Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Monday, February 08, 2016 22:41:08 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> On Monday, February 08, 2016 21:42:58 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > I understand that you're saying it doesn't have a place in KDE.
> > 
> > Sebas, you may have missed that I explicitely mentioned eigen in the mail
> > you  replied to ?
> 
> No, I've missed that.  Sorry...
> 
> > I don't understand what's so hard about this: we can say "we consider A, B
> > and  C to be our core efforts.". That does not mean that everything which
> > is outside that "core" must be kept out of KDE. Of course it means that
> > software or efforts that support A, B or C, are very welcome. OTOH
> > projects
> > which don't support the core do not need to be part of KDE, they can as
> > well use github or something else.
> > 
> > I think this can only be avoided by not having some technical direction at
> > all.
> 
> I think that the technical arguments don't make a lot of sense here, at
> least they're not providing the clarity needed:
> 
> - Qt-based, so it should be OK? But why exactly, just because it uses the
> same libraries?
> - "Supports the core", what is the core? Who makes this call? 

that's the 4 items in the draft. It's a draft, a proposal, so they are not set 
in stone.

> Where do you
> draw the technical line? (You gave some examples, but most of them feel
> quite vague to me, and I'd draw the line at different points.

Sure it is vague since the examples were intentionally "interesting" cases.

The draft is called "focused": some things are clearly in the focus (just some 
random examples I could come up with: Scribus, LxQt, libqwt).
Other things are, to me clearly far outside the focus: e.g. the eCos RTOS, 
bash, joomla.
The line between "in focus" and "out of focus"/"not supporting the core" is 
not a sharp line, it's blurry. We can spend weeks on discussing those.
 
> I think one (not the most important) benefit is that drawing the dividing
> line by asking "What is your goal?" makes it a lot easier to identify
> projects, they can self-select ("Do we identify with these goals?"), and
> also be measured internally ("Does this software actually contribute to
> *our* goal?") is easier.

I think e.g. offering applications which provide a consistent look-and-feel, 
following the same e.g. HIG, etc. is a worthwhile goal too.
We achieve this by using a common set of libraries (Qt and our KDE libraries).
We get more done because we gather developers which are familiar with the same 
technologies: again, the libraries, and in big parts also the programming 
language.
So, the technical aspect is important to me.

Alex

___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Sebastian Kügler]

On Thursday, February 04, 2016 08:49:55 PM Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Still we don't see linear algebra libraries or build tools as the main goal 
> KDE is trying to achieve (...says the guy who maintained the KDE
> buildsystem for more than 7 years).

Next counter-example: The Eigen library, a linear algebra library which was 
initially developed under KDE. It has moved out at some point -- I don't know 
the reasons. In KDE software, it's used in Krita, Step and Kalzium and a few 
smaller bits, as far as I could find out. Point in case: this other random 
example is flawed.

I understand that you're saying it doesn't have a place in KDE.

Would you welcome it if it used Qt?
-- 
sebas

http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Martin Graesslin]

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 9:16:41 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thursday, February 04, 2016 07:53:06 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:44:35 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> > > I reread both drafts and realized that people who have not
> > > participated in the development of these proposals might miss the
> > > important difference between them.
> > > 
> > > The Lydia & Co see KDE providing users free software to manage any
> > > aspect of their digital life: GUI environments, applications (GUI and
> > > not), knowledge management systems, etc.
> > > 
> > > The AlexN. & Co see KDE providing users free GUI environments and
> > > applications that work on any computing device: desktop, laptop,
> > > tablet, smartphone, or any other device present and future.
> > 
> > may I ask where the focused group sees the future in a world beyond GUI,
> 
> the vision draft we present here is not a long term vision which changes the
> future of computing.
> It presents ambitious, but realistic goals for the next few years.

Currently our vision is the one Matthias set out for us in the initial 
starting of KDE mail. So we have a vision which served us for 20 years. It 
worked for us for about 15 years (didn't fit mobile). So I think any vision we 
come up to replace the existing one should aim for helping us for at least the 
next 15 years including future technology transitions.

