It's been a hot minute since my last blog post, mostly because I was focusing on finally finishing my studies - while I'm not quite done yet (still missing one exam), I have a good reason to come out of hiding: KDE Akademy 2026 just happened and I was there!

Talks

While I was already at the Plasma Sprint in Graz last year, this is my first other KDE-related event I attended and oh boy was it ever an event. So many talks ranging from educational and thought provoking to simply silly fun and plenty of opportunities (for frequent and extended coffee breaks leading to even more education, thought provoking and simply silly fun conversations!

BoFs

If it was just that I would have already called this amazing, but the "talks" part of Akademy was just the first two days (not counting the "arrival day" + evening welcome event which I could unfortunately not attend myself), but the following days were equally amazing, if not even more so. A bunch of lively discussions in plenty of BoF rooms (and, which I have learned there, the famous hallway BoFs) around so many topics I can't even hope to mention them all here. I attended some conversations around how to better get in touch with stakeholders to reduce the general society's reliance on big tech, the technical intricacies of theming systems in general and KDE Union in particular, implementation details for the new XDG Intents, ... I could go on forever, really, but I shall restrain myself.

In short: Tons conversations and planning that works best in-person was done as well as a lot of networking and putting-faces-to-names.

The C word

Now unfortunately not everything was sunshine and roses - Wednesday was a day of unspeakable, chocolate-based torture for all of us. We toured the Zotter factory near Graz which included the ability to taste-test their chocolates at various steps during production process (yes, this includes up to as early as whole dried cocoa beans!) as well as a wide selection of their final products. It was much more interesting than I thought it would be and such a great experience to do all this with so many kool (with a K!) people.

However... let's just say mistakes have been made and I misunderstood the Zotter employee's statement that there are "roughly 300 taste testing stations" as a promise and not a threat. I definitely purchased a number of chocolate bars in their shop at the end but I don't think I'll be eating any of them any time soon after my complete lack of self control during the tour and the ensuing (and entirely predictable!) consequences.

And the worst part: After that we went to a Buschenschank for a good old "Brettljausn" (not sure how to translate, but essentially a meat and cheese buffet) where I also ate way too much since it's been way too long since my last proper Brettljausn.

And with that I think I covered everything I wanted to talk about - Thanks so much to everyone organizing and attending to make this such an unforgettable week! If you'll excuse me, I'll now fall into bed and sleep what feels like for several days straight

I got pissed off with the current situation occurring on social media regarding multiple topics, so I decided to make a FAQ explaining the situation.

The topics include the mentions of AI at Akademy, the policy proposal, and some moderation shenanigans.

Does this count as damage control? Probably. Does it originate from being upset with the current situation rather than some weird corporate-esque reputation thing? Yes. Was I the only one to feel the exact same thing at around the same time? No.

Misinformation in general already bothers me a lot, misinformation that damages other people to such a high degree is another level of pisses me the fuck off though.

It doesn't really matter. I hope the following is informative, especially to dispel misinformation.

Note that I'm not a KDE e.V. board member. The following is based on what I know. I just used neutral language for the most part.

I should also note that I'm in the NoAI camp, that I actually watched the talks mentioned here (imagine that), that I spent half a year learning about AI and ethical use (part of which is mentioned in Slop is incompetence, treat it as such) to spite-ground my complaints about it better.

I am not going to go through the timeline of events because Nate already did that in his KDE and AI, and you, and me blog post. I'm only going to address matters I've personally seen online. Some of those were already addressed by the Promo team (where most of the work was from one person doing their best).

I am not sure this blog post counts as speaking for other KDE people when I say "we" or "KDE does", but I feel confident about these at least being a general sentiment.

Why was an “AI-native” talk part of Akademy?🔗

The referred talk is What would it take? A lovable, sovereign, AI-native KDE.

Anyone can submit a talk, and it was accepted precisely to get a different perspective and to see people’s opinions on AI.

As you can see, the reception wasn’t great.

Was the “AI-native” talk written with AI?🔗

Clearly. The only one to do so.

What was the “AI-native” talk actually about?🔗

The main three points the talk brought were lovability, sovereignty, and making KDE AI-native.

“Lovability” does not mean “Loving KDE software” in any sort of Actual Love sense (it's weird that I have to clarify that, some people did understand it like that).

It refers to the idea achieved through usability studies that people liking what they use and seeing it as actually theirs creates a significant appeal enough to matter even in commercial or governmental settings. In a sense, you could just call it "Appeal".

