedora is, as you mentioned, a very helpful thing). I am biased
towards everything continuous, so I may be a bit biased here ^^

Has this ever been considered and discussed?

HS

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Luca Beltrame]

Il giorno Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:49:44 +0100
Helio Chissini de Castro  ha
scritto:

> a distribuition that has a default Gnome desktop, and all efforts on
> main distribution and the only official build is Gnome based.

The problem is inherently political, I see. And I guess the request
from Kubuntu also stems from distro "politics". My issue is where the
line is drawn to allow such things.

As other members here are in favor, I won't speak more on the matter and
let things go.

> itself, is have a continuos build on Fedora platform as well "the
> reference Neon" that garantee the results of a KDE software will be

Neon is not a reference for KDE software, it is made by KDE but AFAICR
it has no such ambitions.


pgpwWAUWVuAsp.pgp
Description: Firma digitale OpenPGP

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Helio Chissini de Castro]

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 10:42:37 AM CET Luca Beltrame wrote:
> Il giorno Sun, 08 Jan 2017 10:10:55 +
> Helio Chissini de Castro
> 
>  ha scritto:
> > I requested similar thing for doing Fedora similar things and simply
> > the
> 
> Interesting. Were there any motivations for this?
> 
> (Notice that my objections are also valid for any distro, so I don't
> think that even the KDE Fedora bits should use KDE infrastructure).

Simple, despite we have a strong KDE packaging team, and even we're kind of now 
working together with Mageia KDE team as well, we do have a distribuition that 
has a 
default Gnome desktop, and all efforts on main distribution and the only 
official build is 
Gnome based.

So, doesn't matter our efforts, KDE will not be included as default in Fedora, 
or RedHat. It's 
a businnes choice. And then, each new release we do not have a similar KDE spin 
that is 
sanctioned on both Fedora and parent RedHat company, or even by KDE project.
We do have a KDE spin, but is considered a second class citizen on launch as 
not even 
possible polished as Neon, since at first any resource to make a seamless 
distro is made 
towards Gnome. 
There's several hard work from some packagers, like Rex Dieter, the lead on the 
KDE Sig, 
or Kevin Kofler that is been fighting for years to create a KDE only spin ( 
btw, he made his 
first try recently )

So, the reasonable on have Fedora resources on KDE server, and the vm itself, 
is have a 
continuos build on Fedora platform as well "the reference Neon" that garantee 
the results 
of a KDE software will be the same quality on launch day, and even using a sane 
KDE 
defaults. With this would be easy at every new Fedora launch day we have at 
least a 
beatiful KDE stable as well like Kubuntu did and now Neon, and any other KDE 
based 
distro.
Having the software been in CI and garanteed work with latest compilations and 
commits 
will free us to conecntrate in integrate the rest of KDE parts with the distro 
specifics.

Regards, Helio

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Harald Sitter]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Valorie Zimmerman
 wrote:
> Bottom line: we would like a Phab instance so that we can use the task
> board, and perhaps the built-in wiki. The sysadmins want the KDE
> Community to give the yea or nay to that request, and perhaps clarify
> in the Manifesto what KDE infra can be used by "non" KDE projects.

Didn't we have this bikeshed in 2013 with the wikis *after* the
manifesto was put in place already? Surely there are better things to
do than discuss the same things over and over again.

Manifesto says one of our values is "Inclusivity to ensure that all
people are welcome to join us and participate;". Be inclusive, give
Kubuntu and Fedora a place on phab to manage their todos. Costs us
nothing, helps our friends make their product which features our
products better. If either starts calling themselves a KDE project or
misrepresents their association with KDE, hit them with the manifesto
bat.

Since we have no community voting platform, take this to the e.v. if
being nice really needs voting on.

HS

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Ben Cooksley]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Luca Beltrame  wrote:
> Il giorno Sun, 08 Jan 2017 10:10:55 +
> Helio Chissini de Castro
>  ha scritto:
>
>> I requested similar thing for doing Fedora similar things and simply
>> the
>
> Interesting. Were there any motivations for this?
>
> (Notice that my objections are also valid for any distro, so I don't
> think that even the KDE Fedora bits should use KDE infrastructure).