Cheers
Martin



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Monday, February 08, 2016 10:56:01 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> On Thursday, February 04, 2016 08:49:55 PM Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > Still we don't see linear algebra libraries or build tools as the main
> > goal
> > KDE is trying to achieve (...says the guy who maintained the KDE
> > buildsystem for more than 7 years).
> 
> Next counter-example: The Eigen library, a linear algebra library which was
> initially developed under KDE. It has moved out at some point -- I don't
> know the reasons. In KDE software, it's used in Krita, Step and Kalzium and
> a few smaller bits, as far as I could find out. Point in case: this other
> random example is flawed.
> 
> I understand that you're saying it doesn't have a place in KDE.

Sebas, you may have missed that I explicitely mentioned eigen in the mail you 
replied to ?

I don't understand what's so hard about this: we can say "we consider A, B and 
C to be our core efforts.". That does not mean that everything which is 
outside that "core" must be kept out of KDE. Of course it means that software 
or efforts that support A, B or C, are very welcome. OTOH projects which don't 
support the core do not need to be part of KDE, they can as well use github or 
something else.

I think this can only be avoided by not having some technical direction at 
all.

Alex

___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Riccardo Iaconelli]

On Friday, February 05, 2016 08:40:21 AM Alexander Dymo wrote:
> You
> can satisfy all the requirements in the manifesto, but still be a bad
> candidate for a KDE project. As the extreme example, one could fork
> Plasma and want to join KDE. There are less extreme cases.

I wonder why you say that they are not welcomable within the KDE family. Since 
when Trinity and Clementine stopped being developed within KDE?


Bye,
-Riccardo

___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Alexander Dymo]

Ingo, you may be right here. If we extract the vision statement from
the proposal, it would be something like:

"An end user will have free software apps and shells/launchers on any
device they use".

Note, this is what I came up just now when writing this reply. This
needs more thought, but the main idea is there.

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Ingo Klöcker  wrote:
> On Thursday 04 February 2016 21:16:41 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>> the vision draft we present here is not a long term vision which changes the
>> future of computing.
>> It presents ambitious, but realistic goals for the next few years.
>> Currently KDE applications and the desktop are successful on desktop Linux
>> (and BSD etc.). But there is so much territory to conquer beyond that, while
>> (for now) staying focused on GUIs.
>> Let's make KDE applications as well known as Firefox or LibreOffice.
>>
>> (This also implies that a vision statement needs updating over the years as
>> circumstances change.)
>
> Please (re-)read
> https://topnonprofits.com/examples/vision-statements/
> and tell me which of those 30 vision statements you think need "updating over
> the years as circumstances change."
>
> As I wrote in my other message, I believe that what you propose is more a
> mission statement. And mission statements do indeed need to be updated from
> time to time.
>
>
> Regards,
> Ingo
>
> ___
> kde-community mailing list
> kde-community@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Riccardo Iaconelli]

On Thursday, February 04, 2016 08:53:57 AM Alexander Dymo wrote:
> Let's say it wants to join KDE. Under the
> "inclusive" proposal such a project will be welcomed. Under "focused"
> - no.

The vision document will never be a metric to accept or refuse a project.

The manifesto is the only document which lists metrics on how to accept new 
projects.

-Riccardo

___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Alexander Dymo]

As Lydia put it, it will be a clear frame of reference to make
choices in.

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:13 AM, Riccardo Iaconelli  wrote:
> On Thursday, February 04, 2016 08:53:57 AM Alexander Dymo wrote:
>> Let's say it wants to join KDE. Under the
>> "inclusive" proposal such a project will be welcomed. Under "focused"
>> - no.
>
> The vision document will never be a metric to accept or refuse a project.
>
> The manifesto is the only document which lists metrics on how to accept new
> projects.
>
> -Riccardo
>
> ___
> kde-community mailing list
> kde-community@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Riccardo Iaconelli]

On Friday, February 05, 2016 08:01:49 AM Alexander Dymo wrote:
> As Lydia put it, it will be a clear frame of reference to make
> choices in.

No way.

Quoting Ben Cooksley:

This criteria has already been laid out by the KDE Community, in a
document called the Manifesto.
It lays out fairly clearly what the project acceptance requirements are.

The fact that someone might want to define the criteria for accepting
new projects within a vision goes contrary to what most people would
define as a vision (usually an overarching direction they want to go
in rather than the details of how to go about it, which is what the
criteria would be).