It talks about the sudden urge coming from outside KDE to make it a desktop for sovereign nations, outside the control of the Silicon Valley. Naturally, for this to be achieved, this appeal is necessary.

“Making KDE AI-native” does not mean “Making KDE AI-first”. It primarily meant a few things:

• Some users will use AI on Plasma.
• Whether a user uses AI on Plasma is optional and should stay that way.
• Users trying to use AI on Plasma (or any environment) don’t feel safe.
• Therefore, a solution to this would be having a nice interface with a proper privacy-focused, sandboxed environment.

Here, “native” is a bit of a stretch, referring to “we provide the optional facilities for you to use AI safely”. It also ties into the appeal trait mentioned before, using points like Nepomuk in its favor.

Naturally, the conclusion is an opinion of the presenters. And of course, this is a gross oversimplification of the talk points.

Does that mean KDE is going AI-native?🔗

No. The talk derives from the opinions of the presenters and is not a statement from KDE.

Does that mean KDE is making a stance about AI by accepting this talk?🔗

No.

Why was Omarchy mentioned at Akademy?🔗

Scott Jenson’s talk Are we really going to use the same Desktop UX forever? briefly mentions Omarchy as an example of lack of innovation in UX.

One of Scott’s points was that the UX hasn’t changed in the desktop, and desktop Linux especially has been waiting for Windows and MacOS to make innovations to the desktop paradigm first.

The AI ecosystem is not bound to this, so they are making “new things in a weird way”. Yet, Omarchy, which is deeply AI bound, does not enter this category and is another example of unchanged UX.

KDE contributors want no association with Omarchy. Nate said this in his blog post, but this is easily seen in the audience booing Omarchy when it was mentioned in the talk.

Scott Jenson's general stance about AI in the video is "we're going to improve things on the desktop, if it ends up benefiting AI too I don't care".

Are you aware of the ethical and environmental concerns surrounding AI?🔗

Yes, to varying degrees per contributor.

KDE Eco has already made a statement against AI. We have people arguing about the environmental damage caused by data centers, although I see it's the same discussion and narrative argumentation I've seen in traditional environmental talk pretty much.

The AI ecosystem is shifting towards open source, but ethically trained datasets are still a minority. We are all aware of Anthropic and Amazon buying books for scraping and subsequent destruction.

These are strong points of contention for our contributors and we acknowledge that. Not just the question of using it at all, but even the question of what constitutes ethical use in the field is blurry, which makes things difficult for us to even discuss the matter properly. Please be patient with us on that matter.

Is the proposed AI policy pro-AI?🔗

No. I'd call it "permissive of AI under strict circumstances". Very much like other policies in the FOSS world. This one was, in fact, inspired by them.

In my opinion, a pro-AI policy would simply allow AI contributions or would be in favor of AI in general, actively seeking to integrate it in core Plasma components.

Even if you do equate both terms, it would be against the fact that we are dissatisfied with the current situation, have been keeping slop out, and want to keep slop out, and want to validate that with a policy.

The terminology doesn't matter, to be honest. You get the idea from this whole post. I'll call it "permissive" for now.

Why was the proposed AI policy permissive of AI?🔗

It is an initial draft intentionally designed to guide contributor behavior, leaving a lot to interpretation.

Initial drafts are there to get input from other contributors and be improved, and to measure community expectations.

What pretty much all KDE contributors already agree with is that any slop should be rejected and if any AI contribution is made, it should be done to our highest standards and following proper professional behavior. Emphasis on "if any". Hence, the draft starts with that.

Agreement past that point is difficult because KDE traditionally does consensus-based decisions for this, and there are technical and non-technical points of nuance to elaborate and formalize the policy. Which we didn't do yet.

The draft as it stood was not a statement on what the general contributor community does or its values.

Another point to take from this is that the policy draft as it stood was stricter than the current practice. Nate mentions it in his blog and elaborates on this better than me.

Why did you remove the policy proposal?🔗

We didn’t. It is confidential and locked.

The main reason why is due to bikeshedding and heated arguments. This problem was further enhanced once it was exposed on social media, but this was not the sole cause.

It would end up being locked even without outside interventions.

While mentions from non-contributors are not the sole cause for the issue locking, they aggravate the situation.

Are you ignoring non-contributing voices?🔗

No. While it is true that, ultimately, this is a contributor decision for contributors, we are aware of KDE For People, and we are aware you do not want AI in KDE software.