The only request I recall for Fedora was for a VM which would be used
as part of their builds.

Regards,
Ben

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Luca Beltrame]

Il giorno Sun, 08 Jan 2017 10:10:55 +
Helio Chissini de Castro
 ha scritto:

> I requested similar thing for doing Fedora similar things and simply
> the

Interesting. Were there any motivations for this?

(Notice that my objections are also valid for any distro, so I don't
think that even the KDE Fedora bits should use KDE infrastructure).


pgpi8TXLmu7da.pgp
Description: Firma digitale OpenPGP

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Luca Beltrame]

Il giorno Wed, 11 Jan 2017 14:58:32 -0800
Valorie Zimmerman
 ha scritto:

> Bottom line: we would like a Phab instance so that we can use the task
> board, and perhaps the built-in wiki. The sysadmins want the KDE
> Community to give the yea or nay to that request, and perhaps clarify

"Nay". These tasks need to use the upstream distribution's tools and
KDE cannot act as a proxy for them: if these tools are broken, they
should be fixed.


pgpKwPunyy6jv.pgp
Description: Firma digitale OpenPGP

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017, Valorie Zimmerman wrote:

> As the first responses to my questions show, some DO draw those Venn
> diagrams. To me, if there is one, it is mostly overlap. What I do for
> Kubuntu is for KDE, and what I do for KDE helps Kubuntu.
> 
> Bottom line: we would like a Phab instance so that we can use the task
> board, and perhaps the built-in wiki. The sysadmins want the KDE
> Community to give the yea or nay to that request, and perhaps clarify
> in the Manifesto what KDE infra can be used by "non" KDE projects.

If this ever would come to a vote, I would certainly vote "yes". It can
only make KDE and free software stronger.

> 
> I want all distributions and other groups such as the Mac/Win/BSD
> folks who package KDE software to be loved by KDE folks, and welcomed
> to use KDE infrastructure.
> 
> Valorie
> 
> 

-- 
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.krita.org, http://www.valdyas.org

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Helio Chissini de Castro]

Thanks for putting this up Valerie.

I requested similar thing for doing Fedora similar things and simply the
matter was put aside, and I simply decided stop trying as I barely had will
to fight for this when clearly nobody want to give support on our infra.

Let's see if Kubuntu has a different treatment.

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017, 09:02 Valorie Zimmerman 
wrote:

> I'm writing at the request of the sysadmins, who would like to hear
> from the community about distributions' use of KDE infra.
>
> I'm part of the Kubuntu community and will use it as the example I know
> best.
>
> Kubuntu has some KDE wiki pages, found at
> https://community.kde.org/Kubuntu - for which we are very grateful.
> Ubuntu has a wiki we used to use, but between the awfulness of
> MoinMoin and the spam attacks on it, we love being at home at the KDE
> wikis.
>
> For some time we've been using notes.kde.org as well, and are planning
> how to use share.kde.org now that notes is closing down. We'll need to
> set up a Kubuntu group so that all Kubuntu team members who need
> access can actually access the shares. One of the advantages of using
> KDE infra over piratepad or so, is that we can add a password if
> necessary, and share among other KDE packagers if necessary.
>
> We are also interested in having a Phab instance for Kubuntu mostly
> for the todo/workboard. Right now, we're using Trello, but would
> prefer to use Free software if possible. And the beauty of Phabricator
> is that we can keep more of our "stuff" in one place. For instance, it
> includes a wiki as well, which we might use for packaging
> documentation. Very slick to have all our packaging stuff in one
> place.
>
> However, the sysadmins would like the KDE community support for this,
> since it could be seen as a "slippery slope." In addition, Ben
> Cooksley said, "we'll need to come up with some guidelines surrounding
> what distributions can ask us for, given the Manifesto / KDE Project
> rules.
>
> I would love to see more KDE distros getting cozy with the KDE
> community because I don't like to see fighting between packagers and
> developers, and communication is key.
>
> Our Manifesto [1] says: Being part of the international KDE community
> conveys certain benefits: Make use of KDE infrastructure for
> project hosting. I've noticed that some KDE projects do not use KDE
> infra, such as bugzilla, websites, and even mail lists. I thought the
> rule was that all KDE projects would move to KDE infra, so this
> surprised me.
>
> On the other hand, groups which are associated with the community but
> will never be "KDE projects" such as KDE distros, are not mentioned in
> the Manifesto. We do already host the KDE Packagers list [2], and
> Distributions list [3] which supports the Distribution Outreach
> Program [4].
>
> What do you say? Obviously we want to support KDE distributions. Where
> do we draw the line?
>
> Valorie
>
> 1. https://manifesto.kde.org/benefits.html
> 2. https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-distro-packagers
> 3. https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/distributions
> 4.
> https://dot.kde.org/2016/03/03/announcing-kde-communitys-distribution-outreach-program
>
> --
> http://about.me/valoriez
>