Let me also add a couple more questions:

* What would happen to existing KDE projects which are not compatible with
 your vision?

* What about projects which start within a KDE project but later fork off as
separate? (e.g. an extension developed within WikiToLearn)

* I'd also like to see what you expect sysadmin to do (as ultimately they'll 
end up doing this removal, should it end up being necessary).


I think that your answers to this will crucial to understand the consequences 
of what we're doing.


Bye,
-Riccardo


___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Alexander Dymo]

Answering the first part of your email:

Vision and mission would help us determine whether the project that
wants to join KDE shares the same goals and follows the same path. You
can satisfy all the requirements in the manifesto, but still be a bad
candidate for a KDE project. As the extreme example, one could fork
Plasma and want to join KDE. There are less extreme cases.




On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Riccardo Iaconelli  wrote:
> On Friday, February 05, 2016 08:01:49 AM Alexander Dymo wrote:
>> As Lydia put it, it will be a clear frame of reference to make
>> choices in.
>
> No way.
>
> Quoting Ben Cooksley:
>
> This criteria has already been laid out by the KDE Community, in a
> document called the Manifesto.
> It lays out fairly clearly what the project acceptance requirements are.
>
> The fact that someone might want to define the criteria for accepting
> new projects within a vision goes contrary to what most people would
> define as a vision (usually an overarching direction they want to go
> in rather than the details of how to go about it, which is what the
> criteria would be).
>
>
> Let me also add a couple more questions:
>
> * What would happen to existing KDE projects which are not compatible with
>  your vision?
>
> * What about projects which start within a KDE project but later fork off as
> separate? (e.g. an extension developed within WikiToLearn)
>
> * I'd also like to see what you expect sysadmin to do (as ultimately they'll
> end up doing this removal, should it end up being necessary).
>
>
> I think that your answers to this will crucial to understand the consequences
> of what we're doing.
>
>
> Bye,
> -Riccardo
>
>
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Boudhayan Gupta]

Hi,

At this point, I need to butt in.

On 4 February 2016 at 20:23, Alexander Dymo  wrote:
> Let's consider another example. This time it will be the imaginary
> free Github replacement. This time the tech is too far away from
> user-end apps and shells. Let's say it wants to join KDE. Under the
> "inclusive" proposal such a project will be welcomed. Under "focused"
> - no.

There does exist a similar project, not yet widely publicised, yet is
being developed as a KDE Project.

It's called Propagator, and it manages a fleet of Git mirrors. We
developed it ourselves because we needed to make our Anongit
infrastructure more reliable, log sync failures, retry syncs on fail
after with ever increasing backoffs, and also sync to GitHub (we do
have a mirror there).

It's here: https://phabricator.kde.org/diffusion/PROPAGATOR/. At this
point only a few people know of this (mostly in the Sysadmin team) and
I was going to give it a proper unveiling at conf.kde.in next month,
but now the cat is out of the bag.

The point is, Propagator is server software. It uses no KDE libs, is
written in Python, and was developed to serve the sysadmin team's
specific needs. Along the way, we realised that this could be made
general-purpose enough to the extent we can offer it as a standalone
product, being managed as part of the KDE Project.

Under the "focused" proposal, such a software would have no place in
the KDE Project. In fact, a software, developed within KDE to address
KDE's (not KDE users but the KDE Project itself) needs cannot be a
part of the KDE Project. Do we want this situation to arise?

Propagator won't be the last piece of custom server software KDE will
need. Being involved with the sysadmins to some degree, I've
identified a few more areas where we'll need custom code that's
extensive enough to be published as products in their own right. If
we're only going to be "focused" on end-user software, we shoot
ourselves in our foot by denying a home to software we've developed to
solve our own problems, where the solutions are generic enough to be
used by others.

-- Boudhayan Gupta
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Alexander Dymo]

Let's take one of your examples: some imaginary sensory tech that
follows your mind. It's going to be a competitive advantage to both
Plasma and applications, for sure. Can it be a KDE project? Yes,
because it clearly brings KDE closer to its goal. And actually, both
visions/missions would support inclusion of such a tech into KDE.