We ask that you be patient with us. The proposal was made with bad timing, as most main KDE contributors would soon be present at Akademy, making it difficult to commit properly.

Please wait at least a week after Akademy ends. Akademy does not last only for the first two days with talks.

A new draft proposal that should better align with the community expectations is on the way. Probably by me.

We ask that you be polite with us. These sorts of situations lead to contributors receiving email threats and trolling, and this has already happened. Nobody deserves that.

"Ultimately, this is a contributor decision for contributors"?🔗

The KDE account said it best:

Maybe this needs clarifying. "For maintainers only" does not mean that no other opinions count in the discussion, but that the policies will mostly be useful to "maintainers only".

If you are not maintaining a KDE project, these policies will not be applicable. Maybe other policies adapted to other roles will have to be developed down the line.

But, at the moment, the people who are suffering most the deluge of slop, are maintainers, so this is for them.

Furthermore, "listening to users" and "doing exactly what users say we should do" are different things. Naturally, this also means "if KDE doesn't follow what users say, they didn't listen" or "if KDE deliberates instead of taking a quick decision, they didn't listen" are fallacies.

What about the awful person commenting on the proposal and the person denouncing them that was banned first?🔗

Disclaimer: I can't say I know about this in detail, because to me it was such a non-issue. Either way, I can't explain the minutiae out of respect for our moderation team.

From what I can tell, the moderation was already steering towards the desirable result because we don't want people like that near us or our users.

The reason the person denouncing them was banned first is because they clearly broke our Code of Conduct, or process.

The other person's ban required some discussion among other moderators for Reasons™️, and some time was required to discuss this with other mods about the situation (people do live in different timezones, you know). Imagine that, wanting input from other moderators, certainly not something that has ever happened in history.

This is effectively the same explanation given by the KDE account, although I knew this before it was given:

Person A violated the internal rules of invent and was banned on the spot. Person B was banned after an investigation. The two bans were inevitable. We cannot have people violating our processes (person A) or our CoC (person B).

That person A made the ban of person B happen faster? True. But person B would've been banned sooner or later regardless.

Hint for the future: when denouncing someone, follow the community's Code of Conduct and use appropriate channels. Otherwise you do a disservice to yourself, to your own cause, and damage the community you like.

This would actually have been a non-issue that would have gone entirely unnoticed if people didn't demand immediate results on social media and literally just waited (some people even calling KDE fascists).

What should we expect from a new policy proposal?🔗

If it were up to me:

It would be more explicit about what we want and don't want, and it would educate people on how to avoid AI as well as provide a means to extend this educational resource, which is something I've seen nobody else do. Whether this is in the policy itself or in an appendix doesn't matter. We already see use of AI as a problem that hinders personal growth, and we love helping people grow as contributors.

It would keep justifications like technical reasoning, ethics and environment out, but not excluded. This means an appendix of sorts being linked in the proposal, and possibly done after the policy. This would be purely to keep the policy brief and clear.

It might not be a policy at all, but guidelines or some other sort of document.

It will probably not come immediately or be mentioned publicly, because we've had enough of harassment and "death to you and family" threats that are worse than Phoronix and Reddit comments or "apolitical" right-winger techbros, which is honestly both impressive and sad.

It would come a significant amount of time after Akademy. Imagine that: people go to Akademy, have a good time, and have no time or motivation to deal with some extrinsic force coming from social media, and are kept out of the discussion because of that? No. The people involved also need a cooldown anyway.

It would probably not be a 100% AI ban or match your full expectations, but it should at least cover your fears of KDE becoming an AI desktop (that is not going to happen). It will probably have nuance that will surprise you.

Again, it would be an initial proposal. By the time it is proposed, or soon after, don't feel anxious that it's not a 100% ban, because that's not the final result. Please wait. Anticipatory anxiety is unhealthy.

Why did Nate call KDE For People brigading in his blog post?🔗

It's his opinion of what that is, or a definition I suppose. I'll restate the obvious that it does not mean KDE as a whole thinks of it as brigading. Another obvious thing is that people can have opinions.

Note that his blog post is, well, a blog post, on his own website, using informal language and "I" pronouns, issuing a personal apology because he feels guilty and responsible for what happened, that he felt inclined to write instead of working on some Wayland thing he actually wanted to fix. Imagine actually leaking personal opinions or definitions in such a thing. Shocking!