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Valorie Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Adriaan de Groot  wrote:
> On Sunday, January 08, 2017 12:02:06 AM Valorie Zimmerman wrote:
>> However, the sysadmins would like the KDE community support for this,
>> since it could be seen as a "slippery slope." In addition, Ben
>> Cooksley said, "we'll need to come up with some guidelines surrounding
>> what distributions can ask us for, given the Manifesto / KDE Project
>> rules.
>
> Hi Valorie,
>
> I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here.
>
> For me, it seems like you're drawing a Venn diagram, with a circle of "distro
> people" on one side, and a circle of "KDE infrastructure", and saying that an
> overlap between the two is problematic. I'm not sure why that's a problem, nor
> even why the two circles are expected to be distinct.
>
> Consider the KDE-FreeBSD packagers. That's not one of the "big three", but it
> is a distro in a non-Linuxy sense of the word. Heck, there's even *two*
> trademarks in the name there! So this group of people self-identifies as "the
> KDE-FreeBSD community of packagers". The people within that community vary
> from almost-pure-FreeBSD-folks (e.g. mat_) to almost-pure-KDE-folks (e.g. me).
> It's still a single group with a particular purpose, namely to bring KDE
> software to the OS (platform, distro, whatever).
>
> It seems to be natural to use whatever infrastructure is most convenient or
> most apposite. We (KDE-FreeBSD) have a *.kde.org subdomain for posting news
> and information, keep some *base.kde.org wiki pages with information for KDE
> users and people wanting to contribute, and use KDE phab, git, etc. when
> upstreaming patches.
>
> We *also* use FreeBSD phab for dealing with downstream workflow, the wiki 
> there
> for progress reports, the bug tracker there, etc.
>
> As for general collaborative things, whichever pastebin is handy gets used;
> whichever notes-taking app is around gets used. I don't think we spend -- or
> want to spend -- a lot of time thinking about which one gets used.
>
> So for me, it seems like either a non-problem (because KDE-FreeBSD is pretty
> small) or there's something not expressed here that lies behind your question.
>
> [ade]

As the first responses to my questions show, some DO draw those Venn
diagrams. To me, if there is one, it is mostly overlap. What I do for
Kubuntu is for KDE, and what I do for KDE helps Kubuntu.

Bottom line: we would like a Phab instance so that we can use the task
board, and perhaps the built-in wiki. The sysadmins want the KDE
Community to give the yea or nay to that request, and perhaps clarify
in the Manifesto what KDE infra can be used by "non" KDE projects.

I want all distributions and other groups such as the Mac/Win/BSD
folks who package KDE software to be loved by KDE folks, and welcomed
to use KDE infrastructure.

Valorie

-- 
http://about.me/valoriez

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Adriaan de Groot]

On Sunday, January 08, 2017 12:02:06 AM Valorie Zimmerman wrote:
> However, the sysadmins would like the KDE community support for this,
> since it could be seen as a "slippery slope." In addition, Ben
> Cooksley said, "we'll need to come up with some guidelines surrounding
> what distributions can ask us for, given the Manifesto / KDE Project
> rules.