Let's consider another example. This time it will be the imaginary
free Github replacement. This time the tech is too far away from
user-end apps and shells. Let's say it wants to join KDE. Under the
"inclusive" proposal such a project will be welcomed. Under "focused"
- no.

PS: I did not say that _all_ new tech should be developed outside of
KDE. What I wanted to say that for the free software project to
succeed, it does not have to be included into any larger
project/community.


On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Martin Graesslin  wrote:
> On Thursday, February 4, 2016 7:52:34 AM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
>> Focused does not mean exclusive. Every technology (and not only
>> technology) that gets us to the point where all users use KDE shells
>> and apps (because of their superiority) is welcome. IMHO, of course.
>
> sorry, but I cannot follow you. What you wrote here is inclusive again. So
> what you want now: focus on a technology or being inclusive to everything?
>
>>
>> Another point is that not everything needs to be built in house. When
>> I started free software development, it was harder for independent
>> small projects to survive. It was much better for them to join the big
>> groups, like GNU, GNOME, KDE, etc. Now this is not the case. So I'd
>> expect some of the technologies that KDE can use to be actually
>> developed elsewhere.
>
> And here you basically say any development on new technologies should happen
> outside of KDE. Which is pretty excluding and contradicting to what you write
> above.
>
> To me this is really confusing as I don't see how that can aid us in finding a
> direction.
>
> Further clarifications are appreciated. Right now I'm more confused than
> before.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Martin Graesslin 
> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:44:35 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
>> >> I reread both drafts and realized that people who have not
>> >> participated in the development of these proposals might miss the
>> >> important difference between them.
>> >>
>> >> The Lydia & Co see KDE providing users free software to manage any
>> >> aspect of their digital life: GUI environments, applications (GUI and
>> >> not), knowledge management systems, etc.
>> >>
>> >> The AlexN. & Co see KDE providing users free GUI environments and
>> >> applications that work on any computing device: desktop, laptop,
>> >> tablet, smartphone, or any other device present and future.
>> >
>> > may I ask where the focused group sees the future in a world beyond GUI,
>> > I'm thinking of areas like:
>> > * speech recognition (e.g. KDE Lera)
>> > * IoT
>> > * Sensors (think of the old joke of "Focus Follows Mind", but we're almost
>> > there)
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > Martin
>> > ___
>> > kde-community mailing list
>> > kde-community@kde.org
>> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
>>
>> ___
>> kde-community mailing list
>> kde-community@kde.org
>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
>
>
> ___
> kde-community mailing list
> kde-community@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Martin Graesslin]

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 7:52:34 AM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> Focused does not mean exclusive. Every technology (and not only
> technology) that gets us to the point where all users use KDE shells
> and apps (because of their superiority) is welcome. IMHO, of course.

sorry, but I cannot follow you. What you wrote here is inclusive again. So 
what you want now: focus on a technology or being inclusive to everything?

> 
> Another point is that not everything needs to be built in house. When
> I started free software development, it was harder for independent
> small projects to survive. It was much better for them to join the big
> groups, like GNU, GNOME, KDE, etc. Now this is not the case. So I'd
> expect some of the technologies that KDE can use to be actually
> developed elsewhere.

And here you basically say any development on new technologies should happen 
outside of KDE. Which is pretty excluding and contradicting to what you write 
above.

To me this is really confusing as I don't see how that can aid us in finding a 
direction.

Further clarifications are appreciated. Right now I'm more confused than 
before.

Cheers
Martin

> 
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Martin Graesslin  
wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:44:35 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> >> I reread both drafts and realized that people who have not
> >> participated in the development of these proposals might miss the
> >> important difference between them.
> >> 
> >> The Lydia & Co see KDE providing users free software to manage any
> >> aspect of their digital life: GUI environments, applications (GUI and
> >> not), knowledge management systems, etc.
> >> 
> >> The AlexN. & Co see KDE providing users free GUI environments and
> >> applications that work on any computing device: desktop, laptop,
> >> tablet, smartphone, or any other device present and future.
> > 
> > may I ask where the focused group sees the future in a world beyond GUI,
> > I'm thinking of areas like:
> > * speech recognition (e.g. KDE Lera)
> > * IoT
> > * Sensors (think of the old joke of "Focus Follows Mind", but we're almost
> > there)
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Martin
> > ___
> > kde-community mailing list
> > kde-community@kde.org
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
> 
> ___
> kde-community mailing list
> kde-community@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Alexander Dymo]

Focused does not mean exclusive. Every technology (and not only
technology) that gets us to the point where all users use KDE shells
and apps (because of their superiority) is welcome. IMHO, of course.