Once again, re-stating the obvious, his blog is his words and his opinions, in case it wasn't clear from how it was framed by the KDE account as a "first-hand account".

In case you didn't read any of the comments, his definition has to do with "outside force exerting pressure onto community's decision-making". This might or might not have matched reality in this case, but it doesn't matter. You were offended by it, and this needed clarification.

He already edited it because of my input that originates from a friend that signed the petition.

During this year's Akademy, while celebrating KDE's 30th birthday, I found some time to do some hacking on a beloved old toy widget: the Bouncy Ball I used to maintain for a while, and which Filip recently made available for Plasma 6 again.

The all-new Bouncy Ball 3D - find it on the KDE Store (and by extension your Plasma's Add Widgets dialog) now - adds high-quality 3D graphics, more expressive physics with satisfying ball squish, and better support for living in and launching from a Plasma panel.

I have of course coordinated this with Filip a bit, and we agreed it's better to make this a seperate widget/release for now to keep the classic ball available for its fans.

Note the new widget requires at least KDE Frameworks 6.26+, i.e. around the Plasma 6.7 timeframe.

Enjoy the bounce!

While you bounce about, consider watching my Akademy 2026 presentation on taking KDE to the Great Pyramid in Egypt for high-tech archeological research.

Here are the new modules available in the Plasma 6.8 beta:

• kup: Backup scheduler for the Plasma desktop

Some important features and changes included in 6.8 beta are highlighted on KDE community wiki page.

Help stress-test the Union theming system

This releases marks the second half of the Union theming system’s public tech preview!

New in Plasma 6.8: Union now themes QtWidgets applications, such as Dolphin and Kate. Bear in mind this support is preliminary and you will encounter bugs. When you do, please report them here!

To test Union:

1. Make sure the union package is installed (name may differ depending on your distro)
2. Launch System Settings
3. In the sidebar, navigate to Colors & Themes → Application Style
4. Click “Breeze (Union)”
5. Click Apply

This will apply Union styling to both QtQuick and QtWidgets apps.

The intention is for these apps to look as similar as possible when styled with Union to how they look with Breeze — though any minor visual improvements should be considered intentional!

If you find any issues, make sure they’re Union-specific by running the app with the Breeze style to compare the two. If the issue is Union-specific, report it here!

KWin

KWin now depends on the plasma-wayland-protocols 1.23.0 release to provide fix for memory leak.

Everything else

So I accidentally triggered an online shitstorm in the process of trying to craft a set of more restrictive LLM usage guidelines for KDE. Sorry about that.

I’m going to leave the comments on this post open, but I will request that everyone who wants to comment read and understand the entire post first.

So anyway…

What happened?

Here’s a verifiable timeline of events:

1. Several weeks ago, a KDE developer started a mailing list thread asking about how we should handle the flood of AI slop merge requests.
2. Everyone agreed it was a problem, and that we don’t want that crap.
3. There was less certainty about the best way to handle it socially.
4. Several wished for an official policy so we didn’t all have to figure it out on our own.
5. I proposed a set of draft guidelines making it quite clear that slop merge requests are unwanted, and can be ignored or closed.
6. It received a generally positive reception.
7. Another KDE developer requested that we workshop it somewhere more modern and capable.
8. I got busy and didn’t do so.
9. Several weeks later, various people on the internet discovered that a talk proposing “a lovable, sovereign, AI-native KDE” had been accepted at Akademy 2026 and created drama around it.
10. Akademy happened, and the talk was given to what I’m told was a fairly chilly reception.
11. The next day, a workshop was held about the topic, also receiving a chilly reception.
12. Realizing this topic was not going away, later that day I re-opened a second draft of my LLM guidelines on invent.kde.org.
13. KDE contributors began to discuss the draft proposal.
14. Two people unknown to any KDE contributors appeared and began fighting with one another about the broader topic of the morality of AI, not the proposed guidelines.
15. One of those people doxxed the other (edit: I have been informed that this is not really what doxxing is) exposed the other person’s odious Twitter posts in an effort to discredit them.
16. Comments on the draft proposal were locked to only KDE developers — one of two tools that that Gitlab provides for this kind of thing, the other being to hide it entirely.
17. The person who doxxed exposed the other was banned.
18. Later, the identity of the doxxed exposed person was verified, and they were also banned for their conduct outside of KDE being so unacceptable that people inside KDE did not want to associate with them.
19. Someone else outside of KDE set up https://kdeforpeople.com in an attempt to brigade (edit: I have been convinced that this was too strong a word to use here) pressure KDE into banning LLMs.
20. A bunch of people signed onto it, almost none of whom are known KDE contributors (I see one person I know in there).
21. The topic was picked up on social media and the press with… varying levels of accuracy.
22. The draft proposal was removed and the whole topic hidden.

