Hi, Sent from mobile
Agustin @toscalix http://uk.linkedin.com/in/toscalix On 22 May 2016 19:29, "Thomas Pfeiffer" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sonntag, 22. Mai 2016 15:38:39 CEST Agustin Benito (toscalix) wrote: > > > One of our historical problems, in my opinion, has been our little > > engagement with the "commercial world". Words can help or holding us > > back from turning up side down our current situation. > > > > Two examples: > > > > I consider the word "support" controversial. Support in commercial > > environments has a specific meaning. It is related with paid service. > > I would use a different word. > > How about "compatibility with"? > > > The other word is "product". > > > > I understand that Open Source projects, and we are no exception, have > > a bigger and better "end to end" conscious. That is good. Still, there > > are several stages of what the commercial world understands as > > "product cycle" we do not cover. The motivation for creating > > "products" is also different, so the expected outcome. > > > > I would use a different word in the Mission statement. > > For me, using the word "product" is very important especially in the Mission > statement. Yes, we currently do not treat what we make as "products", and I > think that is a problem. > If there are stages of a product life-cycle we do not cover, than chances are > that we _should_. Thinking in terms of products would remind us that we should > think about quality, about bringing our products to market or about handling > "end of life" properly. > > This is one area where I think KDE is not "professional" enough, and it would > be helpful especially for a better relationship with the "commercial world" if > we improved that. > > > ++ KDE and Qt > > > > I think we should try to better reflect the aim that KDE has to become > > even more relevant in the Qt ecosystem, and how important it is to us. > > I read two references in the current draft: > > > > * "strives to make our products available on all major Free and > > proprietary operating systems and platforms, for example by applying > > Qt as a technology that allows easy portability" > > * "provides frameworks and libraries which facilitate the development > > of high-quality Qt applications" > > > > I would remove both references. > > > > The first one is irrelevant. In the same way that we mentioned Qt we > > could have mentioned any other technology. In a mission statement > > every word counts. In fact, I think that in general we have too many > > already. It is not easy, I understand. > > I had put that in because in the Vision discussion, several participants > expressed their fear that KDE might be losing its focus on Qt, so I wanted to > make clear that Qt is still very important to us and we are still very > important for Qt. > Since the survey is there to find out what the majority of the community > thinks, though, maybe I should add another question > "Should a focus on Qt be stated in our Mission?" > Then we find out what the community thinks. > > > The second one reduces our scope. I thought we agreed on being a host > > for different projects. It seems here that if it is not a Qt based > > app.... > > We do host many different projects and they do not necessarily have to be Qt- > based, but do we want to host non-Qt _libraries_ as well? > > > I would write instead a sentence that reflects the position within the > > Qt ecosystem we want to play and how important it is to us. > > Suggestions for how to phrase such a question are welcome! > > > ++ Free vs Open Source > > > > I do not like the idea that "Open Source" is the default way for 99% > > of the world to refer to Free Software. Like most of you, I think it > > refers to a wider concept. open does not mean free, right? But, > > specially in commercial environments, that is the current state. > > > > I propose to use "Open and Free Software", Free and Open Source > > Software" or "Libre Software" instead of "Free Software" . > > Ok, makes sense, I'll change "Free Software" to "Free and Open-Source > Software". > > > I think the above changes would help to reduce our gap with the > > commercial world.. > > > > ++ Participation in key forums > > > > There is something missing to me. > > > > The Free Qt Foundation has demonstrated to be a key player, we > > participate in other forums.... How is that reflected in our mission > > for the coming years? Do we want to improve our positioning? How? Is > > it important to us? important enough to be reflected in the Mission > > Statement? Do we participate only to promote Free Software values? > > Good point! Any idea how we could phrase that as a question for the survey? > > > ++ "classic desktop" > > > > We have suffered the last few years from having two different visions > > within our community on what desktop means/is. Going through the > > process of redefining the strategy should serve to solve these kind of > > fundamental issues. > > > > When I read the mission, I understand that we have used a "political > > way" to provide satisfaction to both views. In that regard, these two > > points: > > > > * aims for a presence on all relevant device classes (desktop, mobile, > > embedded) * offers a "classic desktop" product which makes the switch from > > other popular operating systems easy > > > > do the job very well. > > > > I question though that this is the way to go. We should focus on > > solving this issue and state the consensus clearly in the Mission > > Statement instead of perpetuating the problem, leaving our mission, > > that should lead our main goals for the coming years, unclear. > > > > Do we understand desktop as Plasma for a laptop or a PC or is a > > desktop also Plasma for mobiles and embedded, for instance? Is a > > desktop an "application" or a "base layer" in a block diagram where > > apps lay upon? Is it both? > > > > At the mission level, what is so relevant (other than our own "issue") > > that force us to differentiate between a 7"screen from a 32" one in > > such a way? > > > > So my suggestion is to solve this controversy for once and find a > > single sentence that reflects the agreement. If we cannot reach an > > agreement, then the mission should reflect the minimum common > > multiple, not both ideas. Mission statements are about agreements, not > > a reflection of everybody's ideas. Mission statements are about taking > > decisions, not about satisfying everybody. > > > > Maybe some of you think that this last point has little to do with > > what it is written or what is happening. If that is the case, it might > > be only about being a little more accurate, if possible. > > > If that is the case.... > > > > 1.- I believe that mobile/desktop convergence is not an emerging trend > > anymore. > > > > 2.- We do an innovative and modern desktop. Even if we do a "classical > > desktop", we should not state it that way in our mission. The next few > > years should be about keeping what is good about the "old concept" > > that took us here and evolving it. We are not dealing with cars from > > 1920 here. If we have to use quotes in a Mission statement, a document > > that should be crystal clear not just to ourselves but the "external > > world"... > > This is exactly the kind of question why I've set up the survey: I know that > some people still care a lot about the "classical desktop" (i.e. a thing that > runs on desktop and laptop PCs) whereas for others, desktop and laptop PCs are > just one among many device classes and form factors. > > Since the Mission should reflect where the majority of the KDE community wants > to go, I want to offer people the possibility to clearly state what they care > about more. This is why I have both variants in the survey and we can see > which gets what score. > > > I would like to finish thanking those who has put so much effort in > > this document. My job here is easier. Take it as a constructive > > opinion, please. I tried to be "graphical" in some of my comments. > > Thank you for your feedback! > Providing the feedback earlier would have saved me the time it now takes me to > edit the survey, but that does not make it any less valid or useful, of course > :) You are right. I should have payed attention to it earlier. Apologies. > > _______________________________________________ > kde-community mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
_______________________________________________ kde-community mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