Hi Valorie,

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here.

For me, it seems like you're drawing a Venn diagram, with a circle of "distro 
people" on one side, and a circle of "KDE infrastructure", and saying that an 
overlap between the two is problematic. I'm not sure why that's a problem, nor 
even why the two circles are expected to be distinct.

Consider the KDE-FreeBSD packagers. That's not one of the "big three", but it 
is a distro in a non-Linuxy sense of the word. Heck, there's even *two* 
trademarks in the name there! So this group of people self-identifies as "the 
KDE-FreeBSD community of packagers". The people within that community vary 
from almost-pure-FreeBSD-folks (e.g. mat_) to almost-pure-KDE-folks (e.g. me). 
It's still a single group with a particular purpose, namely to bring KDE 
software to the OS (platform, distro, whatever).

It seems to be natural to use whatever infrastructure is most convenient or 
most apposite. We (KDE-FreeBSD) have a *.kde.org subdomain for posting news 
and information, keep some *base.kde.org wiki pages with information for KDE 
users and people wanting to contribute, and use KDE phab, git, etc. when 
upstreaming patches.

We *also* use FreeBSD phab for dealing with downstream workflow, the wiki there 
for progress reports, the bug tracker there, etc.

As for general collaborative things, whichever pastebin is handy gets used; 
whichever notes-taking app is around gets used. I don't think we spend -- or 
want to spend -- a lot of time thinking about which one gets used.

So for me, it seems like either a non-problem (because KDE-FreeBSD is pretty 
small) or there's something not expressed here that lies behind your question.

[ade]

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Kenny Duffus]

On Sunday, 8 January 2017 16:28:45 GMT, Albert Astals Cid wrote:

For me, the line is "you should use your project infrastructure".

Since we're nice people, i would expand the line to "if your project 
infrastructure is not good you can use ours for KDE related stuff if

that gives us no overhead"


I think this really depends a lot on the size and organisation 
abilities/facilities of the distro in question. Basically there is 
Debian/Fedora/OpenSUSE and then pretty much everyone else who have less 
resources, so I think this should remain a semi flexible grey area.


IMHO it always seems to be people involved in distros with lots of 
resources saying that other distros should never get the occasional helping 
hand from KDE


--

Kenny

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Ben Cooksley]