TL;DR:

A bunch of people mostly outside of KDE who disapprove of LLM usage derailed KDE’s attempt to add restrictions to LLM usage.

Yep, that’s where we’re at in the state of online discourse around AI.

I’m sorry

After everything I wrote last month about keeping your community safe and containing damage so it doesn’t spill out into public view, I feel pretty bad that my attempt to craft a compromise policy around LLM usage in KDE (which would have tightened it!) backfired and created a storm of drama.

It wasn’t my intention, and I apologize for my role in it. If I make another attempt to craft a policy that provides certainty and cover for maintainers who want to reject AI slop, I will be even more careful to avoid creating unnecessary drama. If someone else wants to, I will try my best to help them with the same.

More facts

People jumped to some pretty wild conclusions in the various social media threads about the topic that I saw. Before we continue, let me set some more records straight:

• KDE e.V. has not taken money from DHH or Omarchy. I also have not, either personally, or in my business.
• KDE e.V. has taken money from Framework, but only after verifying that Framework had severed their (already very limited) ties with DHH and Omarchy. Also, all of this happened a year ago, before Omarchy received a ludicrous amount of money from a veritable rogues gallery of villains.
• Today, Omarchy is radioactive in KDE and adjacent communities I’m aware of. Nobody I know wants to have anything to do with them.
• The “lovable, sovereign, AI-native KDE” idea was presented by two people important to KDE in decades past, but who had not made any contributions recently besides this Akademy talk. Their idea does not reflect the overall direction of KDE or Plasma, and I don’t think it ever will. If “a lovable, sovereign, AI-native KDE” freaks you out, I believe it is completely reasonable and safe to ignore.

What on earth is going on here?

I know people are really riled up about AI. I get it. The negative effects of LLM usage seem to become more obvious by the day:

• They lower the barrier to entry for people who have no idea what they’re doing to DDoS FOSS maintainers with a tidal wave of crap. And this was the actual reason for the proposed restrictions.
• They make it easy for lazy people to avoid learning communication and job skills.
• They make it easy for lonely people to form unhealthy para-social relationships.
• The companies behind the big ones are really bad.
• Some of their training data was stolen.
• Some of their training data that was not stolen results in the destruction of rare books.
• The process of training them on freely available online data imposes extra hosting costs and slows down access for humans, acting as economic free riders.
• The license of source code they produce is legally unclear.
• They have been discovered autonomously hacking rival companies.
• Their resource usage frequently strains the infrastructure of the communities their data centers are located in or near.
• Their data centers are using enough electricity to blunt and reverse prior positive global trends of lower electricity demand and greener electricity generation.
• The specialized hardware they use has monopolized global production lines, massively inflating the price of normal consumer and business computer hardware.
• The enormous amount of capital allocated to them may be impossible to recoup, with the potential to eventually cause a worldwide economic crash.
• They are either mandated or voluntarily used by so many people already, that many who do not use them fear they will “fall behind” or “become obsolete” despite concerns with any of the above.

So yeah, bad stuff. I completely understand why a lot of people have problems with LLMs. I have these concerns as well.

I also understand why a lot of experts in their field really like LLMs. These are very powerful and sophisticated tools. Capable people with decades of experience can successfully automate away a lot of tedious work, and still end up with a final product identical to what they would have done by hand.

I don’t use LLMs for automating work myself, but I do understand the appeal to many experts.

And I also understand that LLMs can be responsibly used in really useful ways for general tasks like learning a nebulous skill, retrieving deeply-buried information you can only describe in unspecific ways, or helping you troubleshoot a problem with unclear steps or parameters.

At the same time, I think we have to acknowledge that irresponsible LLM usage by people who are not yet experts is a disaster for their learning, expertise, social skills, and emotional health.

In other words, this is a hard problem.

What on earth do we do?

How are we expected to handle a technology that is:

1. Very powerful
2. Genuinely useful for various things
3. Dangerous, de-skilling, and/or addictive in the wrong hands
4. Full of really bad externalities
5. Broadly available worldwide at effectively zero cost

It’s like 100 billion toaster-sized nuclear reactors dropped from the sky one day. The very least you can say is that this would be very de-stabilizing!