Another point is that not everything needs to be built in house. When
I started free software development, it was harder for independent
small projects to survive. It was much better for them to join the big
groups, like GNU, GNOME, KDE, etc. Now this is not the case. So I'd
expect some of the technologies that KDE can use to be actually
developed elsewhere.


On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Martin Graesslin  wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:44:35 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
>> I reread both drafts and realized that people who have not
>> participated in the development of these proposals might miss the
>> important difference between them.
>>
>> The Lydia & Co see KDE providing users free software to manage any
>> aspect of their digital life: GUI environments, applications (GUI and
>> not), knowledge management systems, etc.
>>
>> The AlexN. & Co see KDE providing users free GUI environments and
>> applications that work on any computing device: desktop, laptop,
>> tablet, smartphone, or any other device present and future.
>>
>
> may I ask where the focused group sees the future in a world beyond GUI, I'm
> thinking of areas like:
> * speech recognition (e.g. KDE Lera)
> * IoT
> * Sensors (think of the old joke of "Focus Follows Mind", but we're almost
> there)
>
> Cheers
> Martin
> ___
> kde-community mailing list
> kde-community@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Martin Graesslin]

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:53:57 AM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> Let's take one of your examples: some imaginary sensory tech that
> follows your mind. It's going to be a competitive advantage to both
> Plasma and applications, for sure. Can it be a KDE project? Yes,
> because it clearly brings KDE closer to its goal. And actually, both
> visions/missions would support inclusion of such a tech into KDE.

Now that you make it more clear that the focus of a technology would be 
whether it helps for example Plasma I need to chime in.

As a maintainer of Plasma and as the maintainer of the largest single piece of 
software inside Plasma I want to say that I'm against a focus on Plasma. I do 
not want to see KDE decide for projects whether they give a "competitive 
advantage" to Plasma. I thought we had left this years behind us. Although my 
work is focused on Linux I'm happy for the Windows and OSX and Android efforts 
and want KDE to be strong in these areas. I'm afraid that any focus on Plasma 
will harm KDE and thus also Plasma.

Furthermore I must observe that the KDE community as large does not care about 
Plasma and a focus on Plasma. Please have a look on how many devs contribute 
to e.g. KWin and the Wayland effort. It's what will take the desktop to the 
next level, but hardly anybody works on it. So from my perspective: a focus on 
the desktop is in all way wrong for KDE. That's not KDE.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Alexander Dymo]

And here is where I, perhaps surprisingly to you, agree with you.
Like, 100% agree.

I wrote "Plasma and applications", but should have written
"applications and Plasma". It's the KDE apps that shine these days.
Krita, Digikam, Kdenlive, K3B, Kate, Okular, and many and many others.

In my opinion KDE as a whole will also shine if it brings our amazing
software to as many platforms as we can. And many people in the
community already do this work.

The "focused" vision is about lifting the importance of this movement
towards other platforms and devices, and actually focusing on it. It
is, IMHO of course, not about going back to "let's just work on Linux
desktop". I wouldn't call that a "vision", that would be
"conservation".


On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Martin Graesslin  wrote:
> On Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:53:57 AM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
>> Let's take one of your examples: some imaginary sensory tech that
>> follows your mind. It's going to be a competitive advantage to both
>> Plasma and applications, for sure. Can it be a KDE project? Yes,
>> because it clearly brings KDE closer to its goal. And actually, both
>> visions/missions would support inclusion of such a tech into KDE.
>
> Now that you make it more clear that the focus of a technology would be
> whether it helps for example Plasma I need to chime in.
>
> As a maintainer of Plasma and as the maintainer of the largest single piece of
> software inside Plasma I want to say that I'm against a focus on Plasma. I do
> not want to see KDE decide for projects whether they give a "competitive
> advantage" to Plasma. I thought we had left this years behind us. Although my
> work is focused on Linux I'm happy for the Windows and OSX and Android efforts
> and want KDE to be strong in these areas. I'm afraid that any focus on Plasma
> will harm KDE and thus also Plasma.
>
> Furthermore I must observe that the KDE community as large does not care about
> Plasma and a focus on Plasma. Please have a look on how many devs contribute
> to e.g. KWin and the Wayland effort. It's what will take the desktop to the
> next level, but hardly anybody works on it. So from my perspective: a focus on
> the desktop is in all way wrong for KDE. That's not KDE.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
> ___
> kde-community mailing list
> kde-community@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Jaroslaw Staniek]