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 5:28 AM, Albert Astals Cid  wrote:
> El diumenge, 8 de gener de 2017, a les 0:02:06 CET, Valorie Zimmerman va
> escriure:
>> I'm writing at the request of the sysadmins, who would like to hear
>> from the community about distributions' use of KDE infra.
>>
>> I'm part of the Kubuntu community and will use it as the example I know
>> best.
>>
>> Kubuntu has some KDE wiki pages, found at
>> https://community.kde.org/Kubuntu - for which we are very grateful.
>> Ubuntu has a wiki we used to use, but between the awfulness of
>> MoinMoin and the spam attacks on it, we love being at home at the KDE
>> wikis.
>
> I appreciate MoinMoin is not very nice to use, but sincerely that's something
> you should fix in the Ubuntu community, FWIW being a KUbuntu user,
> community.kde.org is not where i'd expect to find KUbuntu specific
> documentation.
>
>> For some time we've been using notes.kde.org as well, and are planning
>> how to use share.kde.org now that notes is closing down. We'll need to
>> set up a Kubuntu group so that all Kubuntu team members who need
>> access can actually access the shares. One of the advantages of using
>> KDE infra over piratepad or so, is that we can add a password if
>> necessary, and share among other KDE packagers if necessary.
>>
>> We are also interested in having a Phab instance for Kubuntu mostly
>> for the todo/workboard. Right now, we're using Trello, but would
>> prefer to use Free software if possible. And the beauty of Phabricator
>> is that we can keep more of our "stuff" in one place. For instance, it
>> includes a wiki as well, which we might use for packaging
>> documentation. Very slick to have all our packaging stuff in one
>> place.
>>
>> However, the sysadmins would like the KDE community support for this,
>> since it could be seen as a "slippery slope." In addition, Ben
>> Cooksley said, "we'll need to come up with some guidelines surrounding
>> what distributions can ask us for, given the Manifesto / KDE Project
>> rules.
>>
>> I would love to see more KDE distros getting cozy with the KDE
>> community because I don't like to see fighting between packagers and
>> developers, and communication is key.
>>
>> Our Manifesto [1] says: Being part of the international KDE community
>> conveys certain benefits: Make use of KDE infrastructure for
>> project hosting. I've noticed that some KDE projects do not use KDE
>> infra, such as bugzilla, websites, and even mail lists. I thought the
>> rule was that all KDE projects would move to KDE infra, so this
>> surprised me.
>
> Well things don't happen automagically, for every such case you find of KDE
> projects not using the KDE infrastructure try to get them to fix it.
>
>>
>> On the other hand, groups which are associated with the community but
>> will never be "KDE projects" such as KDE distros,
>
> It you're not a "KDE project" you're not a "KDE distro".
>
> KUbuntu is not a KDE distro, it's an Ubuntu distribution that ships KDE
> software, KDE has no control over it, so calling it a KDE distro is in my
> opinion misleading.
>
>> are not mentioned in
>> the Manifesto. We do already host the KDE Packagers list [2], and
>> Distributions list [3] which supports the Distribution Outreach
>> Program [4].
>>
>> What do you say? Obviously we want to support KDE distributions. Where
>> do we draw the line?
>
> For me, the line is "you should use your project infrastructure".
>
> Since we're nice people, i would expand the line to "if your project
> infrastructure is not good you can use ours for KDE related stuff if that
> gives us no overhead"
>
> i.e you can use wikis/paste.kde.org/notes.kde.org because they're already
> free-edit (for any identity holder that is basically anyone) but you can't ask
> for the creation of speacial bugzilla components or the setup of some
> infrastructure specifically for your needs or (if we had one) use our voting
> infrastructure for the vote on who will be your leader.

As we can't prevent (other than by active policing, which is something
i'd rather not do) people from using our systems in that manner
anyway, as long as it's KDE related this seems reasonable enough from
my perspective. Distributions should ideally provide their own
infrastructure.

Anything which requires additional demands is of course out of scope.

>
> Cheers,
>   Albert

Cheers,
Ben

>
>>
>> Valorie
>>
>> 1. https://manifesto.kde.org/benefits.html
>> 2. https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-distro-packagers
>> 3. https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/distributions
>> 4.
>> https://dot.kde.org/2016/03/03/announcing-kde-communitys-distribution-outre
>> ach-program
>
>

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Ben Cooksley]

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 11:46 PM, Shubhi Gautam  wrote:
> please unsubscribe me from this list.
> Not sure how i was subscribed

You've been unsubscribed.
As this list does not accept anything other that double confirmed
opt-in subscriptions for joining the list, you must have subscribed to
the list.