The world is changing fast and I have no idea what’s going to happen. But I don’t think the genie is going to be put back in the bottle. I don’t know what to do, and that’s scary. And I have a lot of empathy for anyone else who’s scared by this, too. We’re in this boat together.

What can you do to help?

If I or someone else tries again to propose a set of usage guidelines that restrict inexpert usage of LLMs, with the goal that KDE receives fewer of the AI slop merge requests that are burning people out, please don’t make things worse.

Please don’t derail the process.

Please don’t take it as an opportunity to fight over the broader topic of AI in general.

Please don’t try to burn each other to the ground over it.

Please don’t actually doxx or send hate mail to anyone over it, or try to get them fired from their job.

Please, just be kind. We’re all trying our best over here. No one in FOSS is a cackling techbro… outside of maybe Omarchy. The rest of us are trying to figure out what to do about the nuclear reactor that fell into our living room without killing ourselves, hurting anyone else, or becoming unemployable.

If at this point you want to post a comment, please be kind and treat the topic with an adult level of maturity. I believe in you.

We are happy to announce the release of Qt Creator 20.0.2!

The release fixes issues with the recent releases of the Android command line tools, and updates Qt Creator for changes in Xcode 27, the iOS Simulator, and Qt 6.12.0.

In the previous blog post I introduced Canvas2D, the new QML item in Qt 6.12 that lets you paint with JavaScript using the GPU through Qt Canvas Painter. That post was about the API: what it is, how it compares to Qt Quick Canvas and to the QCanvasPainter C++ API, and how fast it is. But that post might have left someone wondering what a real UI built with it could actually look like.

So, while testing Canvas2D (and QQEM) in preparation for the Qt 6.12.0 release, I spent a few days building a demo application to give some ideas. WatchUI is a smartwatch demo with six swipeable views, running on a 3D watch model. This is based on the smartwatch demo that was built a while back for the Qt 6.5 release. But the content of the watch screen has been reimplemented using not just QQEM effects but also Canvas2D. The demo looks like this:

As part of the on-going development of Qt Bridges, we are out with a new beta version of Qt Bridge for Rust, with a focus on CXX-Qt compatibility and soundness. The API surface has changed in only a handful of places compared to 0.2. Where it did change, it is mostly because we removed any API we could not make sound.

This year’s Akademy is over - at least for me. I’m already on a train on my way back home, but there’s still plenty of people staying in Graz for more days of hacking and fun. Even though I haven’t contributed to KDE much in the past few years, I am really glad I decided to go.

First, I want to thank everyone from the organization and local team for hosting us in Graz and orginzing a great Akademy. I know how much work it is, so kudos to all of you <3.

I’m really happy that the community is in such a great shape. There’s a lot of new people participating and contributing, which is a great sign! After all as Cornelius showed in his talk - this year we have the most people ever contributing to KDE - and the year is not even over yet!

This year we also voted the new KDE Goals. I am really happy that KDE for Enterprise goal have been voted in. As someone pointed out (with a little tongue-in-cheek): we’ve solved gamers, now it’s time to solve enterprise. Kevin and the team in enioka Haute Couture are already doing great work on KDE PIM thanks to the Sovereign Tech Fund. They started with improving my akonadi-e2e-tests experiment and pushing it forward to a point where it has helped them discover (and fix) many bugs in CalDAV in IMAP - this is foundational work that everyone will benefit from. It’s inspiring to see so much activity and many new contributors in KDE PIM again.

I attended another talk about making KDE “lovable” by Eva and Jan. They discussed many things, but one that stood out to me, especially with relation to the Enterprise goal, is that we should make sure that the end-users, those who actually use our software in organizations, feel like they gained something by migrating away from whatever they were running on before and were used to. They should feel our software makes their jobs easier, makes them more efficient and feel like it adapts to their needs - make it not just usable, but /lovable/. I really liked that thought. How do we make KMail loveble, though? That’s a tough one…

As for myself, I had a lot of schnitzels over the couple days, took a slide down from Schlossberg, fixed some bugs and generally had a great time. I managed to get KMail, KOrganizer and KAddressBook to compile and run on macOS to the point that I can actually read and write emails. But there’s a lot of fixes and polish needed still, more on that some other day.

All in all, it was a very fun, very productive and very inspiring Akademy for me, and I can’t wait to see everyone again.