sent to wrong mailinglist by mistake ...
--- Begin Message ---
Hi all,
many thanks to all people that have worked on the vision proposals and to
everyone who contributed thoughts.
I would like to chime in with an aspect that I feel is missing so far.
This additional aspect is closely related to the motivation behind the
product-focussed draft, but my conclusions are completely different.
Already in KDE 2 and KDE 3 times, it impressed me that the software both
offered a high degree of flexibility (through modularity and many
configuration options) and a high degree of consistency (through clever and
integrated solutions via the libraries). This tendency increased later during
Plasma 4 and Plasma 5 times with a restructuring of the KDE releases. We now
offer far more flexibility to users of the libraries (no monolithic “kdelibs”
any more). We also changed the release structure to support the fact that both
the libraries and the applications can be used independent of the desktop –
while keeping the good integration into the desktop.
The flexibility aligns well with “enables users to control their digital life”
(from the value-based draft). The consistency is, I think, what motivates the
product-focussed team.
The strategy for safeguarding consistency must, however, work in the world of
today. And the challenges of today are different from those 15 years ago.
Back then, users were avoiding KDE+Linux because Microsoft Windows ran their
favorite applications – and there simply were not enough options available on
Linux. An additional problem was lock-in via incompatible file formats.
Today, most people heavily use online services. Local software is still used,
but integration with the online services is becoming more and more important.
People still experience lack of freedom (lock-in due to network effects and
restrictions on exporting/importing data) – even if the server runs Free
Software internally.
I conclude that an integrated solution today must tackle not only local
software, but must also address the problems caused by the online services.
This can be done via cooperations (OwnCloud, Kolab), but it other cases we
will be better off if we allow our own developers to work on solutions.
Forcing them to migrate to a different developing community will seriously
harm us in our quest.
For this reason, I am deeply concerned about the restrictive wording of the
product-focussed draft – even if a similar motivation moves me.
Regarding the value-based draft, my feedback is that it is very well-written.
I truly like it. I am convinced, however, that we need to stress somewhere
that the various KDE projects aim to integrate well with each other. This can
be in the vision, or in a Mission statement, or in the Manifesto – but it is
needed if we want to address the fear that KDE will loose focus.
I would suggest a sentence like the following:
“KDE aims to offer complete, well-integrated solutions – while connecting
different platforms, devices and online services.”
Before we finally agree on a vision, we need to clarify how it will relate to
the Manifesto – and what will happen to KDE projects that do not fit to the
vision.
I consider it extremely important that we have clarity on the following
questions, and would like to hear an “official” answer from both teams:
1. Will the Manifesto will stay the only official guideline for joining or
leaving KDE? And will the vision have a purely advisory role?
2. Or will we revise the text of the Manifesto in the same vote where we
accept the vision?
If we change the Manifesto, then we also need to clarify:
a) Will KDE projects be expelled if they do not fit the new Manifesto?
b) Or will KDE projects be allowed to stay even if they do not meet the new
Manifesto? Will other KDE projects then be forbidden from working on code that
goes beyond the focus of the Manifesto (even if the developers consider it
necessary for the future of the project)?
c) Or can existing KDE projects can do whatever they wish – while new projects
are forbidden to join unless they meet the focus of the Manifesto exactly
(even if they integrate well with other, existing KDE projects having a
different focus)?
The reason I insist on these questions is that I do not want to end up in a
situation where we agree on a vision – and then realise that people interpret
the social consequences differently (1 or 2a or 2b or 2c).
Also , it is important to me to know whether accepting a product-focussed
vision precludes “wholesale” solutions that take the necessities of online
services into account.
Best regards, Olaf
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: [email protected]. This is a private list.
No content may be published or forwarded without permission by the author.
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-ev-membership
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
kde-community mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
