Hi Neofytos! On Dienstag, 2. Februar 2016 23:40:44 CET tetr...@openmailbox.org wrote:
> I would like to propose a middle ground solution hoping it will > contribute to the discussion. It will imho serve everyone's interests; > KDE, distributions and users. > > The way I see it, the issue breaks down to 3 core areas as discussed so > far: > > 1. KDE recommended standards > Recommendation: Provide a checklist of everything KDE considers > important (configuration, dependencies, versions etc) as discussed in > this thread. > This way everyone can check what KDE proposes as an optimal environment > for the software it provides to run on. Yes, I think we won't get around doing that. > 2. Distribution specific implementation > Recommendation: Provide a place for distributions themselves to share > their implementation. > This could be a wiki table of some sort with a checklist and comments > related to the items outlined in #1. This way distributions have the > opportunity to explain in short their motives and demonstrate their > reasoning for not providing something the expected way. This also helps > users to have a more clear understanding of the goals and methods of > each distribution that ships KDE software, and at the same time avoid > any misunderstanding that could occur by people perceiving this as KDE > pointing the finger to some specific implementation strategy or > distribution. That's a very interesting idea! It remains to be seen how many distributions would actually make use of this, but if many of them do, this could indeed be a very useful collaborative tool from which all sides could benefit! > 3. Review > Recommendation: From a distribution's perspective, I would expect > distributions to be trusted to provide true information, so any > reviewing should not be needed. > However, if in the long term this proves to be necessary, it could be > done in specified or random intervals. A script could be used as > suggested, a KDE assigned person could handle this, or both. Some text > of the type 'This page was last reviewed by KDE on X date' could show to > users that the related information is valid and up to date. > Badges could be assigned here and some visualization if KDE decides they > help, as well as some grouping/sorting of the distros in relation to > their appraisal. I agree: We could first see if transparency already does the trick, and only apply a review process if it turns out that it doesn't. > And of course, in cases that some information is considered invalid, > make sure to have open channels of communication with distributions to > avoid misunderstandings. =) Absolutely! Communication is key here. I've used the term "Distribution outreach program" for my suggestion for a reason. It's not supposed to be a "blame distros for messing up program". It's supposed to foster closer collaboration between up- and downstream. _______________________________________________ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community