Regards,
Ben Cooksley
KDE Sysadmin

>
>
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Valorie Zimmerman
>  wrote:
>>
>> I'm writing at the request of the sysadmins, who would like to hear
>> from the community about distributions' use of KDE infra.
>>
>> I'm part of the Kubuntu community and will use it as the example I know
>> best.
>>
>> Kubuntu has some KDE wiki pages, found at
>> https://community.kde.org/Kubuntu - for which we are very grateful.
>> Ubuntu has a wiki we used to use, but between the awfulness of
>> MoinMoin and the spam attacks on it, we love being at home at the KDE
>> wikis.
>>
>> For some time we've been using notes.kde.org as well, and are planning
>> how to use share.kde.org now that notes is closing down. We'll need to
>> set up a Kubuntu group so that all Kubuntu team members who need
>> access can actually access the shares. One of the advantages of using
>> KDE infra over piratepad or so, is that we can add a password if
>> necessary, and share among other KDE packagers if necessary.
>>
>> We are also interested in having a Phab instance for Kubuntu mostly
>> for the todo/workboard. Right now, we're using Trello, but would
>> prefer to use Free software if possible. And the beauty of Phabricator
>> is that we can keep more of our "stuff" in one place. For instance, it
>> includes a wiki as well, which we might use for packaging
>> documentation. Very slick to have all our packaging stuff in one
>> place.
>>
>> However, the sysadmins would like the KDE community support for this,
>> since it could be seen as a "slippery slope." In addition, Ben
>> Cooksley said, "we'll need to come up with some guidelines surrounding
>> what distributions can ask us for, given the Manifesto / KDE Project
>> rules.
>>
>> I would love to see more KDE distros getting cozy with the KDE
>> community because I don't like to see fighting between packagers and
>> developers, and communication is key.
>>
>> Our Manifesto [1] says: Being part of the international KDE community
>> conveys certain benefits: Make use of KDE infrastructure for
>> project hosting. I've noticed that some KDE projects do not use KDE
>> infra, such as bugzilla, websites, and even mail lists. I thought the
>> rule was that all KDE projects would move to KDE infra, so this
>> surprised me.
>>
>> On the other hand, groups which are associated with the community but
>> will never be "KDE projects" such as KDE distros, are not mentioned in
>> the Manifesto. We do already host the KDE Packagers list [2], and
>> Distributions list [3] which supports the Distribution Outreach
>> Program [4].
>>
>> What do you say? Obviously we want to support KDE distributions. Where
>> do we draw the line?
>>
>> Valorie
>>
>> 1. https://manifesto.kde.org/benefits.html
>> 2. https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-distro-packagers
>> 3. https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/distributions
>> 4.
>> https://dot.kde.org/2016/03/03/announcing-kde-communitys-distribution-outreach-program
>>
>> --
>> http://about.me/valoriez
>
>

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Aleix Pol]

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Luca Beltrame  wrote:
> Il giorno Sun, 8 Jan 2017 00:02:06 -0800
> Valorie Zimmerman
>  ha scritto:
>
>> However, the sysadmins would like the KDE community support for this,
>> since it could be seen as a "slippery slope." In addition, Ben
>
> With both my KDE and distro person hats, -1 to the idea. I think that
> distribution and KDE infrastructure should be kept separate, exactly
> because the goals of distros may not always align with KDE goals, even
> if there's an amount of overlap in people and ideas.

That's why Ben suggests to have some kind of ḿanifesto.

Personally, I would see it in good eyes if some distribution becomes a
KDE project. It's fair that whoever uses KDE has their own goals, our
licenses allows for it, but still we should know who is aligned with
our goals instead of pushing all distributions away because they're
different.

Aleix

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Albert Astals Cid]

El diumenge, 8 de gener de 2017, a les 0:02:06 CET, Valorie Zimmerman va 
escriure:
> I'm writing at the request of the sysadmins, who would like to hear
> from the community about distributions' use of KDE infra.
> 
> I'm part of the Kubuntu community and will use it as the example I know
> best.
> 
> Kubuntu has some KDE wiki pages, found at
> https://community.kde.org/Kubuntu - for which we are very grateful.
> Ubuntu has a wiki we used to use, but between the awfulness of
> MoinMoin and the spam attacks on it, we love being at home at the KDE
> wikis.

I appreciate MoinMoin is not very nice to use, but sincerely that's something 
you should fix in the Ubuntu community, FWIW being a KUbuntu user,  
community.kde.org is not where i'd expect to find KUbuntu specific 
documentation.

> For some time we've been using notes.kde.org as well, and are planning
> how to use share.kde.org now that notes is closing down. We'll need to
> set up a Kubuntu group so that all Kubuntu team members who need
> access can actually access the shares. One of the advantages of using
> KDE infra over piratepad or so, is that we can add a password if
> necessary, and share among other KDE packagers if necessary.
> 
> We are also interested in having a Phab instance for Kubuntu mostly
> for the todo/workboard. Right now, we're using Trello, but would
> prefer to use Free software if possible. And the beauty of Phabricator
> is that we can keep more of our "stuff" in one place. For instance, it
> includes a wiki as well, which we might use for packaging
> documentation. Very slick to have all our packaging stuff in one
> place.
> 
> However, the sysadmins would like the KDE community support for this,
> since it could be seen as a "slippery slope." In addition, Ben
> Cooksley said, "we'll need to come up with some guidelines surrounding
> what distributions can ask us for, given the Manifesto / KDE Project
> rules.
> 
> I would love to see more KDE distros getting cozy with the KDE
> community because I don't like to see fighting between packagers and
> developers, and communication is key.
> 
> Our Manifesto [1] says: Being part of the international KDE community
> conveys certain benefits: Make use of KDE infrastructure for
> project hosting. I've noticed that some KDE projects do not use KDE
> infra, such as bugzilla, websites, and even mail lists. I thought the
> rule was that all KDE projects would move to KDE infra, so this
> surprised me.