On 4 February 2016 at 20:49, Alexander Neundorf  wrote:
> On Thursday, February 04, 2016 20:38:52 Boudhayan Gupta wrote:
> ...
>> Under the "focused" proposal, such a software would have no place in
>> the KDE Project. In fact, a software, developed within KDE to address
>> KDE's (not KDE users but the KDE Project itself) needs cannot be a
>> part of the KDE Project. Do we want this situation to arise?
>
> just answering for myself, but it seems to be the same as Alex D. is saying:
> the four points listed in the draft are where we see the focus of KDE.
> It would be stupid to exclude projects which support those.
> KDE never did that, why should we start with that (arts, unsermake, icecream,
> eigen, etc...)
> Still we don't see linear algebra libraries or build tools as the main goal
> KDE is trying to achieve (...says the guy who maintained the KDE buildsystem
> for more than 7 years).

Build helpers in a form of cmake scripts are part of the KF5 product,
if I understand correctly. That's good.

Not sure it was already raised: even while having focus on traditional apps:
- server software can act as enabler for some KDE apps. Any multi-user
app is in this group (not that KDE rules this 'market', sure there can
be improvements, who codes decides);
- mobile/embedded software can be enabler for some KDE apps, e.g.
think of 1. remote-controlling presentation software with a
mobile/embedded app 2. remote-data-entry mobile app for an inventory
management app/

(and KF5 can further grow by the way; it's exciting to see how KDE is
rather good at making new frameworks this way!)


>
> ___
> kde-community mailing list
> kde-community@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community



-- 
regards, Jaroslaw Staniek

KDE:
: A world-wide network of software engineers, artists, writers, translators
: and facilitators committed to Free Software development - http://kde.org
Calligra Suite:
: A graphic art and office suite - http://calligra.org
Kexi:
: A visual database apps builder - http://calligra.org/kexi
Qt Certified Specialist:
: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Martin Graesslin]

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:44:35 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> I reread both drafts and realized that people who have not
> participated in the development of these proposals might miss the
> important difference between them.
> 
> The Lydia & Co see KDE providing users free software to manage any
> aspect of their digital life: GUI environments, applications (GUI and
> not), knowledge management systems, etc.
> 
> The AlexN. & Co see KDE providing users free GUI environments and
> applications that work on any computing device: desktop, laptop,
> tablet, smartphone, or any other device present and future.
>

may I ask where the focused group sees the future in a world beyond GUI, I'm 
thinking of areas like:
* speech recognition (e.g. KDE Lera)
* IoT
* Sensors (think of the old joke of "Focus Follows Mind", but we're almost 
there)

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

[kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Alexander Dymo]

I reread both drafts and realized that people who have not
participated in the development of these proposals might miss the
important difference between them.

The Lydia & Co see KDE providing users free software to manage any
aspect of their digital life: GUI environments, applications (GUI and
not), knowledge management systems, etc.

The AlexN. & Co see KDE providing users free GUI environments and
applications that work on any computing device: desktop, laptop,
tablet, smartphone, or any other device present and future.

First proposal is internally called "inclusive", as it defines KDE as
an entity that can include any free software project that shares its
goals and wants to join the KDE community.

Second proposal is internally called "focused", as it limits the focus
of KDE to GUI software, but at the same time emphasizes that users
should be able to use KDE software on all their devices.

Both proposals aim at giving KDE a new direction. Inclusive proposal
is about going breadth-first, focused - depth-first.


PS: this summary is my opinion, and it is not endorsed by any of the
two vision groups.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community