Well things don't happen automagically, for every such case you find of KDE 
projects not using the KDE infrastructure try to get them to fix it.

> 
> On the other hand, groups which are associated with the community but
> will never be "KDE projects" such as KDE distros, 

It you're not a "KDE project" you're not a "KDE distro".

KUbuntu is not a KDE distro, it's an Ubuntu distribution that ships KDE 
software, KDE has no control over it, so calling it a KDE distro is in my 
opinion misleading.

> are not mentioned in
> the Manifesto. We do already host the KDE Packagers list [2], and
> Distributions list [3] which supports the Distribution Outreach
> Program [4].
> 
> What do you say? Obviously we want to support KDE distributions. Where
> do we draw the line?

For me, the line is "you should use your project infrastructure".

Since we're nice people, i would expand the line to "if your project 
infrastructure is not good you can use ours for KDE related stuff if that 
gives us no overhead"

i.e you can use wikis/paste.kde.org/notes.kde.org because they're already 
free-edit (for any identity holder that is basically anyone) but you can't ask 
for the creation of speacial bugzilla components or the setup of some 
infrastructure specifically for your needs or (if we had one) use our voting 
infrastructure for the vote on who will be your leader.

Cheers,
  Albert

> 
> Valorie
> 
> 1. https://manifesto.kde.org/benefits.html
> 2. https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-distro-packagers
> 3. https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/distributions
> 4.
> https://dot.kde.org/2016/03/03/announcing-kde-communitys-distribution-outre
> ach-program

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Luca Beltrame]

Il giorno Sun, 8 Jan 2017 00:02:06 -0800
Valorie Zimmerman
 ha scritto:

> However, the sysadmins would like the KDE community support for this,
> since it could be seen as a "slippery slope." In addition, Ben

With both my KDE and distro person hats, -1 to the idea. I think that
distribution and KDE infrastructure should be kept separate, exactly
because the goals of distros may not always align with KDE goals, even
if there's an amount of overlap in people and ideas.

> the Manifesto. We do already host the KDE Packagers list [2], and
> Distributions list [3] which supports the Distribution Outreach
> Program [4].

I think these (packagers and distro outreach) are Good Enough for the
moment.

-- 
Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team
KDE Science supporter
GPG key ID: 6E1A4E79

Re: Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Shubhi Gautam]

please unsubscribe me from this list.
Not sure how i was subscribed

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Valorie Zimmerman <
valorie.zimmer...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm writing at the request of the sysadmins, who would like to hear
> from the community about distributions' use of KDE infra.
>
> I'm part of the Kubuntu community and will use it as the example I know
> best.
>
> Kubuntu has some KDE wiki pages, found at
> https://community.kde.org/Kubuntu - for which we are very grateful.
> Ubuntu has a wiki we used to use, but between the awfulness of
> MoinMoin and the spam attacks on it, we love being at home at the KDE
> wikis.
>
> For some time we've been using notes.kde.org as well, and are planning
> how to use share.kde.org now that notes is closing down. We'll need to
> set up a Kubuntu group so that all Kubuntu team members who need
> access can actually access the shares. One of the advantages of using
> KDE infra over piratepad or so, is that we can add a password if
> necessary, and share among other KDE packagers if necessary.
>
> We are also interested in having a Phab instance for Kubuntu mostly
> for the todo/workboard. Right now, we're using Trello, but would
> prefer to use Free software if possible. And the beauty of Phabricator
> is that we can keep more of our "stuff" in one place. For instance, it
> includes a wiki as well, which we might use for packaging
> documentation. Very slick to have all our packaging stuff in one
> place.
>
> However, the sysadmins would like the KDE community support for this,
> since it could be seen as a "slippery slope." In addition, Ben
> Cooksley said, "we'll need to come up with some guidelines surrounding
> what distributions can ask us for, given the Manifesto / KDE Project
> rules.
>
> I would love to see more KDE distros getting cozy with the KDE
> community because I don't like to see fighting between packagers and
> developers, and communication is key.
>
> Our Manifesto [1] says: Being part of the international KDE community
> conveys certain benefits: Make use of KDE infrastructure for
> project hosting. I've noticed that some KDE projects do not use KDE
> infra, such as bugzilla, websites, and even mail lists. I thought the
> rule was that all KDE projects would move to KDE infra, so this
> surprised me.
>
> On the other hand, groups which are associated with the community but
> will never be "KDE projects" such as KDE distros, are not mentioned in
> the Manifesto. We do already host the KDE Packagers list [2], and
> Distributions list [3] which supports the Distribution Outreach
> Program [4].
>
> What do you say? Obviously we want to support KDE distributions. Where
> do we draw the line?
>
> Valorie
>
> 1. https://manifesto.kde.org/benefits.html
> 2. https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-distro-packagers
> 3. https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/distributions
> 4. https://dot.kde.org/2016/03/03/announcing-kde-communitys-
> distribution-outreach-program
>
> --
> http://about.me/valoriez
>

Kubuntu and other KDE distribution's use of KDE infrastructure

[Valorie Zimmerman]

I'm writing at the request of the sysadmins, who would like to hear
from the community about distributions' use of KDE infra.

I'm part of the Kubuntu community and will use it as the example I know best.

Kubuntu has some KDE wiki pages, found at
https://community.kde.org/Kubuntu - for which we are very grateful.
Ubuntu has a wiki we used to use, but between the awfulness of
MoinMoin and the spam attacks on it, we love being at home at the KDE
wikis.

For some time we've been using notes.kde.org as well, and are planning
how to use share.kde.org now that notes is closing down. We'll need to
set up a Kubuntu group so that all Kubuntu team members who need
access can actually access the shares. One of the advantages of using
KDE infra over piratepad or so, is that we can add a password if
necessary, and share among other KDE packagers if necessary.

We are also interested in having a Phab instance for Kubuntu mostly
for the todo/workboard. Right now, we're using Trello, but would
prefer to use Free software if possible. And the beauty of Phabricator
is that we can keep more of our "stuff" in one place. For instance, it
includes a wiki as well, which we might use for packaging
documentation. Very slick to have all our packaging stuff in one
place.

However, the sysadmins would like the KDE community support for this,
since it could be seen as a "slippery slope." In addition, Ben
Cooksley said, "we'll need to come up with some guidelines surrounding
what distributions can ask us for, given the Manifesto / KDE Project
rules.

I would love to see more KDE distros getting cozy with the KDE
community because I don't like to see fighting between packagers and
developers, and communication is key.

Our Manifesto [1] says: Being part of the international KDE community
conveys certain benefits: Make use of KDE infrastructure for
project hosting. I've noticed that some KDE projects do not use KDE
infra, such as bugzilla, websites, and even mail lists. I thought the
rule was that all KDE projects would move to KDE infra, so this
surprised me.

On the other hand, groups which are associated with the community but
will never be "KDE projects" such as KDE distros, are not mentioned in
the Manifesto. We do already host the KDE Packagers list [2], and
Distributions list [3] which supports the Distribution Outreach
Program [4].

What do you say? Obviously we want to support KDE distributions. Where
do we draw the line?

Valorie

1. https://manifesto.kde.org/benefits.html
2. https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-distro-packagers
3. https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/distributions
4. 
https://dot.kde.org/2016/03/03/announcing-kde-communitys-distribution-outreach-program

-- 
http://about.me/valoriez